HomeMy WebLinkAboutPark and Recreation Advisory Commission Packet 06-09-1988Regular Meeting of the Park and Recreation Advisory Commission
June 9, 1988, 7:30 p.m.
AGENDA
1. Carl to Order
2. Approval of Minutes,
3. Visitor Presentations
a. Athletic Associations.
b. Staff,
c. Others.
4., Report on Past Council Action
a, Accepted$5,000 Donation for Parkers Lake Peace Garden
b.
5. Unfinished Business
a Request for Matching Funds - Greenwood/Oakwood PTA
b. 1989-93 CIP
c. Plymouth Creek Site Planning
d. Park Usage/Cost Study Report Discussion
e. Parkers Lake Update
f. St. Mary's Neighborhood Park Update
g. Community Center General Discussion
h.
6. New Business
a.
b.
C.
7. Commission Presentation
8, Staff Communication
9. Adjournment
Next Community Center Meeting June 29
Next Regular FRAC Meeting July 14
Minutes of the Park and Recreation Advisory Commission Meeting
May 14, 1988:
Page 21
Present: Chair Edwards', Commissioners Anderson, Beach, Hanson, LaTour, Rosen;
staff Blank, Patterson, Pederson; Councilman Sisk
Absent: Commissioner Reed
1 CALL TO ORDER
Chair Edwards called the May meeting to order at 7:40 p.m.. in the Council
Conference Room.
2.. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A motion was made by Commissioner Beach and seconded by Commit3ioner
Hansontoapprove > the -minutes of the April meeting as presented.; The
motion carried with all ayes.>
3. VISITOR PnESENTATIONS
a. Athle&icAssociationlF. None were present at this meeting.
b. Staff, Mary Patterson stated that staff was very busy taking
registration for summer classes and that saveral classes are already
filled. Swimming registration is scheduled for Saturday, 'Kay 14.
She indicated that several of Rick Busch's sports programs are
underway and that he will be; hiring additional fieldattendants.
C. Others. None.
4. REPORT ON PAST COUNCIL ACTION
a. St. Male's dark - Award Contract. Council awarded the contract for
the construction of the St. Mary's neighborhood park to Matt Bullock
Contracting Company.
5. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
a. Bequest for etch n& Fund. _- Grernwood/Qakwood_PTO, This item was
carried over from last ,;onth, because PRAC needed some more
information f;,*om both schools in order to make s decision regarding
matching funds for their playground- improvements. Regarding
Greenwood's request, they learned that there are 337 children living
within a 1/2 mile of Greenwood school. They also were informed by
Director Blank that the Greenwood area is not 50% developed, which
is one of the criteria for receiving matching funds. The funds
would be us'd to improve the playground used by the 4th-6th grade
children. The playground for the lower ,ovel grades has already
been installed and was paid for by the s`_ iool. Commissioner Rosen
indicated that his concern was with the ?T0 not providing any sort
of budget or plan that PRAC could review prior to making €. decision.
Other commissioners agreed that befor%, any decision can be made,
b
they would like to see a site plan and an estimated Cost for
purchasing and installing the equipment. It was suggested that the
Greenwood PTO have a representative attend the June PRAC meeting and
provide this information.
Mary Norton and Bill Richardson, representing the Oakwood PTO, were
present for further discussion on the Oakwood, request for matching
funds.. They indicated that their PTO is setting aside $2,500 in.
1988 and 1989 for their playground improvements, as well as hamming a
fundraiser in the fall. They estimate their project will cost
approximately $22,n00 to complete including purchase and
installation of equipment, and they believe they will be able to
raise about $12,000 toward the project. The scho0 district has
stated that they will clean, the site, do site preparati,n and donate
the pea gravel. The PTO will volunteer some labor. PKK: C informed
No. Norton, and Mr. Richardson that they would discuss thi,z request
later in, the meeting when they reviewed the 1989-93- capital_
improvements program.
Pj,YmolAth-gggkSite Planning - _George Watson. George was present to
share with PRAC the amended' site plan for Plymouth Creek City park.
Amendments included an overlay showing the location of the community
center moved farther north, a library, elderly housing and parking.
The words "sculpture garden" had been removed and that area is now
being referred to as "civic plaza. The next step is to share this
plan with the Council arid. if approved by then, schedule some public
meetings.
A MOTION' WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER ROSEN AND SECONDED, BY COMMISSIONER
ANDERSON TO FORWARD THIS SITE PLAN TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THEIR
REVIEW, FOLLOWED BY PUBLIC MEETINGS. The motion carried with all
ayes.
C. Zark egg CgftStudy Report Director Blank informed
PRAC that the report from Edina still is not available, and based on
the need for that data, the Commission decided not to discuss this
item until that information has been received.
d. Lions PArk URdate.. The playground improvements at Lions Park are
complete.
e.
f'
Pgrgers Lake Update. Director Blank announced. that the picnic
shelters are scheduled to be completed by Friday, May 27, if the
weather cooperates. He shared with PRAC an old photograph that had
been, d'iscover'ed by the Plymouth Historical. Society of a pavilion
that was once located on the south sidr. of Packers Lake. The
photograph will be enlarged and placed on display in the new
pavilion, along with any other old pictures that can be found of
Parkers Lake. history.
St, Mary's Neighborhood Par Ucdate_- A pre -construction meeting is
planned the week of May 16 with the contractor, and work should
begin the following week. Director Blank announced that the Council
awarded the contract including the parking lot,
May PRAC Minutes
Page 23
g. Community Center General Discussion. Director Blank reviewed the
meeting dates coming up on the community center, and stated that
representatives from District 284 and. Senior Community Services will
be at the May 1.8 meeting. District 281 may not be able to send
anyone on that date, because it conflicts with their boardmeeting..
Hockey and figure skating groups will be at the June I meeting, and,
swimming groups will attend the June 29 meeting. Director Blank
indicated that he will be attending a training session in Colorado
in mid-June on the design and management of community centers By
the, end of July, Director Blank 'hopes that PRAC will have the study
put together for the Council to review,,
6. NEW BUSINESS
a. 1989-93 CIP. Director Blank reviewed the draft 1989-93 parks
component of the CIP and indicated that it could be changed and/or
added to at this time or later. For the year 1989, staff is
proposing the addition of tennis courts and more parking at Plymouth
Creek, the first dredging of the pond at Plymouth Creek, the 2nd
phase garden at Parkers Lake, grail along Neat Medicine Lake. Drive.
from 26th Avenue to the park, and $8,500,000 for the, community
center. The year 1990 includes the Swan Lake neighborhood park_
acquisition and development), a northeast neighborhood park site,
the Bass Lake playfield and neighborhood park, more dredging of the
Plymouth Creek, pond, trails, and redevelopment of Kilmer
neighborhood park. In 1991, projects are the Parkers Lake
playfield, more dredging of the pond in Plymouth Creek park, the Mud
Lake neighborhood park, the parking lot at Timber Shores
neighborhood park, and miscellaneous trails. Projects proposed in
1992 include a neighborhood park near Vicksburg and 22nd Avenue,
more dredging of the Plymouth Creek pond, and miscellaneous trails.
The year 1993 calls for a neighborhood park near Fernbrook and
County Road 9, the pond in Plymouth Creek and miscellaneous trails.
It was suggested that the Kilmer neighborhood park redevelopment be
pushed ahead to 1989 and that, the improvements for Oakwood and
Greenwood school playgrounds also be considered in that same year.
PRAC recommended' giving the schools up to $10,000 but no more than
50% of the projects' costs.
Commissioner Rosen stated that he had been asked by a resident about
improvements at. Shiloh neighborhood park and wondered, how old that
playground was. Director Blank stated that Shiloh was in the
process of being built in the spring of 1980, making that equipment
about eight years old. He indicated that he has not been contacted
by -anyone requesting that Shiloh be upgraded, although he is aware
that the equipment is in a low spot in the park and should probably
be moved to higher ground. It was suggested that Kilmer, Shiloh and
Gleanloch neighborhood parks be part of the park tour coming up on
May 19;
Way FRAC Minutes
Page 24
7. COMMISSION PRESENTATION
Commissioners Beach, Edwards, Anderson, LaTour and Hanson indicated that
they would be going on the park tour.
8. START COMMUNICATION
None.
9. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 10:13 p.m.
a Baa
PUBUto", SCHOOLS
Independent School District 284
ISTR CT ADMINISTRATIVE" OFFICES 210 NORTH STATE HIGHWAY 101 P.O. BOX 660 WAYZATA, MN 55391-9990 (612) 476-3100
May 26, 1988
Eric Blank
City of Plymouth
3400 Plymouth Blvd.
Plymouth, Mn 55447
Dear Eric:
Joyce Frees has asked me to provide two items to you as a requirement to
providing assistance with a playground project at Greenwood Elementary School.
1.. Enclosed is a site plan of Greenwood School. It is the same plan
that was used by the Community Development Department in 1987.
2. The School District requires pre -approval of all projects by any
individual or community group that affects our buildings or our
grounds. As a result I can make the statement that if the
Greenwood P.T.O. receives money that will be used fe*: an Greenwood
project,, the School District will, ultimately accept, the ownership
and assume the liability of said project.
If necessary, feel free to contact ma at 476-3102,
Sincerely,
Frank E. Win44burg
Coordinator A OicnratiValServices
FEW:cc
enclosure
cc Joyce Frees
GREENWOOD SCHOOL
1988/89 PLAYGROUND PROJECT
FUND ING STATEMENT
Equipment quotation
Gamotime.Ina 220215.00
less volleyball poles - 96.00
Misa. Equ pment
Kdgn area, balls, jumpropes P + 781.00
TVrAL 22,900.00
P20 Cont bution
from Sept._ 1988 fundraiser 51000.00
School Diatriat funds
from bond issue referendum for
installations sand, base timbers 7,900.Q0
City of Plymouth
Park and Recreation Dapt. 109000.00
TOTA1, 22, 900.00
The 'Greenwood P20 has, made playground improvements a priority for
1987/88 and 1988/89- Wie have already installed over #12,000.00 of
equipment on our pr.`--- :cy ride of the building. Funds from Plymouth
Park and Recreatimi, vsi -Jd enable us to complete our 1987/88 playground
project by removing J., old dangerous slide and adding a spiral slide
and some t1re swings z:.f, the primary side. We could also add: equipment
to make a challenging physical fitness obstacle course and much needed
swings and a popular whirl for our intermediate students.
We feel these improvements would make all,of us proud of our
school and our community.
0`1 09
e
CE
0 "'Deans
k
rrl
a
j Property
1 •
R
Church `•
f Property
l •
t?
i
All p
X
907
4;
gid.._...... •
h_
QUOTATION
Minnesota Fiaryrounc»
P,O, Box 2T= 0 GOkIW ball". Mine le. 55427.10121 W"67
MN WATTS 1M ) vl-fs25
r -1
WE: ' WE: . June 6G 148
Greenwood Elementary School
Plymouth, Minn CONTACT Polo ON: ` oyce Freeze
PROJECT: Intermediate Playgroun
t
J TILEPIIO014. 473-9702
Quantity
Catake
Numbor Doont0ka else 1118410"icw
1 6481 S ace Climb 963.00
1 6727 Chain N t Climber 00
1, 6485 Space Arch Climber 403.00
1 5685 Ho^ixontal Ring Ladder 929.00
1 5690 Inclined Wall Climber 561.00
1
1
6722
7607
3 -Level Balance Beam`
Atom Splitter Savin'
385.00
1898.00
2' 6786 3-Wa,' Tire Swing 1818 3636.00
1 L6529 9' Spiral Slide 2997.00
1 197 Volleyball Poles 96.00
1 6118 10v' Hydraulic Whit -1 1751.00
41"We" in *met, WMI:
CONTINi16CJ__
w1a you as *be" 40,0.111.
i al caw be me& In:
TOM$:
fvb-TMrl .....
iahe To:
hey
TOTAL
IMPORTANT INFORMATION; FOR ORQIRINO':
1. Tlwi rw tA.N ort wlr 10 w io t+N N -' - -- --- WIN 1Nwlto you M ym«M
L sites M» w4or to MINNESOTA PLAYGROUND, INC. as shwau obs". dw ski wiMrhwNxw cow be somplcla+ ba 6o wdor Ii
1•
TO !XPODITI SHIPMINT. thr" Nome shouM show MPwi"M F*"Mt Ns membw (N 0000401.
AOORRU FOR R11.hIN0. owi A0011111111,111FOR
D@LIV@RVW
exctuslw° RWo4oniatlw IN E 0 ,
i
y
QUOTATION
PAGE 2
P.o. Box 2r a Gaijen YaiWy, NMinneWa 5427 • 012"-7767
MN WATTS IM) UZ-5423
G''reenwood Elementar-y School CONTACT PaRSOM:
PROJECT.
L J TELEPHONE
Catalan,
OMaMNy Nwwt
T
Pea Rocl
Ow"Nom iW TNM
We quo* you at ataava P O.EI. A P l v mo u . h . Minn- iNaa Tom
fpm, can » mad M: 3 0 0 ay s A _. Ei . 0
Taros: Net 30 Days
TOTAL
IMPORTANT INFORMATION PON ORDERING:
1. The wrahasa order 3Aww ;M 1aa art to wIM Moly yw up" sAiPwMw1.
L S«d M» order w MINNESOTA PLAYOROUND, INC. as 6ww she". I111m$6 wWwNNiM aM be sci :a1MSA behm Oda o"I r Is
p easwd.
i. TO EXPEDITE SHIPMENT, three Meows *hwW err am pw,4bm room$ tow
ADDRESS POR BILLING, mW ADDIINU POA DGLIVEIRY,
Exctuaive RepresentativeN RO .
tel
ilf - weans Tura increase
ems fund decreasemtRA'iT 1985 - 1959 CAPITAL _IMPROV - !LENTS PRQ6RAN Mi4eralrevenuesharingfund
Y E A R 2 9 8 4 3 Store serer tax. district
E (
4) Public works, reserve fund
S) Tax increment financing
6) hater revenue bonds
No. Project
Estimted
cost
Park Dedication Funl,
Special Assessments County/
Fun Federal :.
m
t 'r rr,ns TWw increase
19851 989 CAP I TAt
caIMPROYEMENTSRR0GRAM `sns fueddecrease
2) Federal revenue -snaring fund
J Stors serer tax dtstrtct
T E A R 1 9 0 1) Public works reserve fundIS) Tax, increm"t fin4nctny
6) Water revenue bonds
UO
nn
e_
a) W"ns twou increase
DRAFT 1985 - 1989 CAPITAL INPR0VE'MENT'S PR06'RAM Runs fund decrease
JZJ Federalrevenue sharing fund
3Storw surer tax district
e) Public marks reserve fund
5) Tax locrenent financing
6) hater revenue bonds
No. Project Description Cost
Park Dedic tion Fund
Special Assessments I State/
County/NMI
Pond
Iii
rens ruts increase:
ans fund_decreai-%
I98 S - 19.84 CAP I TAE I hPR0YEMENTS P R 0 G R A M Federal revenue sharing fund
JStorm sever tax district2i
YEAR I 9 9 ? t) Public works reserve fund!
S) Tar increment financing
6) 'water revenue bonds
1
ProjectOescription
Special Assessments
Park Dedication Fund
a j f :iYt1i L1RnY: 1tKrlaS!'
ee
DMFT• 1985 1989 AP FTAl I'MPR0YEMEKTS PR'06RAM 'means fenduecshar
3i
2federal revent sharing fund,
1 3 Storm sewer tax district
YEAR 9 g t) Public works reserve fund
S) Tax increment financing
d) Mater revenue bonds
Park Ded
etvnaT eF THE Mltt AND RECREATION TASKFORCE
INTRODUCTION'
The Edina City Council identified the following issue during the course
of its strategic planning efforts for 1987 1988;
Do the City's Park ;& Recreation facilities meet the needs of
our residents; are: parks maintained to an acceptable Level;
and are park programs properly financed through a system of
fees and charges?
In order to address this issue,the Council established a Task Force
comprising three Park Board members and eight citizens - two from each
quadrant of the City, The membership of the Task Force included:
Joan Lonsbury Chairman
William Lord Park Board
Donald Wineberg Park Board
Linda Farrell NW Quadrant
Patrick Finley NW Quadrant
Itti Furlong NE Quadrant
J. Peter Meyers NE Quadrant
Wlliam,Jenkins SW Quadrant
Rolland Ring SW Quadrant
Jill Blooston SE Quadrant
Lynn Shackelford. SE Quadrant
d GL NMENT
The City Council charged the Task Force with the following assignment,:
0 Provide an inventory of existing Park and Recreation facilities,
1
0 Conduct- a public opinion survey at: the Task Force's option
concerning Park and Recreation programs, maintenance, and fees and
charges,,
0; Compare Edina.'s maintenance staffing budget with other cities or
with aecepted standards'.
0 Conduct an.independent audit concerning the present, condition of
parks and facilities,.
0 Compare Edina`s user fee structure with other cities,
0 Offer findings and recommendations.
APPROACH TO STUDY
The: Task Forze: formed subcommitteesto address the various elements of
the assignment:
Preparation of Park Inventory ...... Mr, Finley and Mr. Ring
Public Opinion Survey........ ......Mr. Jenkins and Mr. Wineberg
Survey of Other Park and Recreation Departments...
Mr. Lord, Mrs. Blooston,
Mrs. Shackelford, Mrs, Furlong,,
Mrs. Farrell and Mr, Meyers
Park Audit
The Park Audit was conducted by all members of the Task Force. Those
members; residing in a particular quadrant of the City were responsible
for auditing the parks in that quadrant. The Park Board
representatves,:Mr. Lord and Mri Wneberg, audited Braemar Park and
Bredesen Park. Mrs. Lonsbury audited the parks located between France
Avenue and York Avenue. Based upon the asLignment from the Council
which focused on overall park maintenance issues, it was decided that
r.
e
the enterprise facilities should not be included. in this audit, These
facilities include the golf course, arena, art center, swimming pool,
gun. range and Edi borough.
Public ORinion Survey
The. Task Force utilized the services of Frazee Research Associates, to
assist with the public opinion survey. The survey was completed by mail
among a cross-section of Edina households, using the tax rolls of the
City Assessor listing all residential dwellings as a sampling frame:
The sample was selected by computer to print mailinglabels of every
tenth residential property unit Mailing labels for residences which
were not owner occupied were excluded from the sample if the owner
resided outside of the City of Edina, but were included if the owner was
an Edina resident. Apartment buildings were identified from the tax
rolls and envelopes were hand' addressed to "occupant" at every tez th
apartment unit using the Folk Directory.
A total of 1824 dwelling units were samp3ed.for the survey including 301
apartment units. In addition, questionnaires were sent to 169 Youth
Athletic Association board members,. The board member segment was sent
first class on March 30 and, the household segment was bulk mailed on
April 4,, 1988;
3
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CoMparison With Other Cities - Maintenance budget and Staffing
The Task Force surveyed eleven metro area cities which are comparable to
Edina.
In reviewing this information, we found that comparisons with other
cities are extremely difficult. For example, park maintenance duties
are conducted by the Public Works Department in some cities; Minnetonka
and Hopkins share a. park and recreation department; some cities. do not
operate "enterprises" like Edina.
As a follow --up to the survey, the Task Force decided, to focus on the
park and recreation departments of Roseville, Plymouth and Brooklyn Park
in that they are organized most like Edi ia. The initial survey and the
follow-up surveys are contained in Appenc'ix A.
The Task Force found that Edina is on the leading edge of park
development and recreation programming in the Metropolitan Area. During
the course of our survey, several cities commented, when asked about
particular programs or facilities, that they were "waiting to see what
Edina was doing".
COmparison with Other Cities - Fees and Charges
Of the eleven cities surveyed, four cities state that no separate fee is
charged for fieldmaintenance; three cities charge a field maintenance
fee for adult athletics, i.e. softball, but not youth athletics; two
cities charge a maintenance/administrative fee for youth athletics as
well as adult athletics.
Some of the cities surveyed indicated that additional city fees for
field maintenance were. presently under investigation.
4
As explained earlier, the park audits were the joint effort of all task
force members. Therefore, some inconsistencies in audit style from park-
to arktoparkareapparentTheTaskForceauditedtheparksattheworst
time of the year, i,e. early spring while normal clean-up was in
progress and prior to routine facility maintenance.: Nevertheless, the
overall impression of the parks and facilities was very positive. Many
of the deficiencies noted were already scheduled for routine maintenance
during the summer. We hope the audits for individual parks will be
useful to the Park and, Recreation Department when prioritizing
maintenance activities in the future
The Task Force identified three general weaknesses that appear tu affect
many Edina parks.
Condition of Bleachers. Bleacher seating in many parks was in a
poor state ofrepair; overall upgrading of bleachers is in order.
Restrooms. Many parks should be upgraded with year-ound restroom
facilities.'
Drinking Fountains. As With restrooms, drinking fountains are
needed in many parks,
The Task Force also noted weed and dandelion problems in several parks.
However, as noted earlier, we inspected the partes at the worst time of
the year relative to this, problem. The Park and Recreation Department
should review the parks; later in the, summer to determine if additional
weed control is necessary.
The Task, Force agreed that the City should intensify enforcement efforts
with litterers (especially young adults and irresponsible dog owners.
Specifically, offenders should be required to clean up litter and dog
feces rather than to rely on park maintenance staff for clean-up,
5
r
Public 02inion Survey Summary
As of May 4, the last day completed questionnaires were accepted for
tabulation, 568 household questionnaires and 91 board member
questionnaires were received and processed. The r ;turn rates, based on
the gross number of questionnaires mailed, were 30 percent and 48
percent, respectively,
Most Edina households are users of the City's parks, recreation programs
or facilities and, with few exceptions, are pleased with the variety of
opportunities that are available, the participant fee structure and the
maintenance standards.
0 Eighty-five percent of the survey households use the parks,
recreation programs or facilities.. Of all households in the
survey
80 percent use, the parks for unorganized activities
62 percent are users of special facilities
18 percent participate in Youth Athletic Association Programs.
12 percent participate in City Recreation Programs
1 percent are members of Park Board Civic Organizations
0 Thirty-seven percent categorize their household as a "heavy or
moderate" user -,f Edina's parks, recreation programs and
facilities.
0 A very large majority of Edina households are very positive in
their ratings of the variety of recreational opportunities
available for active and passive recreation, and recreation which
requires special facilities.
0 A large majority rate Edina's parks, recreation programs and
facilities very favorably in terms of how well they serve the
recreational interests of household members.
0 Relatively few (16 percent) believe that there are additional
programs or facilities that should be provided by ttze Park and
6
of the community.
0 Ten percent of Edina households indicate that the preset*,
participant fee structure limits the number of programs in which
members of their household participate,
0 Fifty-eight percent indicate a preference for the present
participant fee structure which covers all program costs and a
portion of field.prepaxation.and maintenance costs. Approximately
equal proportions indicate a preference for fee structures which
would increase or decrease the present level of participant fees,
0 A large majority of survey respondents consider the maintenance
standards for parks and facilities to be "good" or "very good and,
relative to five. years ago "about the same" or "better than,"
0 Survey households indicate support for an upgrade of the Pavilion
section of the Braemar Ice Arena/Pavilion, but reject expansion of
the Pavilion for gymnastics and an upgrade of the Municipal
Swimming Pool,
APPENDIX C OF THIS REPORT EXPANDS UPON THE KEY FINDINGS Or THE PUBLIC'
OPINION SURVEY. APPENDIX D CONTAINS THE DATA TABLES AND COMMENTS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS RECEIVED FROM RESPONDENTS,
CONCVQS I ONS
In response to the: City Council's questions as contained in its
strategic work plan, we offer the following conclusions.
0THE CITY'S PAM AND RECREATION FACILITIES MEET THE NEEDS OF OUR
RESIDEr'TS?
Based upon the public opinion survey which we conducted, we believe
that the parks and recreation facilities meet the desires and
expectations of our residents We also conclude that our parks
facilities and programs are responding to the needs of our
residents even though, our residents are "demographically different"
than in the past as evidenced by the following findings.
85% of our households are park users
65% of households with children between 5 and 18 years of age
participate in Park and Recreation programs
Only 16% suggest that additional programs should be provided
818 answered that parks and facilities have kept up with the
needs of the community
83% answered -at parks were the same or better than five
years ago.
We do wish to point out that, however, that 80% of the households in our
survey reported that they use parks for "unorganized activities while
only 23% of the households participate in, recreation programs. We do
not know how this statistic compares with, say twenty (20) years, ago,
but we suspect that, due to demographic changes, "unorganized park
users" have increased and "participant households have decreased. As
such, the Park Board and Park and Recreation Department may wish to
reflect on their priorities in this regard.
8
ARF PARKS --MAINTAINED TO AN ACCEPTABLE LEVEL?
We recognize that maintenance standards are related to financial
resources. Edina's parks are not perfect, but, in general, they are
maintained to a reasonable level.
We likewise believe that the park andrecreation department's
maintenance standards meet- the expectations of the community as
evidenced by the fact that
758 of our surveyed households rated maintenance standards for
theageneral park environment "very good" or "good".
68% rated maintenance standards for recreational facilities as.
very good" or "good".
79% felt that maintenance standards are about the same. or
better than five years ago,
The Task Force cannot provide conclusions with respect to comparisons
between Edina''s Park and Recreation budget and staff level and that of
other cities due to the diversity of services, staff organization and
programs,
AgE pAgK pggggAMS PROPERLY FINANCED THROUGH A SYSTEM OF FEU—AND,
CHARGES?'
We conclude that most of our neighboring cities do not charge field
maintenance fees for youth athletics. However, some cities who do not
now charge such ,fees are considering implementing such a program in the
future. Edina seems to be a trend setter in this regard.
Our public, opinion survey indicates that the present fee structure,
including the recently adopted field :maintenance fee for youth
athletics, is generally well received;
9
58% of the household's preferred to retain the k.isent system,
which includEs_tield maintenance Zees,
19% felt fees should.be increased
16% felt fees should be reduced
83% of all households stated fees do not: limit the number of
programs in which family members can participate
The Task Force recommends that the Park ;Board and Council should invite
athletic, associations and other groups to City budget hearings to
express their views and exchange ideas concerning fees, coordination of
activities, and policy issues affecting park and program participants.
jJrGRADF OF MAJOR FACILITIES
Although the City Council did not request this information, the Task
Force included questions on upgrading the pavilion and municipal
swimming pool in our public opinion survey. Based upon our survey, we
conclude that an.L. ,ode of the pavilion to improve energy efficiency,
ice making equipment, spectator seating and locker room facilities is
supported by a plurality of our residents. We also conclude that the
addition of the gymnastics facility to the pavilion or upgrades to the
swimming pool are generally not supported by our residents according to
the survey.
The Task Force wishes to thank the Council for the opportunity to take
past in this study. We hope ourfindingsare useful and will. set the
stage for further park and recreation planning and decision making.
10
OR l qw,". m
F A R R K_A_LD R r V R E,A TT 1 0 N S U R V r Y
ST,t.OUIS BLOM- Pll'- RIC11- 1t IN 11- BURNS- Wl,YN. Rt1SF- 10RKLY1i.
PARK INGTON MUTH FIFLU-- T0,RA, i>ILl'F. CENTER EAGAN Rt.AINE Cr1RE IM
11ll,it roar did your
1Ltrk Ree. Vept.
urigNate? 19411 1461 1980 1910 1W4,8 1464 192? 1'1111 1x158 11165 tljh`1
4t. of employees;
All 1 -time 29 9 3fa 5 2,Z 12 1ti 16 4._N 10 1part-tla,e II -82 3OO 2tt tO 25 200 in 200 621.`" maUtteuaitCk, 25,9 ll 6 1.T, ti 7' 7 tt 1t
Ctrl, Mata
Total Aires fill. 78629 600 IUtI 1.1011 16211 512 100 1.10 SS1t) 101111 1 rat1thoi,,lrred. Acres 15O-400 10111 150 2215 Ifo\ NIA lO0 It15 1'Q 4Ctt0 S Estr2111,, Hockey ke,-ts 15 118 10 6
1", 4,4 t5N'o. Skiltitig Areas I l 29 10 4 1tt
N,1. logltls C+ul"r`ts 32 88 17 10 45 20 1R 19 C,
to
1,11111 1C t;,tl f (NAllr"t,No Yes Na Yes NO Car 1 N,1 Ipt?,YlsNo Yl ,;
Ct111111At 1.1u
lott1 h4,911 85,000 11,615 11,M1, 18,681 25,(174 11.,10 t),7t1[0 15,N:tk 14, 5t,ts 41,11" 4f,, 0711.1, ba is 111; 6v 679,',
5111,trxt A e 11 2l. aS:4 111; 5, 26 re«", tw 2"1 2I t l:t
1"-1x11 I; Hoereatlen BudBt"t
Mit, 1uistrat Ioil, s1 '941,602 1 le. tim t8A,1r,O 5'1,200 127,,nnn; 24 5,11)1, I1r, tS4 115,.21)- 5",7 t1', t'.1Pttat 205,672 511,0Ut0 1,51111 15i,6ttr0Poev1"lttoit 14.,611 4016,100 2:6,01111 1,05fl,OOo 200,000 4iR,71)A 1110,111111 lit„111'-tti011etelcl"Ce 116,925 1711,461 796, 200 56O,2O0 51,15,01117 1, 081,00t1 810O,Otto 111,4;,1 471,2111
T"lAt 2101, 649 950,tttlt)
l`:0rttril artt I.Kos
N.l No No Alto It llu t'a Wvlsor NO, bot no? N,t No 51
Adu11 tee
1`orrtll to
25/tonm pay tee for A,1111t te'tnl 11a111, 1
for fctri1- Atls.A,,;w-, Sart Ad,"ofta 1x.1111
41x111 lty fe,,,, Waklltlt bolt 1st- W I I X11
Outside mli1q,Tee rt,llle- tV,,We-,
tourneys ss/fee
hay fee
i
i I
irnw—w-IIP SURVEY
BROOKLYN PARI:
1:
a, How many, full-time ewployees da you have exclusive of employees
assigna4 to special Facilities such as golf courses, arenas and so
forth.?
ADMINISTRATIVE12 ], See attached)
MAINTENANCE
b. How mangy* parte-time/seasonal employees do you have? 20-.25.
Dupervisors.
2, Is the Park and. Recreation Department responsible for maintaining
and removing boulevard trees? v S
If sot how many of your maintenance employees are involved in tree
maintenance and 'removal? 2-3 employees
3, Do you have a map or schedule which identifies the facilities in
each of your parks?Not received vet with mail as soon as it
arrives-,
4, What is the breakdown of your operating budget? app. 1.7 Mil.
ADMINISTRATIVE S X50.000'
RECREATION' sS 375,000 includes S for
pensions and
insurance
MAINZ' :MANCE t 6 75 , 000
TOTAL S 1.2 Mil
Do you have a separate capital improvement budget?
1988
EXPENDITURES 8, 350.000
5, Are athletic associations or their participants charged a fee which
defrays City administrative or maintenance costs? See Attached:
O OG -UP SURVEY - BROOKT,1'IT pARI, C(`kTI 1 ED
1. Employees,
I Director
3 Asso Directors
2 Program Supervisors
2 Maintenance Supervisors
10 Maintenance Workers
2 Full -Time Secretary/Clerks
3 Full -Time Program Coordinators
In the original surrey, the answer of 180 referred to "positions"
employees, actually hireO. were around 400 (for instance tennis
coordinator is a.pos.tion, but four (4) are hired for diff"erent. parks.
5, There is no. separate fee charged to athletic associations or
participants. While. it is true that athletic associations cost Park and
Recreation big maintenance dollars they feel all city programs would
have to be assessed for such a charge to be fair. Also, at the presen`
time a fee would cause a lot of flack, because they have about 4,000
participants in the. programs and and 500 volunteers who run them, These
same people do a lot for the, community and many times are actin,ists.
So, the whole issue is very political,.
I
FoLlog-up SURVEY
PLYMOUTH
a,, How many full-time employees do you 24ave exclusive of employees
assigned to special. facilities such as golf courses,, arenas and so
forth?
ADMINrSTRKTIVE 4
MAINTENANCE 9
b, How many part-time/seasonal employees do you have? 5 work on1
summer month
2:, Is the Park and Recreation Department responsible for maintainin
and removing boulevard trees? Yes Forestry under ark
I®
mAi tenance Most tees are planted on prate no'' boulevard)
p,ope r t .
If so, how many of your maintenance employees are involved`in tree
maintenance and removal? I full-time Forester - 2 seasona',;ajdes,
3, Do you have a map or schedule which identifies the facilities in
each of your parks? in process of pr ntinp at this time - both
4; 'What is the breakdown of your operating budget?
ADMINISTRATIVE S 134.000
RECREATION ,S 406.700 1$282,000,/Fees
MAINTENANCE, $. 796,200 } $
124 , 70Q/G, Hind
FORESTRY 9 229.000; } $25,000/'
Reforestation
TOTAL, $1,565,oQo
Do you have a separate capital improvement budget?
1988
EXPENDITURES Ij80.000
j987 - 1 2 Million 1990 large expense projected
5. Are, athletic associations or their participants charged.a fee wnich,
defrays City administrative or maintenance costs`? Not at this
time Looking at possibility in near fu e, Waiting to s+zee what
Edina does.
T1 .
moi. 'sis
a
ROSEVILLE
i
a., How many full-time employees do you have exclusive of employees
assigned to spec',.,il facilities such as golf courses, arenas and so
forth?
ADMINISTRATIVE 6
MAINTENANCE 5
b How many part-time/seasonal employees do you 'have? 2.90
2„ Is the Paris and Recreation Department responsible for maintaining
and removing boulevard trees? NO
3
If so, how many of your maintenance employees are involved in tree
maintenance and removal?
34 Do you have a map or schedule whiwh identifies the facilities in
each of your parks?
4.6 What is the, breakdown of your operating budget?
ADMINISTRATIVE, S 312,000
RECREATION ,$ 320,000
MAINTENANCE S 350,000
TOTAL 942.000
Do you have a separate capital improvement budget?
1988
EXPENDITURES S 75,000 (park Dept, only)
5 Are Athletic associations or their participants charged,a fee which
defrays City administrative or maintenance. costs? Practice field
5,00charge. Field maittenance charge included in fees_.
FO DW -IIP SURVEY
EDINA
a, How many full-time employees do you have exclusive of employees
assigned to special facilities such as ,golf courses, arenas and so
forth?
ADMINISTRATIVE 5 (includes adaptive
recreation)
MAINTENANCE 16
b, How many part-time/seasonal employees do you have? 200
2. Is the Park and Recreation Department responsible for maintaining
and removing boulevard trees?'YES
If so,, how many of your maintenance employees are involved in tree
maintenance, and removal? 3emp_lovees
3, Do you have a map or schedule which identifies the facilities in
t each of your parks? YES
G, What. is the breakdown of your operating budge"?
ADMINISTRATIVE $ 547.,027 (includes adaptive
recreation)
RECREATION S 102,050
MAINTENANCE $, 865.775
TOTAL JL514.852
Do you.have a separate capital improvement budget?
1988
EXPENDITURES S 135,000
5, are athletic associations or their participants charged. a fee which
defrays City administrative or maintenance costs? $5,00 field
maintenance charge:,
FEES AND CHARGES IN THE
REGIONAL RECREATION OPEN SPACESYSTE1.
Prepared by
Grant.Scholen
Metropolitan Council of Vie Twin Cities Area
300 Metro Square building, Seventh and Robert Streets
St. Pault Minnesota 55101 (612) 291-6464
February 1987
Publication No. 580-87-021
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
Steve Keefe, Chir
Liz Anderson, District I Josephine D. Nunn, District 9
Mike McLaughlin, District 2 John Evans, District 10
Charles W. Huger, District 3 -Dorothy Rietow, District 11
Carol Flynn, District 4 Gertrude.'W rich, District 12
Leon Cook, District 5 Dirk deVries, District 13
Joan Campbell, District 6 Marcy Waritz, District 14
Mary Hauser, District 7 Mary K. Martin, District 15
Donald Stein, Diat.rict $ Patrick J. (Pat) Scully, District 16
The Metropolitan Council coordinates the planning and development of the
seven -county Metropolitan Area. The Council is authorized by state ani
federal laws to plan for highways and transit, sewers, parks and open
space, airports, Land use, air and water quality, health, housing, aging
and arts,
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
SUMMARY........ ... .............................................. l
INTRODUCT.iON............ .......... ...........................,. 2
METHODS AND PROCEDURES.. ...... ...... .... .... ...... 3
FEE: INVENTORY.......... ..................... .......... .......,. 4
impiementing Agencies Roo iona1 Feas.2......................... 4
Implementing Agencies Non -Regional Fees ..................... 10
Comparable Fees Related to Other Park Systems .............. 11
PHILOSOPHICAL FOUNDATIONS ..................................... 14
Developing a Fees and. Charges Rationale ..................... 14
Fees Philosophy and ,Policy. • .•.... ... .. .. 16
Regional Implementing AgencyFeesPhilosophies ............ 0 17
Fees Philosophy/Policy in Other Park Systems................ 22
IMPACTS OF FEES ON BUDGETS......... .........:................. . 24
Regional Implementing Agency Budgets ........................ 24
Other Park System Budgets................. .................... 26
IMPACTS OF FEES ON USE......... .. . ... ... 28
Impacts on Total Use ... o ...........................,......,, 28
Introduction.. ......_. • 28
Two Case Exampies State Parks and Hennepin Paris.. ... 28
Regional, System Totai Use and Visitor/General Population
Opinions ........................................... 30
Impacts on Pattern of Use ................................... 32
on the Economically Disadvantaged and Other Groups. 33
tiImpacts
Introduction.. .... ..... ........
Policy
33
Regional implem0ting. Agency•Fee Adjustment ...... 34
Use of Reg i on. -d I Says tem by Economically Disadvantaged.... 37
Geographic Distribution in Relation to Regional
Park Services . ........................................ 40
Senior Citizen Discounts............. o ................... 42
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS ...................................... 45
LITERATURE CITED .................. o....... .................... 48
APPENDICES............ ................. . .... .,..... 49
A. Interview Summary Forms.............. ....................... 50
B. Comparative User Fee, Table (Maricopa County, Arizona)..,... 52
C. Regional Implementing Agency Fee Policies.................. 53
D. Parks for All People Postcard.. ..... ........ 58
E. Respondent. Household Incomes............. .................... 59
F. Barriers: to Participation.. . a..... .......... ....... 61
G. Regional Parks in Minneapolis andSt. Peal..... ........,... 67
1
i`
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Continued)
page
TABLES
I. Implementing Agency Regional Fees, 1986 .................... 5
2. Selected Fats from Other Park Systems ....................... 12
3. Fee impacts on Regional Implementing Agencies Operating
Budgets, 1985......, ....... 25
FIGURES
1., Regional Park Implementing Agencies Which Require an
Entrance Fee..... ............. ............................ 7
A
f
SUMMARY
Three of the nine regional park implementing agencies charge agency -wide
entrance fact for their regional parks. Most commonly, rental fees (for
equipment or facilities) and user fees (for camping, beach swimming, etc.) are
charged.; Special, service fees, mostly for various instructional programs, are.
charged by four implementing agencies.
Six "Nominal Feel' agencies strive to provide their services at no or low
costs. Three "Moderate Feel' agencies believe fees are a necessary means to
supplement taxes and for which fees are intended to cover a portion of
expenses. Most agencies believe in providing a basic set of services and
charging fees for some of those services which clearly cost more to provide.
The percentage of implementing agency 1985 annual operating budgets that can be
attributed to recreational fees are as follows: for regional operating budgets,
the range is approximately 3 to 20 percent; for total agency operating budgets
includes nonregional parks for each agency), the range is 5 to 45 percent.
pertaining to regional services and related fees, "Moderate Fee" agencies have
a higher percentage rate than "Nominal Fee" agencies.
A complete analysis of the impact of fees on park system use is beyond the
scope of this report, however, some basic statements can made based on avail-
able information. Because the existing fees are low to moderate, the impact of
fees on the total use of the regional park ,system is probably low, Examination
of various aspects> of perhaps the most restrictive of fee.s.--the entrance fee --
indicates that the impact of the implementation of entrance fees is probably
not significant in terms of the total number of people served. The difference,
if it exists, would more likely be in the level/quality of service (lower
without entrance fees) and the market served.
Indications are that lower income persons use the regional park system less
than middle-income persons. The major reasons for this are most likely less
discretionary income and time available to enable participation. All regional.
implementing agencies are aware of the concerns related to the potential impact
of fees on the economically disadvantaged. All agencies have made; an effort to
provide services to those who cannot afford to pay recreational use fees.
INTRODUCTION
Theexisting regional park system encompasses over 45,000 acres of parkland and
includes 29 parks, 10 park reserves, and 4 regional trail corridors. These
park units are owned and operated by 10 implementing agencies. which include
counties, special park districtsandcities.
The 1974 Metropolitan parks Act created a partnership between the Metropolitan
Council, advised by the Metropolitan Parks and ?pen Space Commission, and the
implementing agencies.. The Council prepares a regional park system plan, setsfundingpriorities, and obtains funding from the state; the implementing;
agencies prepare master plans for their regional units; and, following Council
approval; receive Council grant funds to acquire and develop regional parks.
The issue of whether to charge a fee-for-service and how much that fee should
be, has been considered by each of the implementing agencies. Over time, each
agency has adopted itsownset of guidelines and fee structures, based both on
the needs of the agencies and the people they serve. This study was initiated
in order to inventory the existing fees and charges in the regional system, and
to examine each agency's philosophy and policy on recreational foes and
charges. In addition, the study includes a discussion related to the impact of
the fees and charges on agency budgets and overall park use.
The purpose of the regional park system is to provide public recreation open
space resources to meet the needs of all the people in the Twin Cities Metro-
politan Area.. A major Concern of all public service providersthatinitiate
flees -for -service is not to discriminate against any user groups, and particu-
larly those who cannot afford to directly pay for the service. To the extent
that existing information is available, this study will attempt to document the
ways in which each implementing agency has addressed this concern. A separate
study which will examine the use of the regionalpark system by various dis-
advantaged populations is scheduled to be initiated sometime during 1987. Therefore, the scope of this Fees and _Charges study will be limited to how fees
affect potential users, and in particular,_ those with low incomes.
2
METHODS AND PROCEDURES
The initial step in the data collection phase of the study included a review
of pertinent literature and documented discussions on the subject of fees by
the Metropolitan. Council, Metropolitan Parks and Open Space Commission, imple-
menting agencies and Council staff.
Next, general information including fee schedules, agency policies and
operating budgets was solicited from each implementing agency. After reviewing
this information, a summary form des;gned to meet the basic objectives: of the
study was: developed (see Appendix. A). In order to complete the summary form,-
personalor phone interviews were completed with representatives of all imple-
menting agencies between July 21 and August 15 1986,
Brief interviews dealing with basic comparable information were conducted with
several regional park agency representatives from various parts of the United
States. Rather than a 'formal survey, this information is intended for relative
comparison purposes only. Also for comparison, discussions were held with
Minnesota State Park system staff dealing with their fee structures and
policies,
In recent years, Metropolitan Council parks and open space staff have conducted
several recreational studies involving random sample surveys, both with in -park
users and through mail questionnaires.. Two of these studies will be referenced
ire this report. First, the Council surveyed over 20,000 park visitors, 12
years of age and older, at 53 natural resource-based recreation facilities in
the metropolitan area during 1982. The majority of these facilities were
regional parks; and park reserves selected to represent a spectrum of typizal
regional park use. Second, a questionnaire survey was mailed to 4,700 Metro-
politan Area residents, age 18 and over, in 1983. This resulted in 3,441
usable returns (73 percent return rate), and provided information including
leisure preferences and barriers to participation,
3
FEES INVENTORY
This section of the report will define which agencies charge fees for specificservices. The National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA) has describedthefollowingfeetypes (which will ba used throughout this report)., The NRPAdef-initions as shown below are adapted from Fees and Charges for RecreationDepartments (Waters, 1982)
Entrance Fee - A fee charged for entry into a Park. zoo, or developed area,
usually a large, open area with a controlled access/egress.
Admission Fee A fee charged for entry into a building or structure A
museum is an example of a facility where an admission fee -
may be required,.
Renta; Fee Payment for the exclusive use of a fac`1`t
User- Fee -
IAL -WF eau i oment
Reserved picnic shelters and canoe rentals are examples ofCentalfees.
A charge to an individual for participation in a program or
activity for the nonexclusive. use of a facility. Numerous
participants are usually involved ;n the activity or
facility at the same time. '
License (or Permit) Fee A privilege to perform a particular action. The
payment for a permit to fish in a lake within a park is an
example of this fee.
Special Services Fees A charge for receiving extraordinary services or
for having the use of special equipment or facilities when
the benefits are specific to the individual or group which
requests the service. Instructional classes in ceramics or
tennis are examples of special services for which fees couldbecharged.
IMPLEMENTING AGENCY REGIONAL FEES
Most implementing agencies have.not only regional parks, but non -regional parksas. well. Some facilities such as golf courses, are not considered a part oftheregionalsysteminthattheMetropolitanCouncilwillnotprovidefunds fortheirdevelopment. Table 1 (pages 5-6) describes the fees and charges that
each implementing agency collects for re;giona`l activities in their regionalparks.
ENTRANCE FEES
There are agency -wide entrance fees in effect in regionalg' parks operated bythree (Carver County, Hennepin Parks and Washington County) of the nine
operating" imps ement i ng agencies (see Scott CoUnty denotation no. 3 be 1 owTable1). In addition, An4 ka County implements a beach area entrance fee atoneofitssevenregionalparkunits, and the c;ty of Bloomington implements abeachareaentrancefeeatBushLakebeach. Figure 1 (page 7) depicts those
parks and agencies which had some type of entrance fee in effect in 1986.
4
Table 1
IMPLEMENTING AGENCY REGIONAL LEES, 1986
Entrance User . Rental Special Services Admission Other
Anoka County Lake George beach Camping - S3/day Canoe rental/shuttle Archery - S1/person, None Food vendorsSl/daily/car Group camp various rates plus room rental
S10/annual 5.50/day/person leased) rates and tournament
Norsebacx riding Activity Center rooms percentage
38/hr plus S15/hr.
various rates S15/4 hrs.-nature :Ludy
leased) 10/4 hrs.-kitchen
aloomington2' lush Lake beach None Picnic shelter - $100; None None Annuz) scuba permitS2/daily/car S10/non-Profit groups 15 (license fee) S12/annual Food vendors
Se/daily/bus
senior citizens,
free
Carver County S.50/daily/person Camping . S4/day; Ski rental - SI.50/hr. None Pone Vending machinesS8/annual/f Mily SS/day w/electric; Community room - S35/day
S4/annual/individual_
S2/annual/senior cit.
free/under 6 yrs. old
all parks including
Lake Waconia)
Dakota Coutty None Shultz Lake beach Group camp None None Miscellaneous
SO/person/daily 55-13/tent area concessions
S2/car/daily f8-30/lodge
S20/annual
free/under 4 yrs.
and Wednesdays
Camping - 33410.
plus various
Hennepin Parks2,3 S2/daily/car Camping - S6410.50/day Group rasp - S15-SSO/area Variousinstructional None Miscellaneous
S8/daily/bus Picnic shelter - $30-S60 programs concessions
S12/annual Bldgs/rons - $25i$150/3 hrsS6/annual/sen. cit. Various equipment
6/annual/2nd vehicle
Free/1st Tues, ea. so.
Minneapolis Park None Lake Harriet paddle- Coat moorings - S1524236 Variousinstructional None Miscellaneous
and Recreation boat ride Canoe racks - $41-561 programs concessions
S1.25/person Room rental - $20426/hr,
31.00/unOer 12, Picnic shelters - S20430
senior citizens. Picnic pavilions I 51254250handicappedVariousequipment
Streetcar rides
nonprofit museum)
ssa4170
e It)P11
i
Table +1
IMPLEMENTING AGENCY REGIONAL FEES, 1986
Continued)
r.
Entrance User Rental Special Services Admission Oth r
Ramsey County None Long Lake beach Pjcnic shelters - S10435 None None Food vendors
S.SO/person/daily Picnic pavilion - $754.150
collected and
utilized by New
Brighton)
St. Paul None Harriet island paddle- Boat meorings 4100 (leased) Various instructional Cons Con- Major leases
boat rides (leased) Canoe racks - $50 (leased) programs servatory Nitusement park
55.50/adults Picnic shelters - 55455 S.501person Como 6 Phalen
S4.50/senior ctzns. Picnic pavilions- S30 -S110 S25/seniors; lakeside
S3.50/under 12 yrs. Various equipment) and 12-18 yrs. St. Paul Yacht
also see "Other" col.) not collected Club
during summer) Marinas
Food vendors
Washington.Co.2 S2/daily/car None Picnic shelters - $25 None None Miscellaneous
S6/daily/bur concessions
SIO/annual
Free/1st Tuese
each month
n all parks
incl. Square Lake)
1. Costs of services or products vary.
2. Bloomington and Washington County have reciprocity agreements on annual stickers with Hennepin Parks.
3. Hennepin Parks Suburban Hennepin Regional Park District) operates and maintains the regional park units in Scott County (the 10th implementing agency).
ssa4170
e It)P11
Fittu re 1. Regional Park Implementing Agencies Which Require An Entrance Fee
TWIN CITIES METROPOLITAN AREA
EXISTING REGIONAL PARK IMPLEMENTING AGENCIES
AND REGIONAL RECREATION OPEN SPACE SYSTEM
AUGUST 1986
RegionalRecreation Open Space, existing or with approved; boundary
Regional Trail Corridors, developed or plonn d
Regional Park Implement'Ing Agencies which require an entrance fee
7
I
Bo.h Bloomington and Anoka County implement an entrance fee that could be
considered a special "swimming area" user fee.. Both charge to enter a swimming
beach area (Lake George Regional Park beach in Anoka County and Bush Lake
beach, part of ,Hyland -Bush -Anderson. Lakes Park Reserve in Bloomington and Eden
Prairie) in which recreationists also utilize open play and picnic areas. The
majority of users in these areas are paying to use the swimming beach, however
because all user4 paying the fee have access to other facilities within the
park "area", these fees are categorized here as entrance fees.
Schultz Lake beach in Lebanon Hills Regional Park (Dakota County) and Long Lake
Regional Park beach (Ramsey County) have a beach fee which is charged as you
enter the beach area. In these cases, swimming is the only activity offered in
the area (other park entrance for other activities are free), and they are more
appropriately categorized as user fees (see Table 1) Schultz Lake beach has a
very small picnic arca; the major picnicking facility in Lebanon Hills Regional
Park is located at Jenson Lake, where entry is free. At all four regional
beach areas mentioned here (Bush Lake, Schultz Lake. Lake George and Long
Lake), the fees are only collected during the summer months. it should be
noted that the annual beach pass in Anoka County is good not only at Lake
George beach,_ but at three non -regional Anoka County park beaches as wall (Coon
Lake, Golden Lake, and Twin Lakes).
Using the categories established in this reoor, Carver County is the only
agency which charges r per person entrance free, theoretically charging all
pedestrians, bicyclists, etc., for entrance to their parks. All other agencies
charge a per vehicle "parking" entrance fee. In an attempt to clarify
entrance/user-entry fees, the following table may be helpful.
Agency Park Fee
Entrance Hennepin Parks All Per vehicle daily or annual
Fee parking permit
Washington County All Per vehicle daily or annual
parking permit `
Carver County All Per ,person daily or annual
parking permit
beach Anoka County Lake George Per vehicle daily or seasonal
Entrance permit
Fee Bloomington Bush Lake Per vehicle daily or seasonal
permit
Beach Dakota County Schultz Lake Per person or per vehicle
User Fee daily or seasonal permit
Ramsey County Long Lake Per person daily
Hennepin Parks has entrance fee reciprocity agreements with two other imple-
menting agencies --Bloomington and Washington County. Hyland -Bush -Anderson
Lakes Park Reserve is owned and operated jointly by Hennepin Parks and
Bloomington. The permit which Bloomington issues at the Bush Lake portion of
the park is also valid in the Hennepin Parks operated Hyland portion of the
park, and Hennepin Parks permits are valid for entry at Bush Lake beach.
Washington County permits are valid at all Hennepin Parks units, and Hennepin
Parks permits are valid in all Washington County parks.
8
Most entrance fees are based on a per vehicle basis. The exception to this are
entrance fees in Carver County which are based on a per person basis. Garver
County entrance fees are slightly lower than the other agency entrance fees.
Per vehicle entrance fee ranges are $1-2 daily and $10-12 annual. Effective
January 1, 1987, Hennepin Parks and Bloomington plan to increase their entrance
fees to $3 daily and $15 annual. It should be noted that, in general, the
level of fees reflect the condition and extent of services available.
USER FEES
Regional park user fees are charged primarily for camping (range $3/day-
10.50/day) and swimming beach fees ($.50/person/day, up to $2.00/car at.
Schultz beach with an optional annnual permit for $20.00: S_.50/person/day at
Long Lake Regional Park). Lake Harriet paddleboat rides are provided at
Minneapolis Chain of Lakes Regional Park. Horseback rides at Bunker Hills
Regional Park and paddleboat rides at Li ydale-Harriet Island Regional Park are
leased to concessionaires which in turn provide the service.
RENTAL FEES
All regional implementing agencies charge rental fees. Reservable picnic
sheFters are rented by all agencies except Dakota County. A separate study
detailing all reservable picnic facilities in the regional recreation. open
space system is available (Scholen, 1985). Fees range from $5 to $250, but
are generally in the $30-$50 range for shelters and $50-150 range for
pavilions.
Other common rentals include building or activity rooms, various types of
recreational equipment, and canoe racks/sailboat moorings.
It should he noted that the Minneapolis Park and. Recreation Board implements a
resident/non-resident fee structure for many of its rentals in regional (and
non -regional) parks. N -n -res i dent fees are 50 percent higher for -picnic
shelters, sailboat moorings, and canoe rack rentals (as well as for several
permits including those for motor boats, ice boats, and weddings). In the case
of canoe rack and sailboat moorings, residents are also given a basic priority
over non-residents. Other implementing agencies implement resident/nonresident
priorities and fees, but only for nonregional activities and/or facilities
The only exception to this is a,priority system for reservable picnic shelters
in the city of St. ,Paul, whereby St. Paul residents may reserve picnic shelters
as of January 2 each year, and nonresidents_ must wait, until after April 1
SPECIAL. SERVICE FEES
The major special services fees in regional parks are those related to various
instructional programs. Lessons offered for a fee in regional parks include
sailing, sailboarding, canoeing, cross-country skiing and alpine skiing.
Hennepin Parks offers many naturalist or instructor led programs including
birding, edible plant identification, orienteering and camping skills (some of
these programs are offered free once the visitor has paid the entrance fee).
Most 'instructional programs within the regional system are offered directly by
the implementing agency. The major exception to this are the sailing, sail-
boarding, and canoeing lessons which are operated by a concessionaire at Phalen -
Keller Regional Park.
9
Archery at Bunker Hills Regional 'Park is categorized as a special services fee
because the majority of its use and fee income are associated with the Coon
Rapids Archery Club.-
The policy of most agencies which offer instructional programming is to recoverthecostsassociated4iththoseprograms.
ADMISSION FEES
The only admission fee in the regional system is for admission to the conser-
vatory at Como Regional Park. The fees are not charged during the. summermonths. The revenue from this fee is dedicated to the operation of the
conservatory.
OTHER FEES
Agencies which contract with a vendor to provide food and snack services are
shown as "food vendors" in the "Other" column of Table 1 Those which ,provide
their own food and miscellaneous concessions are shown as "Miscellaneous Con
cessii-,)ns". Bloomington requires a '$15 annual license fee for scuba -diving inBushLake. -
It should be noted that two Minnesota Department of Natural Resources license
fees are in effect in applicable portions of the regional park system. Annual'
fishing permits are required in all regional parks, trails and park reserves.
Annual cross-country skiing permits are required on allpublicpathways
designated and promoted for cross-country skiing, excluding trails that have
not received state acquisition or betterm&-nt funds for recreational purposes.
IMPLEMENTING AGENCY NON -REGIONAL FEES
As mentioned previously, most implementing agencies have non -regional ,parks
and/or facilities in their systems. In the "Impact of Fees on Budgets" portion
of this report, it will be important to understandthe extent of each agency'snon -regional fees. Each agency's non -regional fees are summarized in this
section.
Anoka County owns and operates several non -regional county parks. The Lake
George Regional Park annual entrance permit is also valid at Coon Lake, Golden
Lake and Twin Lakes County Parks. Anoka County also operates Columbia Arena,
the Anoka County Fairgrounds, and golf courses in Rice Creek -Chain of lakes
Park Reserve and Bunker Hills Regional Park.
The city of Bloomington operates a major municipal park ano recreation system.
Many fees are associated with thea; facilities including fees for picnic
shelters, building, and equipment rentals, various permits, athletic facili-
ties. and instructional programs,
Carver County operates Lake Waconia-County Park which is proposed to be a
regional park at some time in the future. The entrance fees shown in Table l
also apply at Lake Waceni_a beach,
In addition to its regional parks, Dakota County operates Thompson Park.
Thompson Park Pavilion is rented on a reservable basis for picnics, weddings,
receptions, etc.
f
10 1
The Suburban lennepin Regional Park District, which is referred to in this
report as Hennepin Parkz. is a special park district. All the recreational
parks owned v.d. operated by Hennepin Parks are included in the regional
recreation open ,space system. The only non -regional fees generated are from
two golf courses (situated at Baker Park Reserve and Cleary Lake Regional Park).
The Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board (MPRB) operates a large municipal
park and recreation system.. Many neighborhood and community centers are.
interspersed throughout the city. Fees are generated from a variety of
programs and facilities including a total of five golf courses (two are
situated in regional parks--Nokomis-Hiawatha and Theodore Wirth Regional
Parks), building rentals, picnic shelters,, and instructional programs,
Ramsey County owns and operates a countywide parks and open space program. In
addition to six regional park units, Ramsey County operates 12 county parks.`
Nonregionai fee revenue is generated from picnic shelters fees. 10 arenas, and
2 golf courses (one golf course is situated in Phalen --Keller Regional Park).
Some revenue is also generated through county fairground activities.
The city of St. Paul owns and operates a large municipal recreation system.
Many neiynborhood and community canters are interspersed, throughout the city.
Nonreg,ional'fee revenue is generated from four golf courses (two are in
regional parks -Como and Phalen-Kelier Regional Parks), swimming pools:, picnic
shelters, building rentals, and instructional programs.
Wsshingtorr County owns and; operates three major parks, two of which are
included in the existing regional recreation open space system and one: (Square
Lake) which is proposed to be included in the regional system at some time in
the future. The: Washington County Parks entrance permit is, required at all
three parks. Washington County also operates threeminor open space areas
which gave no fees (Point Douglas, °ine Point and; Bone Lake boat. access)
COMPARABLE FEES DELATED TO_CTHER PARK SYSTEMS
When considering the fees of our regional park system, it is useful to compare
the types and levels of f3es of other park systems. For the purposes of this
study, it will be helpful to consider not only fees of other regional systems,
but those which are collected by the Minnesota State Park system (four state
parks are situated in the Metropolitan Area).
As explained in the Methods and Procedures portion of the report, staff from
several regional park agencies and the Minnesota State Park system were
interviewed regarding fees. Rather than a formai survey, this information is
intended for comparison purposes only. Fallowing is a summary of fees in other
park systems. Emphasis is placed on env ,nce fees and the types of user fees.
camping) and rental fees (picnic shelters) most common to the Twin Citiet
Regional Recreation Open Space System. A summary of these "emphasized" fees is
included I n Table t (page 12)
Table 2
SEL6.TE,D FEES FROM OTHER PARK SYSTEMS
Reserveble-
Entrance Fee Family Camaina Picnic Shelters
East Bay Regionr? Ptrk 1-$3 daily $6-$g 35-$350District, Oakia,. 16-$75 annual
California fees vary by
park but are
sometimts
adjusted for
Youth, seniors,
or primetime)
Huron -Clinton Metro- 2, daily Canoe camping NonepolitanAuthority. 10 annual only ($l) Detroit'. Michigan
Milwaukee Co., Parks
Vt.. MJ l Waukee.
None Not applicable 16-125
Wisconsin
Akron Metrcpolitan
Park District. Akron,
1-$x daily Not applicable
2.0
20-$40
Ohio
annual
special beach
entrance fee)
Hamilton Ccunty Park 1 daily $5.75-$10.00 45-$10jrDistrict, Cincinati, 3 annual
Ohio 3-$l off
activity fee
coupons incl
Maricopa County Parks 1-$4 daily $2-$6 15-$100Dept., Phoenix. Arizona 60-$120 annual*
i Minnesota State Parks 3 daily $4_$7.50 10-S50
15 annual
resident sen-
iors, handicapped
half price)
Currently considering elimination of annual permit;
The fast Bay-Reoional Park District in Oakland. California, includes 41regionalparkaand9regionaltrails (53,000 acres). Entrance fees1 are col- ected at some parks, usually those with alarge capital investment, and which
are pupular enough to tolerate an entrance fee without significantlyattendance. Daily entrance affectingratesvary, but. are generally between $1-$3oftenlowerforseniors/youth and higher during tis as.
and are
Ships can be purchased (eligible
prim,` Annual
for free entrance and reduceA user
member -
fees) forbetween $16-$60 (residents) and $20-$75 (non-residents). A range of hieber
l
12
priced($150-$1,250) memberships are available, Students, seniors and handi-
capped, receive discounts Numerous user fees (including camping, $6_)'9)
rental fees (inclu01w, picnic shelters,, generally $35-$300) and sone special
services fees are implemented.
The Huron -Clinton Metropolitan Authority operates 13 metroparks in the water-
sheds of the Huron and Clinton Rivers surrounding Detroit, Michigan. Entrance
fees are collected at all parks, $2/day and $10 ftzr an annual: permit ($5 for
seniors). The system includes six golf courses, three swimming pools, three
swimming beaches,, and one wave pool.: Numerous user fees (canoe camping only
i/canoe) and rental fees (shelters are; not reserved) are implemented
The Milwaukee County Parks Department operates a 15,000-aicre., 140 -unit park
system. It includes 16 golf courses, 43 wading pools, 17 outdoor pools, and.
3 indoor pools. Although no entrance fees are charged, numerous user fees (no
camping) , rental fees (picnic shelters $16-$25) and special services fees are
implemented
The Akron Metropolitan Park District is one of several I'metroparks" districts.
enabled by Ohio State legislation. Of the 11 parks in this 6,255 -acre system,
only one has an entrance fee --this is essentially a special user fee for
entrance to a beach arei. Daily fees are $1 for children, $2 for adults., and
20 for an annual permit.. The only other major fees in this system are, for
reservable shelters, -a rental fee of $20-$40..
The Hamilton County Park District operates over 9,600 acres of parkland in 12
parks and 4 conservation/wildli'fe areas. These areas are situated in the
greater Cincinnati, Ohio, area and offer a great variety of recreational
opportunities including camping, fishing, athletic fields and activities, and
golf (6 courses). Entrance fees are required at all parks and are $:1/daily,
3/annual permit. Three "$1 off" discount coupons are included with the pur-
chase of each annual permit (redeemable for park activity fees). Numerous user
fees (camping $5.75-$10.00), rental fees (picnic shelters $45-$105), and
special services 'fees are implemented,
The Marico s County Parks and Recreation Department owns and operates 10
regional park in the greater Phoenix, Arizona, area. This 110,000 -acre system
implements a $1 entrance fee in most parks, however, a $4 entrance fee is
charged at Lake Pleasant Region il Park which has more, extensive capital and
operations cost This heavily used park is the only unit in the system with a
lake, and $2 of the $4 entry fee goes to the Maricopa Water District which
operates this reservoir. User fees (camping $4-$6) and rental fees (picnic
shelters $15-$100) are implemented., A comparative user fee chart compiled by
the Maricopa County Office of Management Analysis shows a comparison of fees
for six county r. N:g i onai park systesls (see Append i x 8).
Of the 64 Minngsots State Parks., 4 are situated in the seven -county Metro-
politan Area. Minnesota State Park fees are in effect at William O'Brien, Fort
Snelling anel Afton State Parks as well as the Minnestoa Halley Trail/State
Park, Entrance fees are $3/daily ($1.50 for Minnesota seniors or Minnesota
handicapped) and $15/annual permit ($7.50 for Minnesota seniors or Minnesota
handicapped).. For groups with at least 10 cars, a special non -prime time daily
entrance fee is $1.50/car. Various user fees (camping $4-$7.50) and rental
fees (picnic shelters $10-$50) are in effect.
J.
V3
PHILOSOPHICAL FOUNDATiONS
DEVELOPING A FEES AND CHARGES RATIONALE
Most park and recreation agencies at all administrative levels (municipal,
regional, state, federal) have examined or explored the issue of whether to
charge fees and charges and how much_shskild be charged for different aspects oftheirservices. The result is a spectrtyn of approaches, with some agencies
providing all of their services "free" (depending almost exclusively on tax
levy support) while others are charging a multitude of fees and often producinga "profit" or "contingency" on various aspects of their programming andservices.
Traditionally, park and recreation agencies have provided their services "free"
or have assessed a nominal fee at most. As, recent economic conditions and
public attitudes have changed, however, many agencies are more likely to
closely examine and implement some type of fee structure.
As a park and recreation agency begins, to explore the issue of fees and charges-,
they are faced with the task of discussing the basic philosophies behind the
provision of leisure services. In developing a_rationale particularly suited
to their own agency, they must consider both sides of related fees and charges
arguments. First in favor of charging fees:
l Fees Generate revenue.This not only helps the agency budget and lessons
the burden of the taxpayers, but often serves to improve park services.
Agencies which implement fees sometimes experience an improved image as
visitors perceive not only an agency which exudes fiscal responsibility but -
whose services improve as a result of. increased, revenue. planning and: Baker
1984) conducted an entrance fee study in Burlington, Vermont, which demon-
strated that visitor perception, and image of the local recreation depart-
ment improved after fee implementation, partially from increased services
which resulted from fee revenue.
2. The _particieants who use a service should help -defray the costs of its pro
vw,t on. In most cases, fees and charges do not cover the cost of providingtheservice. Those who actually use the service should help to pay for it
rather than relying on the general public to entirelysubsidizetheir
activities.
3•
aecrease_visitor discipline problems In the 1981 Manning and Baker study
cited above, the implementation of an entrance fee decreased loitering and
associated maintenance problems and increased the activities for which the
park was designed (picnicking, field activities, hiking, biking, tennis,
etc.). Kraus and Curtis (1973) stated that charging fees often results in
a decrease in discipline and vandalism problems. Viui`tor,discipline prob-
lems which may decrease as a result of fee implementation include vanda-
lism, miscell.neous illegal activities, "hasseiing" of other park users,
littekA ng etc. This may result in lower enforcement and maintenance
costs. Also fees often encourage more consistent and enthusiastic parti-
cipation because those people who are willing to pay for a service are.
generally those most interested. This in turn allows programmers to
evaluate and plan those programs which are of the greatest interest.
14
4. Fees often instill appreciation. Participants who utilize a service which
is "free" often associate that value with their experience. When a fee is
paid, they not only realize that it "costs" money to provide that. service,
but may psychologically develop an appreciation based on the dollar value
paid.
And, some common considerations for not charging fees:
1.- Fees may limit participation to those who can pay, and discriminates
aaai'nst persons with low .ncomes. The need for recreational opportunities
is basic to everyone, regardless of the ability to pay. Agencies which set
fees need to be aware of the extent, location and characteristics of the
low income population in their service area. Fee waivers, discounts, or
other adjustments to the fee schedule should be available to those who
cannot afford to pay fees.
2. Fees constitute "double taxation." This term is often referenced by
opponents of fees who state that citizens have already laid for park and
recreation services throufn their taxes. Ellerbrock (1982) has a convinc-
ing rebuttal to those who believe fees are double taxation: First, the
taxes 'hat citizen paid did not cover the full cost of providing that
service, and second, users who pay a fee and enjoy participating are still
subsidized by chose taxpayers who do not or cannot participate.
3. Fees may cost more to administer than the revenue they generate. There
are many costs associated with a fees and charges system. Obviously, there
is the cost of providing personnel to collect the fees (even with an
honor" system). In addition, there are planning, accounting, and other
administrative costs. An effective fee system usually involves physical
adaptation to the resource (fencing, entrance stations, roadwork for single
entrance/exit or improved circulation, etc.) which can be extremely expen-
sive (these initial capital costs may be recovered through fee revenue).
In addition, enforcement costs are usually associated with fee systems In
some cases, fees may cost more to administer than the revenue they gene
ate. But in many cases they do not, and many of the benefits often
outweigh the costs.
4. Fees may decrease attendance. Many park administrators fear that fees will
lead to public rejection of their services. This is mostly because park
and recreation services have traditionally been supported through taxes and
provided "free" to the public. Attendance may be affected if the prices
which are imposed are not competitive; i.e., at or below other similar
service prices in the service area. Many park and recreation departments.
take into consideration the service prices of the private sector and set
their prices at or only slightly below that cost because: 1) they do not
wish to "undercut" the prices of the private sector which is supporting the
park and recreation department through taxes, and 2) unlike the public
service fee, the private service fee includat a percentage to realize a
profit.
It should be noted that newly implemented fees frequently do result in an
initial decrease in attendance or use, but if properly set, often rebound
to former levels. Haters (1982) states that initiating a fee system when
a department is started or a facility is opened is the best practice.
15
5. When carried "too far." fees and charges systems promote only those
services which are fiscally prudent Often, agencies which adopt a fees.
and charges system tend to judge their program or particular service worth
on its ability to generate income. 1n some casts, a quality program which
is serving an important segment of the community is not. generating "enough"
income when compared to more popular and successful services. The agency
should be sensitive to the enti-re needs of the community when consideringthelevelofsuccessforaprogram, not lust the revenue generated,
FEESPHILOSOPHY AND POLICY
Determining an agency's recreation and fees philosophy is the first step indevelopingnfeesandchargespolicy. Waters (1982) stresses that it i$
important to fully develop these philosophies and then to put them into aformallyadopteddocument.
A formally adopted fees policy should include a statement regarding feewaivers, discounts, and special considerations. It should identify the
individuals or groups that would qualify and the conditions of qualification.
A fees consideration may be charging only a nominal fee with the intention of
being affordable to all income levels, or in the case of entrance fees, pro-
viding a free day periodically, or providing special programming targeted at aparticulargroupatnocharge (where a charge would normally be assessed). Fee
adjustments (waivers, discounts, and special cdnsiderations) are often made for
the following reasons:
I. Equity. Fee adjustments are made to allow use by those who would not other-
wise be able to parti'cipkta because they cannot afford the fee (directed tolowincomepersons).
2. Benevolence ;a"dior Society Betterment Fee adjustments are sometimes made
because our society tends to take an altruistic view of certain groups
often youth, seniors, handicapped, etc,). They are also often made for
groups which are thought to be generally beneficial to societyeducational, religious, etc.).
3. Marketing. Recently, more ugencies are making fee adjustments th`°ough
variable pricing (lower prices to certain groups or individuals, or duringiowusetimes), to encouragf groups or individuals that might not otherwise
participate. This, encourages more userz from particular segments of the
population 4nd often encourages more use during nonprime hours.
4. Politics. Certain user groups present a strong political lobby, therefore
influencing agency policy. Often, thee equity and benevolence reasonings
above are cited by these lots;e,ists, depending on the group being repre- sented. Senior citizen 4roups are an example of an active political' force
that will bec . .uch stronger in the near future.
A, basic philosophical concept which is common to many park and recreation
agencies is that of basic and special services. Often, ba3ic services (such- as
the provision of "a well maintained parkarea with basic buildings and restroom
facilities) are provided free. Special services, however, which incur addi-
tional costs or that are provided for a particular group, arep rovided for a
fee to offset the cost of provision
16
Another concept which is sometimes adopted in park and recreation fee pol'c.y is
that of charging resident and non-resident fees,. Usually, the idea is that
inidi.viduals who do not contribute to the tax base. within the agency's juris-
diction (non-residents) should, pay an additionalamount in lieu of the property
taxes paid by the residents. In heavily used areas, resident/nonresident fees
may be used as a. form of rationing, giving priority to the residents who -are
paying for the service through, their taxes. Waters. (1982) states the major
problems with enforcing resident/nofiresident fees are verifying residency
status, public relations, and the difficulty of finding an equitable method of
computing the nonresident fee. He further suggests that a basic method of cal-
culating a nonresident fee is to use the percentage of the agency's opera ing,
budget that is funded by property taxes. It should be noted that resident/
nonresident fees are sometimes challenged in court,.. In analyzing various
cases, Kozlowski (1982) determined the rights of an agency to charge resident/
nonresident fees are usually upheld if they can show, onimplied grant of
authority for the; activity from the state, and can provide "a clearly stated
rationale which demr;)nstrates a reasonable relationship between regulation, and
legitimate governmental goals."
REGIONAL IMPLEMENTING AGENCY FEES PHILOSOPHIES
Each ofthe regional implementing agencies have developed their own rationale:,
philosophies, and sometimes written policy, regardinq fees and charges within
their agencies. All implementing agenciaes, which charge entrance fees have
written policy regarding fees and charges (see Appendix C --Carver County,
Hennepin Parks and Washington County). All other agencies have formally
adopted feelevelsor building use policies, but no.major policy statements
egarding overall fees philosophy.
thcsugn many implementing agencies do not currently have a formal written
licy regarding fees, a basic philosophy statement is usually available from
aff. A summary of each implementing agency's fees and charges philosophy is
outlined below followed by a discussion summarizing regional .implementing
agency philosophies.
ANOKA COUNTY
Anoka Cnunty's written policy relating to fees is incorporated into a building
use oo 0 cy, a resolution regarding the rental of their archery facility, and
board -approved fee levels for beach entry, user fees, rental fees and special
services fees. Their basic, philosophy is to charge what the user is willing to
pay, but to charge only for those facilities which are developed enough to.
warrant a fee. Fees are set considering current rates of camparahle facili-
ties. In the future, as the entire system is developed, they will consider
implementing an agency -wide entrance fee system (currently, only Lake George
Regional Park has ari entrance fee, but Rice Creek -Chain of Lakes Park Reserve,
Anoka County Riverfront, 'Coon Rapids Dam, Bunker Hills Regional Parks, and
further devetapments at i,,ake George Regional Park are planned tc completed in
the near future)
Although Anoka County does not have a comprehensive statement regarding fee
waivers, rrsductons, or special considerations, tt;eir Islands of Peace Recep-
tion. Center (located in Anoka County Riverfront Regional Park) is designed
17
specifically for handicapped and senior use. This facility is heavily used by
these populations. in addition, Anoka County waives fees for special popula-
tion groups which are applying for special use permits (see i mpac tom, of Fees on
Ute.. page 28) .
CITY OF BLOOMINGTON;
The Bloonfington City Council annually reviews and adopts fees and charges
dur'i.ng the budgeting process for all city departments, programs and
facilities. Adult special services programs (all non -regional) must be self-
supporting through the collection of fees, For general recreation programs,
which includes Bush lake beach, fees are established to offset operation costs
covered primarily by rax revenue,
Although no written policy regarding fees or fee waivers exists, individuals
which request a reduction or waiver on the basis; of not being able to pap are
referred to Hennepin County Outreach and Referral (a branch office of Hennepin
County Community Services) located in Bloomington, Creekside Center. These, fee
adjustments are recommended to the city of Bloomington on an individual basis
CARVER COUNTY
The Carver County Board is considering; a written fee policy in the spring of
1987 (see Appendix C) The policy deals primarily with fee waivers and
reductions„ however, recent correspondence and statements by staff offer the
following ;has i c' philosophy ,
Fees inCarverCounty are set low in order to make park entrance and use
affordable to all. There are special .fees beyond an entrance fee for those
activities which clearly cost more to orovide. Nominal entrance fees aid in
retaining an element of control over park use.
Pending waiver/reduction policy will include, but not be limited to, nonprofit
groups., tax -supported groups and educational/religious groups. Senior ci"tizens.
currently receive their annual entrance permit at a discount.
DAKOTA COUNTY
The Dakota County Board reviews and considers the Dakota County Parks fee
schedule on an annual basis. There are no entrance fees, however, a user fee
is charged at the entrance to the new Schultz Lake swimming beach. This fee is
implemented to offset the cost of operating the beach and to provide controlled
access for saftey considerations. in order to facilitate use by those with low
incomes, entry to the beach area is free each Wednesday.
Basically, Dakota County's fee philosophy is that fees are appropriate to off-
set operational costs of special use areas. In addition, they help retain an
element of control. Currently, there are no plans to implement an entrance fee
agency -wide
18.
1
M
HEINNEPIR PARKS (SU;URBAN HENNEPIN REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT)
Hennepin Parks has the most developed (board -adopted) fees policy and guide-
Pines in the regional parks and open space system. Most likely, this is a
resuit of their historical implementation of fees, especially their entrance
fees, which were first implemented in 1964 ($-50/dally. $4.50 annual). The
district's fees policy can be reviewed in Appendix C.
Batically, Hennepin Parks believes that fees and charges: are a responsible and
necessary means to supplement tax revenue and regulate use where appropriate.
Fees are established based on available, resources, public read, public accep-
tance,and in some cases, comparable prices. Promotional (variable) pricing is
used to increase use iy new, potential visitors and to distribute use by time
and location Fees are also believed to instill a sense of appreciation
value) for the resource and recreational opportunities
The Hennepin Parks board may approve exceptional fees or fee waivers upon
determination that such fee. arrangements will provide benefits in the public
interest. Seniors receive a 50 percent discount on entrance permits In
addition, the board endorses a "Parks for All People" program that provides
free entrance permits to nearly 2.000 low-income Hennepin and Scott County
residents annually (see impacts of Fees on. Use, page. 36) Also. the first
Tuesday of each month is designated a free entrance day in all parks
MINNEAPOLIS; PARK AND RECREATIONBOARD
Documented policies regarding Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board fees are
limited to board --approved fee schedules and a program fee policy adopted in
1982.
No entrance. 'fees are implemented, and the user, rc.:l and special services
fees are based on the cost to provide the service. Basic services are avail-
able at no charge, while those programs which cost more to provide (special'
services) have some type of fee. This is especially true for instructional
classes.
Although there are no entrance. fees,, the concept has been discussed. Entrance
fees are not likely in this system because: 1) the parks are not physically
capable of supporting an entrance fee (some parks currently have hundreds of
possible .entry points, thereby warranting a fencing/enforcement/aesthetic prob-
lem); 2) these parks are in close proximity to high concentrations of disadvan-
taged populations which may not be able to afford an entrance fee; and 3) this
is a traditional, well-established system that is perceived by the public to be
a tax -supported "free entrance" system (public acceptance of an entrance fee
in this system would be more difficult than most).
The KPRB adopted a program fee policy in 1982 (see Appendix C) Fee waivers
and special considerations in this system are aimed primarily at the "inner
city." non-region.t1 oeigf,borhood' and community packs. The great majority of
special services xrograms are offered at this level of the system. There are
14 "compensatory strvli,e parks" In the inner city of Minneapolis which receive
additional funds for instructors and supplies. Many of these centers work
directly with either a large minority population or the economically
disadvantaged. More information on this program, including programs for
seniors and the handicapped, will be inziuded in the."Impacts of Fees on Use"
section of this report
19
TM
Documented fees philosophy and policies for Rams cy County are; limited. Numer-
ous adopted resolutions pertaining to various aspects of fees and an edopteofeescheduleareavailable.
Basically, the board position is: that they are not in favor of an agency -wideentraniefee. in 1983, the board reviewed and discussed the potential of
raisin) revenue through a parking fee at county and regional parks. It was
determined that the collection costs and enforcement problems associated withtheimptiementation (many parks have parking av'ailabl'e; adjacent, to the
entrurice) of a parklog/entrance fee would be prohibitive. In addition,, RamseyCountywasgenerallyopposedtothistypeoffee:
Ramsey County attempts to keep their fees low. Their major regional fee is for
picnic shelter rental ($10-35) which was implemented as a means of controlling
use and offering :a service (reservations) to the public (the picnic pavilion
fee at Battle Creek is higher than the shelter fee because of the quality of
the facility and higher capital and operation/maintenance costs).
Ramsey County has no written policy regarding fee waivers.. This is primarilybecausetheychargeveryfewand; very low fees (they do charge fees at many
non -regional facilitieswhich cast more to provide, such as golf courses and
arenas). Ramsey County implements reduced golf' fees for seniors and; handi-
capped and waives picnic shelter fees for youth groups.
CITY Or ST'. PAUL
Documented fees philosophy and policies for the city of St. Paul parks are
limited to approved fee schedules, lease agreements and Staff documents.
St. Paul parks have no entrance fees•and most programs are offered at no
charge. There are charges for special services and facilities which clearly
cost more to provide (pools, golf courses, instructional courses, etc.).
Reasonings for not having an entrance fee are similar to the three reasons
stated ;for the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board system (see page 19
Collectionlenforcement, disadvantaged population proximity and tradition,
acceptance) ,
Also fi)milar to the Minneapolis Park Recreatio- Board philosophy is St. Paul's
effort to compensate the inner city (non -regional) neighborhood and community
center programs in areas where disadvantaged populations are known to reside.
Program fees are sometl,mes eliminated in these low-income areas and senior
programming is emphasized at 12 neighborhood centers in proximity to senior
concentrations.
WASHINGTON COUNTY
Washington County recently adopted a fees policy which includes guidelines andfeelevels (see Appendix C). Fees philosophy is similar to Hennepin Parks
policy: Hennepin Parks and Washington County currently have a reciprocal agree-
ment for annual entrance permits,
20
Wa,thington County, provides some element -r, of ;:*rk services free to the public,
however, fees and charges are considered to be a, responsible and necessary
means to suppiament tax revenue and regulate park use; where appropriate. Fees
and charges represent a reasonable approach to having the user pay a portion of
the total costs, and the park user bensfits from the (improved)operation and
maintenance levels provided. Fees ar, based on the portation and maintenance
costs, ;public need, public acceptance and comparable prices
Washington County has adopted a fee waiver/adjustment policy to serve individ
mals or groups on the basis of financial need, charitable effort, or where
volunteers or other services are being received by the county. In addition,
discounts/waivers are available to agencies which provide recreational. and
educational services to youth, seniors' and: special populations.
PREVAILING REGIONAL IMPLEMENTING AGENCY PHILOSOPHY AND POLICIES
As the philosophy, policy and fee; structure is examined for each agency, two
basic categories emerge: Nominal Fees and Moderate Fees. The two categories
are defined below along with a summarization of those agencies in each. This
discussion (and Nominal/Moderate fee classifications) relates primarily to the
regional portions of each agency.
Nominal Fees
Nominal fee agencies are those which provide programs and facilities at no or
low cost. The premise is that parks and recreation have been and remain a
service supported primarily by taxes.. Nominal fees are charip,1 for special
services (instructional programs, reservations, etc.) i,n many cases to promote
appreciation or decrease visitor discipline problems..
Nominal fee agencies include the city of St. Paul, the Minneapolis Parks and
Recreation Board, and Carver, Anoka,.Dakots and Ramsey Counties., Carver County
is the, only agency which has an _entrance fee in this category --they have the
lowest entrance fee rates in the regional system and maintain that they have
kept their rates low in an effort to make parks affordable to everyone.
Carver and Anoka Counties appear to be in transition between the nominal and
moderate fee. categories. in the near future, Carver County will probably
consider a per -vehicle entrancefee (rather than the per -person fee currently
enforced on a sporatic basis) and Anoka County will consider an agency -wide per
vehicle entrance fee..
Moderate Fees
Hennepin Parks, Washington County ar)d the city of Bloomington are moderate fee
agencies. Their philosophies/policies state that fees are a responsible and
necessary means to supplement taxes and they implement moderate -rate entrance
fees to their parks. Their entrance, user, rental and special' services fees
as applicable) are intended to cover a higher percentage of regional expendi-
tures than the nominal fee agencies.
As all, of the implementing agencies have formulated their fees philosophies,
they have adapted to the agency conditions and park use needs in their jurisclic-
tions. It teems all agencies have some type of basic/special services philo-
sophy --they are all supported primarily by taxes and, therefore, provide a
basic service. Special services, especially those which are very expensive
21
Wolf courses, sienss instructional classes, camping, beach/pool operation)
Almost always have a fee, regardless of the agency.. Most agencies 'stated that
in some (or all) program cases, fees are an appropriate way to offset the costs
to -thetaxpayer (and having the actual user of the service help pay for it)
Most of the agencies that charge fees (especially entrance fees) stated fees
help to maintain an-eiement of control. reducing vandalism and discipline problerns (and its some cases increasing appreciation of the resource) In those
Nominal Fee" agencies identified above, keeping fees low to make them afford-
able to ail is an important point.
Although all agencies have a system in place to provide for those who cannot
afford to pay fees (or for special populations), only five; agencies have their
waiver policies in written form (Anoka County --building policy, Carver and
Washington Counties, Hennepin Parks and the MPRB--see Appendix C) These
policies provide waivers/fee adjustments for numerous individuals and groups, including youth, seniors, handicapped and low-income persons.
When formulated, fees and charges are most often based on comparable fees,
public demand and public acceptance. Some agencies consider the capital invest-
ment and operatiohs/maintenance costs involved.
FEE PHILOSOPHY/POLICIES IN OTHER PARK SYSTEMS
As with the regional implementing agencies, inc'ividual fee philosophy/policy
reflects each park and recreation agency's resource limitations, park use needs
and attitudes, and political conditions,
EastBay Regional Park District in Oakland. California, implements entrance,
user, rental and special services fees,. Fees are collected as a supplement to
tax revenue and as a form of rationing; to limit use in "overused" areas. Fees
also maintain an eiement of control that deters vandalism and depreciative
behavior. Fees are based' on comparable pricing and the district strives to
have competitive, prices. An approved waiver policy allows anyone interested to
apply, in writinp, for a fee waiver or adjustment
The Huron -Clinton Metropolitan -Authority in Detroit, Michigan. implements
entrance, user and rental fees as means to raising revenue and supplementingoperationscosts. Although a wr t!;:n waiver policy does not exist, all vehi-
cles with state licenses are admitted, to the parks at no charge. Fees are set
by comparable pricing, and are at moderate levels so as not to .undercut
comparable private facilities in the area.
The Milwaukee County Parks Department in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, does not charge
entrance fees, but does implement user, rental and special services fees. Fees
have evolved from a need to generate supplemental revenue. Fee adjustments
include reduced user fees for seniors and reduced building rentals for civic:,
cultural or educational groups. Fees are increased as the services mprovr
their rates are set moderately so as not to price themselves "Out of the
market.."
The Akron Metropolitan Park District in Akron, Ohio, doe,- not implement
entrance fees (a special beach user fee is in effect at one park), but does
implement a rental fee for picnic shelters. Fees are charged to supplement.
operation costs. Swimming areas and picnic shelters are expensive to operate
and maintain, therefore, a fee is charged in thee areas. No adopted fee.
waiver policy is in effect, although fees have been waived at times for special
uses
22
The Hamilton_ County Park District in Cincinnati, Ohio, charges entrance, user,
rental and special services fees.. Fee's have evolved from a need to generate
revenue., Fees are charged for special services which are more expensive to
provide. Fees or-, often set to cover the costs of specialized services
Entrance fees are set very low and no waiver policy applies. Discounts on user
fees are available to handicapped, seniors and youth groups,
The Maricops County Parks and Recreation Department in Phoenix, Arizona., imple-
ments entrance, user and rental fees. Their fees are a revenue generation
source, but they attempt to keep their fees as low as possible. Fees are
basically !ow and no fee waiver/adjustments are formally in place.
The Minnesota State Park system implements entrance, user and rental fees.
Entrance fees were initiated in the early to mid-1950's as a revenue source.
The great majority of parks were physically capable of supporting a one
entrance/exit fee system. 1n addition to a revenue source, it is believed
that fees tend to foster a sense of appreciation for the facilities, resource
and experience. Since 1982, fee revenue is dedicated to state park operations
and maintenance. Future requested changes in fee structure well be based on a
comparison of revenue and expenditures. Other state park system fees: (compar
able pricing) are also considered. Reduced entrance fees and some user fees
are available to Minnesota seniors and Minnesota handicapped'.
23
IMPACTS OF FEES ON BUDGETS
REGIONAL IMPLEMENTING AGENCY BUDGETS
One common measure of the impact of fees is to calculate the percentage of the
agency's total annual operating budget which can be attributed to fees and
chsrges revenue In the case of the regional implementing agencies, most have
a substantial number of non --regional parks in their respective systems. There-
fore, 1t will be important to examine not only the impact of fees on each
agency's portion of the regional system, but to examine each agency's total fee
impacts within their own system. Table 3 describes an operating budget break-
down for each agency during calendar year 1985. Please note that these figures
are in most cases staff estimates and do not represent board approved figures.
The impact (percent) of fees to regional implementing agency operating budgets
ranges from 0.1 to 19.7 percent. With the exception of W€shington County which
began its entrance fee in 1986 along with the opening of their major facilityLakeElmoParkReserve, those agencies which charge "Moderate Fees"
Bloomington and Hennepin Parks, as explained on page 21) are the only agencies
in the 16-20 percent range. The "Nominal Fee" (see page 2;1) agencies are all
in the 3=11 percent range (with the exception of Ramsey County at Tess than 1
percent). This is illustrated below (Washington County exceptec)
Nominal Fee Acencies Fee Impact Percentages
Ramsey County 0,8
Anoka County 2.9
Dakota County 4.9
MPRB 5.8
Carver County 6.0
St. Paul 11.1
Mean 5.25
Moderate fee Agencies Fee Impact Percentaaes
Hennepin Parks 16.4
Bloomington
Mean 18.1
Overall mean - 8.45
Total agency (including non -regional parks) expe editures and percehtage
impact) of fees range from 0.1 percent to 45.5 percent. Again,, Washington
County had not yet implemented its entrance fee during 1985 (their 0.1 percent
fee revenue is from picnic shelter reservations only). Total agency impact
ranges include Dakota and Carver Counties in the 5-7 percnt range; Hennepin
Parks, Anoka County, St. Paul and the MPRB in the 14-22 percent range; and
24
10perations and Maintenance
2Regional Fee Revenue relates to those activities delineated as "regional" in Table 1, page 5.
30edication of Fee Revenue explained below.
4Total Agency Figures include a breakdwon of estimated annual expenditures and revenues for enterprise funds.
Niennepin Parks is the Suburban Hennepin Regional Park District (SNRPO) which is responsible for the mCnag,ement of regional parks in Scott County.
6MPRB's Total Agency Expenditures, include $5.5 million for shade tree mana.Pyment (removal) on city streets and other public lands St. Paul's includes
1.5 million for this purpose also.
7Entrance fee not yet impleernted in 1985; fee revenue is from picnic s'+:z_;z reservations only.
A
Table 3
FEE IMPACTS ON REGIONAL IMPLEMENTING AGENCY OPERATING BUDGETS, 1985
a
Regional Figures Total Agency Figures
Total Total Tax State Miscel- FY 1986 Is Fee
Regional Regional Regional Total Agency Agency Fee; Agency Revenue Trail Grant laneous 0 6 M Grant Revenue
enc! Expenditures Fee Revenue Percent ExEendi'tures Revenue Percent Estimate Revenue Revenue if used Dedicated?
Anoka County4 S1,040,599 30,6!,4 2.9 S 1,467,184 T 325,909 22.2 S 1,1+02,998 23,985 14,292 Yes, general
Bloomington: 147,481, 29,059 19.7 960,059 338,688 35,3 597,641 92 S 23;638 Yes, general
Carver County 203,054 12,220, 6.0 244,552 17,483: 7,1 191,016 13,254 22,798 No
Dakota County 1,101,482 54,153 4.9 1,11.7,983 56,380 5.0 1,043,899 17,704 Yes, general
Hennepin Parks4'5 7,887,451 1,292,311; 16.4 8,314,376 1,701,712 20.5 5,802,929 42,400 767,355 Yes, specific
Minneapolis Park 4,780,824 277,153 5.8 24,212,7486 3,286,092 13.6 14,2.0,050 6,074,011 552,595 Yes, specific
and Recreation
Board
Ramsey County 1,076,749 9,000 0,8 3,647,1181 1,658,154 45.5 1,834,410 26,288 129;029 No
N,
St., Pau14 2,975,221 330,205 11.1 14,1.13,0176 2,485,921 17.6 8,972,531 2.?98,194 356,371 Yes, some
specific
Washington County 271,783 375.7 0.1 383,210 3757 0.1 380,835 2,000 Yes, some
specific
10perations and Maintenance
2Regional Fee Revenue relates to those activities delineated as "regional" in Table 1, page 5.
30edication of Fee Revenue explained below.
4Total Agency Figures include a breakdwon of estimated annual expenditures and revenues for enterprise funds.
Niennepin Parks is the Suburban Hennepin Regional Park District (SNRPO) which is responsible for the mCnag,ement of regional parks in Scott County.
6MPRB's Total Agency Expenditures, include $5.5 million for shade tree mana.Pyment (removal) on city streets and other public lands St. Paul's includes
1.5 million for this purpose also.
7Entrance fee not yet impleernted in 1985; fee revenue is from picnic s'+:z_;z reservations only.
M
Bloomington and Ramsey ;County in the 35-45 percent range. This is illustrated
below (Washington County excepted) :
Agency Fee Impact Percentage
Dakota County 5.0
Carver County 7.1
MPRB 13.6
St. Paul 17.6
Hennepin Parks 20.5
Anoka County 22.2
Bloomington 35.3
Ramser County iU.
Mean 20.85'
It should be noted that all of the agencies in the illustration above, with the
exception of Dakota and Carver Counties, operate golf courses which produce a
significant portion of their fees revenue. In addition, some agencies operate
other special use facilities which generate significant fee revenue such as
arenas and swimming pools.
Table 3 includes a column entitled "is Fee Revenue Dedicated?" Basic answers
for each agency are included in the table and further explained here. Anoka
County park fees are dedicated back to the Anoka County Parks and Recreation
Dept., Fee revenue generated in Bloomington parks are dedicated directly back
to the specific activity budget from which they were generated. Fee revenue
generated in Carver County parks are deposited into the Carver. County general
fund.. FeO4 generated in Dakota County parks are dedicated back to the Dakota
County Parks Dept. Fees generated in.the MPRB's parks are dedicated,directly
back to the specific activity budget from which they were generated. Ramsey
County park fees are deposited into the Ramsey County general fund. Except for
fees generated from enterprise or internal services funds, fee revenue gener-
ated in St. Paul parks is deposited into the general fund. As Hennepin Parks
is a special park district, the fee reverue generated in their parks goes
directly into their operations budget: beginning in 1985, a portion of their
fee revenue is deposited into a parks rehabilitation trust fund to help main-
tain their capital infrastructure in the future. Fees ganev,ated in Washington
County"'parks are dedicated back to the Washington County Parks Dept. In sum -
mart', Hennepin Parks and the IPRD havedirec control over generated revenue,
the cities of Bloomington and Si. Paul, and Anoka, Dakota, and. Washington
County have some. control over generated revenue, and Ramsey and Carver County
havelittle control over generated revenue.
The initial data collection for this study included the solicitation of infor-
mation on the cost to each agency to collect and administer fees. It was deter-
mined that this information was very complex and difficult to standardize.
Because of limited information aad questionable relative value, the cost of
fees anticharges collection is not included in this study;.
QTHER'PARK SYSTEM BUNETS
The percentage of expenditures which are derived from fees and charges is a
relative measure of the impact fees can have on operating budgets. Thera are a
spectrum of percentage values associated with park and recreation agencies, all
the way from those agencies which charge no fees and are completely reliant on
tax support to those which strive to be self-sufficient from various fees and
charges..
a
2
Those. cgencies which were interviewed as.t. part of this study estimated their
annual fee impact percentage. These are shown below.,
Estimated Annual
Foe Impact
kaency Percentage
East Bay kegional Park District, Oakland, California; 23-25%
Huron -Clinton Metropolitan Authority, Detroit, Michigan 23-25
Milwoukee.County Parks,, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 23-24
Akron Metropolitan Park District, Akron, Ohio 6
Hamilton County Park District, Cincinnati, Ohio 50
Maricopa; County Parks, Phoenix, Arizona 32
Minnesota State Parks 33
27
IMPACTS OF FEES ON USE
Judging; the impact of fees on use is a more subjective task than the previous
portions of this study, i.e., a fees inventory, related agency philosophy, and
budget impacts. Although no absolute measures are available, severalkinds
of information can provide a basis of understanding from which a direction canbeformulated.
IMPACTS ON TOTAL USE
INTRODUCTION
There is no rule that states how fees and charges will affect total use. All
park. and recreation agencies and the clientele they serve are different, with
many variables and non -predictable outcomes as fees are implemented.
An integral aspect affecting how much fees will impact total use is pricing -- the rational behind, method used, and actual cost of the service to the user.
Crompton (1981) examined the many complex variables in pricing leisure servicesandconcluded "Pricing is more art than science." It is fair to assume that
predicting an overall outcome of the impact of fees on total use is in this,
category as well. The only obvious prediction is that if prices are set too
high for the service provided in that particular community, the public will
most likely not accept that rate and not use the facility. This is especiallytrueifcomparable, alternate facilities are available at a lower price.. In
addition to pricing, several other aspects of marketing (including product,
promotion, and place) will affect total use.
Another aspect which complicates the judgment of the impact of fees on total
use is that, user attitudes change over time. These attitudinal changes can be
a result of a changing economy or changing leisure preferences and interest
levels. As a fee is implemented intitially or raised, agencies monitor their
use levels to determine the effect or impact on use (in most cases, calculating
accurate use levels is also a non -exact science).
TWO CASE EXAMPLES: STATE PARKS AND HENNEPIN' PARKS
The entrance fres in the Minnesgta State Park system can be used as an exam-
ple. The Minnesota State Park, system implemented an entrance fee approximately30yearsago. As the entrance fee was raised, attendance generally increased
or remained static. would the parks be used by more people if there were no
entrance fee? Although this is a difficult question to answer, there probably
would not be a great deal more use for the following reasons:
1. Tradition. People have become accustomed to paying for the privilege of
using the state parks. They feel these areas are something special and
entrance fees have reinfored a sense of value in park users.
2. Ueer Mobility and Experience Type. The great majority of State Parks are
outside of the metropolitan area, requiring substantial travel by 50
percent of the state's population. Resource-based parks and many of the
activities offered are typically "destination" oriented. So most users are
willing to travel to recreate in state parks. Once you reach a destina-
tion, a moderate fee is often accepted as part of the experience pursued.
a
28
Those users which can afford to travel (and in many cases afford the
recreational equipment needed for many activities) can afford a,moderate
entrance fee.
3, Improved facilities. By Qenerating fee revenue, the Department of Natural
Resources, State Park, Division, has been able to, demonstrate fiscal respon
siblitiy, which affected their ability to secure operating funds from the
state's general fund prior to 1982. Sinc-t 1982, a dedicated account has
been established whereby fee revenue goes d;rectly into state park opera-
tion and maintenance... The user benefits divec ly by their "investment,"
and return visits are more likely.
Another example are the entrance fees i.n Hennepin Parks. Initiated in 1964,
entrance fees have gradually risen from $.50/daily and $4.50/annually to
3/daily and $15/annually (as of January 1, 1937). Over this time, use has
increased substantially as fac'<ilities and services have improved and interest
in leisure time activities has increased. Again, equally difficult to answer
or perhaps even more sons the question: Would Hennepin parks be used by more
people .if there were no entrance fee? And to carry this one step further, how
would the quality of the recreation experience be affected? With perhaps less
emphasis on the "user mobility -destination" reason, the ideas explored for
state parks are also applicable here.
1 Tradition. There is little doubt that users have become accustomed to
paying an entrance fee in Hennepin parks. In a 1982 survey of regional
park visitors (see Methods and Procedures, page 5), respondents were asked
if park visitors should be charged a fee. At fee areas, between 60 and 80
percent of those who paid the fee, said they thought users should be charged
a fee, while between 65 and 75 percent of the respondents at non -fee areas
felt that users should not be charged a fee. In a 1983 mailed question-
naire to Metropolitan Area residents (see Methods and Procedures, page 5),
respondents were asked if park visitors should be charged a fee to use a)
resource -related parks (typically more like regional parks), and b)
facility -related parks (typically more like municipal parks) .
Respondents residing in the western side of the Metropolitan Area favored
fess more than those in the eastern side._ This was most pronounced in the
developing suburbs and less evident in the urban areas. This supports the
tradition" rationale that people in the western half of the Metropolitan
Area (this is where Hennepir irks and their primary service region are
Located) are accustomed to pz , for retource-based recreation due to
Hennepin Parks' well-establis entrance fee system.
2. User Mobility and Experience Type. Many of Hennepin Parks' units are park
reservos situated on the periphery of the Metropolitan Area. The experi-
ence offered at these park reserves is in may respects similar to the
experience offered in state parks. Users in many cases must be able to
afford transportation and recreational equipment. Therefore, a moderate
fee is acceptable to a high percentage of potential users
3. Improved facilities. Since the establishment of Hennepin Parks as a spec-
ial district In the mid- to let* 1950s, all fee revenue has been dedicated
back into their operating budget. This has resulted in improved and well -
kept faciirties that users have come to expect with the payment of their
entrance fee. In fact, there is merit to the argument that the entrance
fee may have actually increased the number of people using Hennepin Parks b
29
because fee revenue. has been used to upgrade and maintain facilities and
therefore provides a consistent quality experience for the user. Entrance
fees have also reduced discipline problems which negatively affect visitor
experiences and, in many cases, total use.
REGIONAL SYSTEM TOTAL USE AND VISITOR/GENERAL POPULATION OPINIONS
The impact of fees on the total use of parks In "Nominal Fee" agencies (Anoka,
Carver, Dakota and Ramsey Counties, the City of St. Paul, and the Minneapolis
Park and Recreation Board) is probably minimal because these agencies charge
for the most part) no or very low fees. One possible exception may be,
Carver County, which has a low to moderate entrance fee. it should be noted
that all agencies that charge an entrance fee, including Carver County, stated
that the entrance fee has helped to reduce discipline problems (especially
vandalism) and, in many cases, may have helped total attendance.
The impact of fees on the total use of parks in "Moderate Fee" agencies (City
of Bloomington, Hennepin Parks and Washington County) is more difficult to
ascertain. However, indications are that total use is not sillnificantly
affected. The City of Bloomington states Bush Lake beach waslust as "crowded"
before entrance fee implementation as after (also discipline problems have been
reduced, increasing the. quality of experience). Hennepin Parks. as noted
earlier, may have move users than they would have without an entrance fee.
This: k difficult to ascertain. For one thing., their level and quality of
service would be reduced without entrance fees. They would likely have. more
discipline/enforcement problems and may _attract a different clientele without
an entrance fee. Washington County has had its entrance fee in effect less
than one year, so information is not yet available. Initially, however, they
believe that based on comparable services of other agencies, public acceptance
of the need for fees, and a nonexcessive rate that their total use,will not be
significantly affected.
Two recent, Metropolitan Council studies have briefly addressed the opinions of
visitors and the general public related to fees and charges in the regional
system. One of the studies dealing with 1982 recreational surveys in regional
parks (see Methods and Procedures, page 3) has been published (Smith, 1984),
The other study, also outlined in the Methods and Procedures section, involved
a mailed questionnaire to Metropolitan Area residents (Smith. 1983) A summar-
ization of applicable fees and charges information in these studies (which is
not utilized in other sections of this Fees and Charges report) is outlinec
below. The information shown here is generalized; specific information and
further explanations are available in the 1984 publication or through Council
regional park research staff.
82 In -Park Visitor Surveys
The r•esp5ndent was first asked if park visitors should be charged a fee, and
then asked how park agencies should go about solving thz problem of rising
perating costs (respondents chose one of three methodsg increased fess,
increased taxes or reduced services).
in response to ", do you feel that park users should be charged a fee?",
responses were highly variable by type of facility area, with "yes" responses
ranging between 6 and 80 percent. In general, visitors to interpretive areas
r
30
reacted most favorably to the idea of fees, with picnic -swimming areas next and
trails last. Respondents with higher incomes were generally more in favor of
fees.
In response to choosing the most appropriate way to meet increased operating
costs, raising fees a"4 raising taxes were more popular choices than reducing
services..
A willingness to pay question indicated respondents were willing to pay a.
modest fee increase in areas that currently charged a fee. Respondents who did
not pay a fee tended to place,a lower dollar value. on their visit than those
who did pay a fee (this reinforces the idea that fees tend to foster a sense of
appreciation and value in the recreational experience provided).
1983 Mailed Questionnaire Survey
The responses to two questions in this survey should be summarized here; again,
these relate to charging a fee and methods of meeting operating costs.. Respon-
dents were asked in separate questions whether a fee should be charged for:
I. Resource-based Parks --"contains a beach, a picnic area, some hiking,
biking and ski trails, a boat launch on a lake and naturalist program."
2. Facility -based Parks --"contains ball fields, a skating rink, some tennis
courts, a playground end a recreation center for indoor sports and
programs."
The resource-based parks description is that of typical regional park activi-
ties; the facility -based park description is that of typical municipal park
activities. The percent of responses are indicated below;
I think people should be charged'a fee to use:
Resource -Based Facility -Based
Response Parks (percent) Parks (percent)
Strongly agree 7% 10%
Agree 25 30
Neither agree nor disagree 13 14
Disagree 34 29
Strongly disagree 17 12
Don't know 5 5
For rerource-based parks, 32 percent of respondents were in favor of fee, and
51 percent opposed fees (remainder undecided). For facility -based parks,
opinion was basically tied at 40 percent in favor and 41 percent opposed
remainder undecided)
r
31
The following questions and corresponding response related to meeting operatingcostswasalsoapartofthe1983survey;
I think the most appropriate way to meet increased park operating costsisto
Response Percent
Increase user fees 51%
Increase taxes 16
Reduce services 11
Increase efficiency 6
Solicit donations 4
Reallocate funds 2
Other g
Don't know 4
Half of the respondents felt that increasing user fees was the most appropriate
way to meet increased park operating costs In general support for increased
user fees was higher and support for tax increases lower the further
respondents live from the'urbar centers.
Surprisingly, there is not a significant variation in this response related to
household income. User fee increases and tax increases are favored somewhat
more by higher household income respondents and a reduction of services was
more often favored by lower household incomes.
IMPACTS ON PATTERN OF USE
Due to a number of variables, distinguishing a pattern of use in regional parks
based on fees alone is not feasible. Variable and often complex reasonings
enter into each ;person's decision to.use one facility rather than another: fees
and level of fees are only one of those variables that enter into tOe decision
other examples are distance and time involved, accessibility, facilities/ activitiesoffered, resource base, condition of facilities or quality ofprogram, etc.). In -park visitor surveys conducted in 1978 and again in 1982
indicate there is a general east -west pattern of use in regional parks, i.e.,
visito.Ps who reside in the western half of the region tend to use western
facilities and vice versa. By .park, the percent of users from outside the
jurisdiction of each implamenting agency is highly variable (4 to 83 percent)
and is most often associated with park location and facilities offered.
In the "Nominal Feel' park agencies, one theoretical effect low or nominal fees
might have is that these areas might attract some users from further away thatresidein "Moderate Fee" implementing agency jurisdictions. For example,
persons residing in Scott and Washington County (which have entrance fees) maytraveltoadjacentDakotaCounty ,(which does not have entrance fees) to usetheircomparablefacilities. This is a theoretically example only, and no data
or strong argument can be made to conclude that such a condition exists, or
that such t condition might exist in the future.
For the most part, those agencies that charge an entrance fee have qualityfacilitiesinparksthatarephysicallycapableofsupportinganentrance: fee.
With ,the exception of Washington County parks, where the impact of fees is het
to be evaluated, users have generally demonstrated a willingness to pay the
entrance and other fees in order to use the facilities or participate in the
programs_.
r
32
If any fee would affect the pattern of use in regional parks, it would most
likely bean entrance fee. It must be recognized that not all regional parks
are developed to the same degree as those that currently have an entrance fee.
As major capital investments are made in quality regional recreation open
space services, each nonentrance fee agency must determine if that level is
comparable to the level in entrance fee agency parks. If no comparable
entrance fee is charged for a comparable service, the agencies may actually end
up being •n competition with each other.
IMPACTS ON THE ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED AND OTHER GROUPS
INTRODUCTION
Like the other portions of the "Impacts of Fees on Use" section of this report,
defining the impact of fees and charges in the regional park system on specific
groups will be as challenging task. Again, no absolute measures are available:
an attempt will be made to provide a basis of understanding and to formulate
basic directions related to this subject.
Although .all fees will to some degree affect the use of park and recreation
facilities, the entrance fee is potentially the most restrictive. In addi;i=on,
although many segments of the population are potentially affected by the impo-
sition of fees (mostly disadvantaged groups), none are potentially more
affected than the low-income groups, The scope of this section of the report
will focus on these two variables: entrance fees and low-income. or poverty
level. groups.. A separate report, currently scheduled to be completed during
1987, will evaluate existing use and possible barriers to use of the reg'.-Nnal
parks by disadvantaged populations.
A Metropolitan Directions Report, titlec+'"Disadvantaged Populations in the 'win
Cities Metropolitan Area," was publish A in 1986 by the. Metropolitan Council
Smith, et &1., 1986). Several statistics and conclusions that were formulated
in the "Disadvantaged Populations" report .will be, referenced throughout this
sect iOn.
The following excerpts taken from the 1986 "Disadvantaged Population" study
provide a definition of poverty as well as an estimate of the size of the
poverty population in the Twin Cities Area:
The discussion of poverty in this report will center around the number
of people living in households with incomes below the official poverty
level. This measure was developed in 1964 and is roughly three times
the income required to feed households of various sizes and ages, as
adjusted each year ,y changes in the Consumer Price Index. For a fam-
ily of four, the 1979 federal poverty level was $7,356. For a family
with a single parent and eight children under 18, the poverty level
was $14,024. For an elderly person living alone, it was $3,479. The
census income measure includes receipt of money other then wages and
salaries (for example,, child support and public assistance) but not
non -money transfers such as food stamps, health benefits or public
housing.
33
In 1979, there were 130,906 persons in the seven -county Metropolitan
Area living in households with incomes below the official poverty
level.. That was 6.6 percent of the total population. In 1969, 6.6
percent of the total population lived below the poverty line, indicat-
ing little or no change over the last decade. In 1979, the 10 -county
Twin Cities Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area(l) (SMSA) had the
smallest percent of population living in poverty of the nation's 25
Largest SMSAs.
l)The 10 -county Twin Cities SMSA consists of Anoka, Carver, Chisago,
Dakota, Hennipin, Ramsey, St. Croix (Wisc.), Scott, Washington and
Wright Counties.
The study forther, reported that of .!z total 139,491 people living it, povertyin1980 (10 -county SMSA), over 50 at;. int of them were from the following threedisadvantagedgroups: minorities (racial and ethnic), the elderly (nonminori-
ties), and in single --parent families (norminor'ity, nonelderly). People with
disabilities are considered a disadvantaged population, but because no reliable
figure of their numbers is available, they vaere not included in this particular
calculation.
REGIONAL IMPLEMENTING AGENCY FEE ADJUSTMENT POLICY
As stated in the "Fees Philosophy and Policy" portion of this report, it i
important that park and recreation agencies fully develop their fees philosophy
and adopt written fee policy statements that include a position statement on
fee waivers, discounts and special considerations (see page 16). A summariza-
tion of each implementing agency's policy regarding fees andfeeadjustments
for special populations is included in the "RegionalImplementing Agency FeesPhilosophies" section of this report (pages 17-21), and is further explained
below.
Anoka County
Although Anoka County does not have a comprehensive statement regarding fee
waivers, reductions or special considerations, their Islands of Peace ReceptionCenter (located in Anoka County Riverfront Regional Park) buildingusepolicy
states:
It is the intent of the Parks and Recreation Department that the
Center be utilized to its maximum for the following purpose pnd under
the stated priority: To provide the public and organizations, especi-
ally the handicapped and elderly, with a special facility within Anoka
County for their own self-directed programs
This facility is heavily used by special populations and is available at no
charge.
A study of reservable group picnic facilities_in the *,,tropolitan Area
Srholen, 1985) concluded that 2,739 people had used the reservable picnic
facility (Located near the reception center building) in ._,. >ps during '1985.
Over 60 percent of the groups resr.rving the picnic facility were senior citizen
34
MEL
or disabled groups. Total annual use a~ the Islands of Peace portion of Anoka
County Riverfront Regional Perk is approximately 19,000 visits, with Anoka
County prog,ram,staff estimating 80 percent of that use by special poi.urati ns.
Anoka Count} also waives fees nor special population groups that are applying
for specialuse permits,; examples are youth groups, special olympics, events and
groups -from nursing homes. Senior citizens receive reduced rates on weekday
go l f fees,.
It should be noted that except for Lake George beach, Anoka County doss not
yet) charge entrance fees. Their fees are low; in fact, they are the only
i plementing agency that does not charge a tee, for reservable picnic shelters
Low or no fees (includes all "Nominal Foe" agencies) must be taken into con-
sideration when evaluating the impact of fess on low-income groups
8l opmI nQton
Although no written :policy regarding fees or fee waivers exists, individuals
who request a reduction or waiver on the basis of not being able to pay are
referred to, Hennepin County Outreach and Referral located in the City of
Bloomi%ton Creekside, Center. There, fee adjustments are recommended tr the
City of Bloomington park director on an individual basis. So far, no i auiries,
regarding fee adjustments for the Bush Lake beach area (the manly regional park
c. *a operated by the City of Bloomington which 'has a fee) have been sade..
Inquieies regarding gee adjustments for municipal facilities and programs hive
been made, and in all cases the, parks director has followed the racom,,aandation
of Hennpp n County Outreach and Referral=
It should be noted that because of Bloomington's location (in Hennepin County),
and their entrance gree reciprocity agreement with Hennepin Forks, all persons
on public assistance in this area are included in the Hennepin Parks free
annual permit program (see T:;--nnetpin Parks, page: 36) .
Senior citizens do hot pay an entry -user fee at flush Lake beach.
Carver Count
In the spring of 198.7, the Ca -ver Cout.y board will consider the fees policy
statement oiltlined in Appendix G. If adopted as draftzd, their policy would,
upon group request, consider reducing or waiving fees. This would include but.
not be lim!Ud to the following groups: chari'able nonprofit, property or
income tax supported, educational and religious
Carver County has att mn'ted to keep fees Tow in orelar to make their parks
affnrdable by all.
Dakota County
Other than a general equal opportunity statement regarding park use, Dakota
County does not have a written policy regarding fee adjustments. Scing a
nominal fee" agency, Dakota County iias eiti:er no or very low feel. The major
fee that Dakota County has implemented is the beach fele at Sehultz Beach in
Lebanon Hills Regional lark. In order to facilitate those with low incomes,
evert, Wednesday throughout thy: beach season access to the beach area is free.
35
NRnneoin Parks
Hwn!o*pin Parks policy provides that the board may approve fee waivers upon
determination that such arrangements will provide benefits in the public
interest (see Appendix C) All applicants who apply and qualify receive fee
waivers or adjustments. An i.ntrance fee is charged to enter all HwI-Aepin
Parks} however, the first Tuesday of each month is free, and seniors: receive a
50.percert discount on entrance permits.
The post impressive facet of the. Hennepin Parks policy regarding fee waivers is
their "Parks for All People" program. Each year, a stamped postcard: offering a
free annual pass is mailed to families on economic assistance in Hennepin andScottCounties (see Appendix 0). For example, this card was mailed Lo approxi-
mately 26,000 families in Hennepin and Scott Counties with, their May 1986 eco-
nomic assistance check. Approximately 1,,953 free annual permits were issued as
a result of this program in 1986 (the low return rate may be the result of the
fact that many Dow -income persons cLnnot afford to own an automobile). The
illustration below demonstrates that in 1985, the permits issued in the Parks
for Ali People program accounted for approximately 8,.5 percent of all annual
permi is i ssaed
Estimate of Hennepin Parks Annual Permits Issued'ir 1985
Permit_ Type Fee Number Percent
Regular $12 14,923 73.2%
Second Car 6 1,732 8.5
Senior 6 692 344
Protnot:ional Discount 10 835 4.0
Member Companies (MERSC) 10 491 2..4
Parks for All People 0 1.2i 8.5
Total 20,398 100.0%
Minnesoolis Park and Recreation Boa, -d MPRB
Entrance to all regional parks administered by this agency is free. Othnr
regional fees are, basically nom1...'+, Fee adjustments in thi3 system are limed
primarily at the."inner city," n-, e-ogional no'--hborhood and community parks
The MPRB adopted a program fee policy in 1982 ;see Appendix C). Clearly,.
service to low-income and disadvantaged groups is focused at the neighborhood-
co+mtiunity level. In youth programs, no child is denied the right to parti-
cipate in sports activities for economic reasons. Fees for the majority of
programs are set to cover th%, cost of materials and supiNlies while, recrestir-,1
center budgets are set to coyer the cost of instructors.
Fourteen "compensatory service parks" in the, inner city receive additional
funds for instructors. and supplies. Many of these compensatory service centers
are working directly with either a large minority population or the economic-
ally disadvantaged. The majority of recreation centera throughout the city
have.programing for senior citizens including trips, cards, aerobics. crafts.
Swimming, ceramics and picnics. Programs for the handicapped take place at
over a dozen facilities including Theodore Wirth Regional. Park. Activities
include ceramics, tennis clinics, bicycle riding. aerobics, cooking, cross-
country skiing rosscountry-skiing and various -ports activities. The MPRB hosts a deaf golf tour-
nwent innJJuly and co-sponsors recreational events with the special Olympics.
36
1
Ramsey County
Ramsey County has no comprehensive written fees. policy. The few regional fees
they implement are very low. Entrance to all parks is free. Picnic shelter
fees are sometimes walved for youth groups, and a reduced golf fee rate is
available for seniors and the handicapped,.
1x. Pau I
Entrance to St.. Paul parks is free. Fees that are 'Implemented are very low.
Similar to the PPRB program, special programming and; compensatory- budgeting to
targeted inner city (nonregional) recreation centers is aimed at encouraging
the economically disadvantaged to participate. Program fees ares -iometir..es
eliminated i n recreation centers situated in low-income areas. t- eograms for
seniors and the handicapped are emphasized at 12 neighborhood centers in
proximity to senior concentrations.
Washinaton County
Washington. County recently implemented an entrance fee and has, a documented flee
waiver/adjustment policy (see Appendix C) Waivers/adjustments are available
to individuals or groups on the basis of financial need. charitable.effort. or
where volunteer or other services are being received by the couF.ay. In addi-
tion, discounts/waivers are available to agencies thyt provide recreational and
educational; services to youth, seniors and special populations.
Washington County has an annual permit reciprocity agreement with Hennepin
Parks. like, Hennepin Parks, entrance to all parks is free the firr6 Tuesday of
each month.
Summary
All regional park implementing agencies are cogntizent of the concern over the
imric" of fees and charges on the economically disadvantaged and other groups.
In one way or another, they nave all made an effort at providing service to
these groups through fee waivers; reductions or adjustments. On a regional
level,.methods include maintaining no or very low fees, periodically offering
free entrance days in parks or to facilities that; have entrance fees or entry -
user fees, policies allowing app'1;cation fnr waivers/adjustments, providing
free facilities targeted at special groups, and offering free annual passes to
people on economic assistance. On a rion-region,-1 level, litany agencies offer
cnmpensated programming in targeted areas.
In general, those agencies that have the most developed fees and fee waiver/
adjustment policies are those that implement entrance fees.
USE OF REGIONAL SYSTEM BY THE ECONOMiC,f,w:aY DISADVANTAGED
Median Income of Current Park Lsers
The 1982 in -park surveys were conducted in selected regional parks (repre-
sent,
ir
nq representingroughlyhalfoftheexisting; system). These parks were not chosen at
random, rather they were chosen to represent a spectrum of regional park use.
So although the data are the result of random visitor selection in the parks
involved, generalization, or "averaging" for the whole system is not valid.
With this in mind, a table of respondent household income from the 1982 survey
37
is shown in Appendix, E. The median household Income for respondents is
reported by park (in addition to regional, parks, tht table includes sever -al
private and statefacilities),.
Generally, the median income of respondents is over the median household levelfortheregion. By'area type (Picnic -swim areas, bike -hike traits, campgrounds
SM interpretive areas). there is little difference in median figures thatrangebetween $24.000 and $26,000 (for comparison purposes. the 1930 regionalmedianincome,was S21,100 --see Appendix E), The median income level of
I
users
at three regianal Parks Was below the regional median (Keller, Harriet island
and Grass-Vadnait) and at or only slightly above the median at five others
Minn*baha, Phalan, Como Park trails, Theodore Wirth Butler Gardens and CrosbyFarm).,
It should be noted th3t finding the socioeconomic characteristics of park and
recreation area users to be at or slightly above the median income levelevel for
the respective service region is not unique to the Metropolitan. Area regional
parks system. According to the 1985 Minnesota State Comprehensive OutdoorRecr;aation Plan (SCORP--currently being published), Minnesotans in higher
income classes participated in more outdoor recreation time than those in the
lower income classes (based, on 1978-1980 information), whether viewed on a per
capita basis or a per household basis. On a per capita basis, recreation
participation time consumed rose by a factor of three from the lowest to
I. highest income bracket. on a per household bas"is, the highest income
households accounted for, a disproportionately large share of the total
recreation time (households earning $25,000 and over constituted 30.5 percent
of the population and consumed 45.3 percent of the total outdoor recreation
time), and the lowest income households for a disproportionately small sharehouseholdsearning $10,000 and under constituted 27-1 percent of the
population and consumed 8.6 percent of the total outdoor recreation time).
Economically disadvantaged persons are likely not, using the regional parks in
proportion to their percentage of the population (the form of the 1982, in -park
survey data did not allow this calculation). There are many possible reasons
for this including:
I. Loioincome means there is less discretionary income available to purchase,
recreational equipment, pay entrAnce or user fees, if Aipplicable, or to be
able t afford to transport -oneself to the recreation area (see next point).
2. Low income probably means less mobil-itY because of costs related to
transportation.
3. Low income may mean there is more time devoted to work. and family and lessdiscretionarytiffieavailabletopursuerecraationalporsults.-
4, Low 'income means behavioral and lifestyle differences, which may includelowself-esteem, hopelessness, isolation. There may also be a related lack
of interest/incentive to participate in activities such as tho-e provide
in regional parks.
54 Lawincomepersons may not be aware of recreational opportunities that are
available.
arriers to Participation for the Economically Disadvantaged
All of the above reasons or points could be considered barriers to recreational,
participation A survey in which questionnaires were mailed to hetropoitan
Alre& residents, in 1983 (see Methods and Procedures, Page 5) provides basic
information that re Fates to some of the reasonings outlined above.
The 1983 survey asked respondents if they were interested, by activity, in 58
different recreational activities. The respondent could choose one of three:
options;
1. No. I am not interested in this activity,
2, lies, I am interested and l participate about as often as I want to.
3 YES, I am interested, BUT l do not participate as often as I would like.
For the "YES, BUT" k,ption, respondents were asked to cF,00se One of 12 reasons
or write in other reasons)
for the purposes of the "Fees and Charges"' study, 12 typical regional park
activities were chosen from the 58 recreational activities in the 1983 survey.
The responses pertaining to the 12 activit os were then analyzed according to
household income, specifically, for respondents below thefederalpoverty level
and for respondents above the federal poverty level. The results can be
reviewed in Appendix F. It should be noted that because of the !,*urvey format,
of income categories, the respondents shown as "below the federal poverty
level" will include a small percentage of those respondents slightly above the
1979 federal poverty level. For the purposes of this study, the information in
this form will "et our needs, and will account for the responses of many of
the. "near poor" end "working poor."
The 12 activities analyzed were fishing, swimming at a beach, informal nature
study, rormal nature study, nonpower boating, power- boating, snowmobiling;, pic-
nicking, camping, biking in parks, walking in harks and cross-country skiing..
Considering this information, the following conclusions :right be drawn:
In "all activities except snowmobiling, respondents below the poverty level
were "less interested" in these activates than those above the poverty
level. The most pronounced differences in "interest"' were in cross-country
skiing, biking in parks, walking in parks and swimming at a beach. This
should be considered with caution, since the "interest" bevel of all 58
activities. in general, was less for those persons with the lowest
incomes. There are also complex social issues involved: see Discussions
and Conclusions, page 45
In most activities, a higher Percentage of respondents above the poverty
level said they were interested in the activity and oartici'oated as often
as they wanted to. The four exceptions to this were informal ;and formal
nature study, snowmobiling and picnicking. The percentage of respondents
who felt their respective a_O vity needs for these four activities were
being satisified was about the same for both groups.
39
In relation to regional activity needs thiLNt were unsatisfied, there is no
discernible, significant pattern in the barriers to participationlisted
when trying to compare the below and above poverty level groups. Consis-
tently. both groups chose, "Toa busy in General" and "Too Busy with Other
Free Time Acttvities" as barriers, followed by "Too Expensive" and, to a
lesser extont, "Too For Away.`'
In analyzing the: "Too Expensive" barrier, it should be noted that "too
expentive" could be related to several factors, including the cost to travel to
the recreation area, the cost of investing in equipment to participate, and/or
the cost of Rntranee or user fees. With the exception of fishing, the below
poverty level respondents chose "too expensive" as a barrier more often than
the above poverty level respondents. However, these differences are not sig-
nificant, usually less than l percent. Tha: only differences that were above 1
percent were those for nonpower boating, cross-country skiing. and camping
possibly reflecting the higher costs involved in these equipment -oriented
activities.
Obviously, the major barrier to participation is the lack of income that is
needed to overcome poverty conditions. Once a nonpoverty'level status is
attained, interest and inc-ntive might well be; restored, and participation
levels raised. For further discussion, see Discussion and Conclusion, page
45. A study scheduled to be conducted during 1987 will examine disadvantaged
population participation, leisure interests and barriers to participation.
GEOGWAPHiC DISTRIBUTION IN RELATION TO REGiONAL PARK SERVICES
Information available from the 1980 J.S. Census and presented in the
Disadvantaged Populations" study reveals that the majority of disadvantaged
groups in the %etropolitan Area are concentrated in the cities of Minneapolis
and St. Paul. Although enly 32 percent of the seven -county Metropolitan Area
total Population resides in the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul,_ the fol-
lowing "percent of total" concentrations for disadvantaged groups is signifi-
cantly
ignif -
cantly higher:
In Metropolitan Area.
Percent Residing in
Minneapolis/St. Paul
Total Population 32t
Minorities (Racial and Ethnic) 71
below 19"19 Poverty Lc; l 58;
Elderly (Over- 60) 49
Transit -Disabled 55*
Work -Disabled 42*
Female -Headed Single -Parent Families 4i-6oYn*
Precise figures not available;, these figures represent the percent of
persons who identified themselves as transit- or work -disabled in the
1980 Census.
Variance as reported by age group in "Disadvantaged Pnpulations" study.
LA
In further examining the distribution of persons below the federal poverty
lever in 1979. the following figures are available:
Number of Persons
Below the Federal
Poverty Level, 1979 Percent
Anoka County 8.917 6.8
Carver County 2,166 1.7
Dakota County 8.280 6.3
Hennepin County, 20.544 15.7
excl. Minneapolis
City of Minneapolis 48.029 36-7
Rswsey County, 7.582 5..8
excl. St. Paul
City of St.. Paul 28.294 21.6
Scott County 2.345 1.8
Washington County 4.148 3.6
130.906 100.0
These figure, show than the majority of disadvantaged persons in the Twin
Cities Metropolitan Area reside in the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul.
Referring back to 7igure l (page 12), entrance'fees are not charged. in regional
parks in these two cities. Both implementing agencies in these areas ars
nominal fae" agencies, charging no or very low fees. In addition, the
Regional Implemeiting Agency Fee Adjustment Policy", section (pages 34-17),
explains compensatory programs and facilities t rgeted at disadvantaged groups
these are primarily in nonregional, neighborhood/ community centers where the,.
great majority of "programming" takes place) by both of these agencies.
Objective ^.9 of the Metropolitan Council's Recreation_Open Space Development
Guide/Policy Plan states:
Identify sites, prepare master plans and acqui54tion and development
strategies for new regional parks in St. Paul and Minneapolis and the
first-ring suburbs
Master plans for two regional parks that are in close proximity to concentra-
tions of disadvantaged populations are near completion: North Mississippi
Regional Park in north Minneapolis/Brooklyn Center and Li;lydals-Harriet Island
Regional Park just south of downtown St. Paul. Approval of both plans is
pending (although the master plan for the North Miss;ssippi park is essentially
complete, the feasibility of the park is yet to be determined), The Harriet
Island and Cherokee Heights portions of Li'lydale-Harriet. Island Regional Pork
are currently open to the public and used quite heavily. There are currently
15 regional park units in the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul (see Appendix
G). In general these are among the, 'most heavily-used parks in the Metropoli-
tan Area, receiving an estimated 5.5 milliosl visits annually, over 65 percent
of the total regional part, ,system use.
As can be seen in Figure 1. those units of the regional park system outside of
the core cities are geographically Interspersed, not only to accommodate
regional use in all areas, but to preserve native geomorphic and landscape
examples. These examples are often situated along the periphery of the
Metropolitan Area in the. larger park reserves
41
1S
ti
SENIOR CITIZEN DISCOUNTS,
The senior citizen discount is perhaps the ,host widely used fee discount inparkandrecreationagencyfeestructures. The Regional Recreation Open SpaceSystemisnoexception --several senior citizen discounts (or waivers) are, offered by the implementing agencies.
The senior citizen discount was established by fee-for-service agencies becauseseniorcitizenshavetraditionallybeenalaw -income sector of the populationand, as a whole, were less able to afford fees. As recently 91as1 0, the per - cant of persons aged 65 and over who lived below federal 'poverty level stand- ards was 24.5 percent, essentially t+ice the rate of all persons --l_2.6 percentthesearenationalU.S. Census figures). White the poverty rate of all per- sons has remained static (both nationally and regionally) between 1970 and1980, the poverty level of those persons 65 and over have improved dramatic, ally. The illustration below shows this reduction in senior povery levelsduringthedecadeat36percentnationallyand48percentregionally.
Percent: of Population Below the Federal Poverty Level
National National Regional RegionalAllPersons65+ All Persons 65+
1970 12.6% 24.5% 6.6% 19.4i98o13.0 15.7 6.6 10.11983. 15.2 14.1 Not Available Not Available
Note that on a national level, U.S. Census figures estimate that seniors cur- rently (1983) have a lower poverty rate than nonseni.ors. Comparable regionalfigureswillnotbeavailablo. until after the 1990 Census. As documented intheEconomicReportofthetient11985), the economic status of the elderlyrelativetothenonelderlyhasbeenimprovingsteadilysince1950.. That reportstates
Thirty years ago the elderly were a relatively disadvantaged group in thepopulation. That is no longer the case. The median real income of theelderlyhasmorethandoubledsince1950, and the income of the elderly hadincreasedfasteroverthe. past two decades than the income of the non -
elderly }population,. Today, elderly and nonelderly families have aboutequallevelsofincomepercapitaPovertyratesamongtheelderlyhavedeclinedsodramaticallythatin1983povertyratesfortheOderlywerelowerthanpovertyratesfortherestofthepopulation.
The question of whether senior citizen discounts should continue to be avail- able if seniors actually have a Lower poverty rate is the subJect of sev"ralrecentarticlesinpark: and. recreation journals and periodicals. Crompton1984) states that those over 65 years of age are now on the average no morelikelytobepoor- (below poverty level) than the non -aged. He further statesthatofficialpovertystatisticsexcludethevalueofnoncashbenefitssuchasMedicare, food stamps and subsidized housing, and that in terms of real incomepercapita (income adjusted to remove the increase attributable to inflation, per person), the elderly are currently better off than the nonelderly.. Crompton concludes that senior citizens constitute one of the fastest growingparkandrecreationmarkets, and that "continuing to give them indiscriminate.
section of this report.
1.9
price discounts will inflict an increasing and inequitable burden of subsidy on
all other citizens." Crowpton,cautioned the reader to review local and
regional data regarding the economic status of seniors in each particular area
before formulating policy decisions.
The "Disadvantaged Popustudy recognises this remarkable reduction in -
poverty levels for sen ars iia the post decade. While all other disadvantaged
groups increasedtheir median family incomes at a lesser rate than the popu-
lation as a whole, the elderly median income increased at an equal or greater
rate. One of the major trends in the data reported on page 19 of the report
states, "Elderly have fared better than the young and middle-aged groups. Both
the rate and number of elderly people in poverty have declined significantly."
A recent article that appeared in the St. Paul Pioneer Press (Spencer, 1986)
concluded that the young are less well off than the elderly in terms; of family
income. The article reported calculations made by the U.S. Census Nreau's
Paul Ryscavage that underscored how poorly young couples have done compared to
older couples. Between 1973 and 1984, both the Consumer Price index and the
average income of all married couples went up 134 ptl°t:'(Wt- By age group,
however, Ryscavage reported the following differences in the average increase
in income
Aae-Bracket of Couples dean Income Increase (Percentage)
25-34 120%
35-44 130
45-54 133
55-64 142
65+ 172
The article concluded that Census Bureau officials and other economists
attribute the increase in real income for the aged to a 20 percent increase in
Social Security voted by Congress in 1972, along with annual SoLial Security
cost -of -living increases.
Senior citizens are more likely to own their own home or dwelling than any
other ige group. The U.S.. Department of Housing and Urban Development esti-
mates that about 60 percent of all elderly households are homeowners with no
mortgage deb (U.S. D.H.U.D., 1985). The largest single expense a person or
household has is often rental or mortgage payments. For the seniors who own
their own homes, this expense is eliminated, allowing more discretionary
income. It should be noted, however, that housing -related costs such as prop-
erty taxes, home' maintenance, and utilities must still be paid by the home-
owner. For sensors with low income:;, these costs can consume a substantial
portion of their income,
Tcdrick (1986) examined fees philosophy, the delivery of services to the aged,
and other factors that stay enter the decision to reduce rates for seniors
beyond the relative income or poverty level measures. He stated that policies
should reflect the economic conditions of the individual jurisdictions and
subgroups within these jurisdictions. "Veteranshi.p,."I the idea that seniors
have served their communities in many ways over their lives (including volun-
teer services), was stressed as a valid consideration for offering senior
discounts.
In evaluatioo senior discount policy in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area,
several considerations must be made., It ;i; obvious that the income of the
elderly as_s a whole has dramatically improved over the past decade, If current
trends continue, it is conceivable that the elderly will have a lower poverty
rate than the nonelderly bl the time the 1990 Census is conducted. Policy-
makers_must recognize. howrwer that in 1980 a significant share of the total;
6,6 percent (130,906 persons) of the Metropolitan Area population living in
poverty were aged 65 or over. The elderly constituted 13 percent (17,018 per
sons) of those in poverty, slightly higher than their population share 088,207
persons or 9.5 percent), Pockets of poverty exist for the elderly just as they
do for all other segments of the population. Two types of eligibility for fee
discounts/waivers/adjustments are common: categorical eligibility and Income.
eligibility. In the past, most service providers that offered senior discounts
justified providing them on an income eligibility basis. If this is the case
and seniors become, in fact, less impoverished', the senior discounts violate
the principal of horizontal equity (equals should be treated the same).
Policymakers do have the option of providing for a categorical eligibility
based on the concept of "veteranship" or in order to maximize the use of the
service by this segment of the market..
This report does not make any recommendations on this issue other than docu-
menting current information ant identifying trends. Regional implementing
agencies and other fee-for-service agencies should be aware of existing condi-
tions and current trends in formulating policy decisions. The leisure industry
must analyze the senior market not only because of equity in fee structures
more importantly,; they must recognize that this age group is prof ec ei to grow
continually over the next two decades and to increase dramatically between 2010
and 2020. They will represent the fastest growing segment of our population.
This segment of the population traditionally has more discretionary time avail-
able for recreational pursuits than any other group. They will increasingly
become a major market share of all leisure services, and their political power
will be substantial.. The fees issue.is only one aspect of senior citizens and
their use of park, and recreation services.
basic service. Special services-, especially those which are very expensive
a
21'
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
cause Bruch of the discussion and related conclusions has been worked into the
text of this report, this section will be brief, and in !zany cases will serve;
as an expanded summary.
Three of the nine regional implementing agencies charge agency -wide entrance
fess for their regional parks. Common to most regional implementing agencies
are rental fees for equipment and/or facilities and user fees for camping,
beach swimming, etc. Special services fees, mostly for various instructional
programs (lessons, classes, 'naturalist -led activities), are implemented by four
implementing agencies.The fee charged, to enter the Como Park Conservatory is
the. only admission fee in the regional park system-. All fee levels appear to
be basically consistent with the level of services offered. Although it is
difficult to compare the regional system to other park and recreation systems
because of differences. in administration. service levels, and public attitudes,
our regional system fees appear to be basically consistant with the other park
systems which were included in this study.
For the purposes of describing a prevailing regional implementing agency fees
policy, the agencies were divided into two groups Nominal Fee agencies strive.
to provide their services at low or no cost (St. Paul, Minneapolis Park and
Recreation Board, and Anoka County, Carver, Dakota and Ramsey Counties).
Moderate Fee agenciss believe fees are a responsible and necessary means to
supplement taxes and their fees are intended to cover a portion of expenses
Bloomington, Hennepin Parks and Washington County). The services of all
agencies are supported primarily by taxes and the agencies follow a basic/
special services philosophy in varying degrees. Most agencies believed fees
were an appropriate way to offset taxes (again in varying degr&es), and main-
tain an element of control in their parks. Most agencies set their fee levels
based on comparable fees, public demand, and public acceptance; some also
considered the capital investment involvedand the related operation and
maintenance costs.
The percentage of agency annual operating budgets which can be attributed to
recreational fees was examined for the regional portion of each agency as well
as the \total agency. For regional operating budgets (1985), tcq_inal FeeFee
agencies were in the 3-10 percent ranges, and Moderate Fee ager: ias were in the
15-20 percent range. When analyzing each agoncy's total percent, ge figure,
which included that agency's regional and non -regional parks, tho ranges were
not as easily grouped by Nominal or Moderate Fee agencies.. Fees produced a
range of 5 to 45 percent of total agency operating budgets. Nominal Fee
agencies Dakota County, Carver County, the Minneapolis Park and Recrection
Board and St. Paul were in the 5-18 percent range. Hennepin Parks and Anoka
County were in the 20-22 percent range, and the city of Bloomington and Ramsey
County were in the 35-45 percent range. In terms of budget impacts on the
agency's total budgets, the nominal/moderate fee classifications are not as
valid in all cases. However, in terms of the regional system and regional
implementing agency philosophies/budget impacts, the nominaijmoderate fee
classifications arer appropriate. It should be noted that golf courses were
most often the major revenue producer for all agencies which were included in
this study (regional implementing agencies. as well as other park and recreation
systems) . Golf courses often breakeven or show a profit (or "contingency"
which then offsets the cost of providing other services); this is the major
reason for Anoka and R*msey Counties having such high percentage rates (both
were regional Nominal Fee agencies).
r
Determining; the actual impact of fee.i on use is a complex task involving many
variables; it is beyond the scope of this report. However, available informa-
tion does provide a basic understanding of the current situation. Because the
existing.foes are low or moderate, the impact of fees on the total use of thy:
regional park system is probably low., The major fee which could conceivably
have a significant impact on use are entrance fees. Howover, after examining
several aspects of entrance fees which were initially smplemented in two
systems several years ago (Minnesota State Parks and Hennepin Parks), it, seems
reasonable to conclude that: once fees are accepted by the public and are kept
at moderately low level*, users tend to appreciate the experience (in terms of
value) and expect, a certain level of service once they have paid their entrance
fee. in these systems, total use (in terms of numbers) may not. be signifl-
cantly affected, however, it seems these systems have developed'a clientele, or
market, which may be substantially different than the clientele without an
entrance ftt. In either case, they are providing a major leisure service to a
sapient of the population, and user/entrance fees allow then" to maintain a
higher quality level of service.
Studies conducted in 1982 and 1983 indicate that while the majority of both in -
park visitors and the general population may not. have been in favor of user
fees in general, when faced, with budget concerns, they chose an increase in
uses fees as the most appropriate way to meet increased park operating costs.
Less popular choices were '"increasing taxes", followed by '"reducing services."'
y
According to a survey conducted in 1982, the median income of rogional park
users is slightly above the median income level for the Metropolitan Area.
Indications are that the lower income residents use the system less than middle
or upper income residents. Less discretionary income available to facilitate
use is; most likely the major barrier.,.Other factors,"such as finding the time
to participate and affording the transportation to and from the park are
Iikeiy. Examining the interest levels of respondents from a 1983 survey indi-
cated generally less "interest"in 12 typical regional park activities by per-
sons living below, the federal poverty level than those persons living above the
poverty level. This should be interpreted. not so much of a "lack of interest"
in. these activities as a condition resulting from social implications and the
behavioral/lifestyle differences that impoverished individuals are subject to.
Recall Ing Mas l ow' s (1970) "Hierarchy of Needs" theory, needs are the p6 mary
influences on an indivi.dual's behavior. Basic needs such asshe;l,ter, food and
clothing must be attained before the individual is ready to strive to attain
other needs. Impoverished persons are striving to attain their basic needs and
do not, have the time or money to recreate at a level that; is associated with
non -impoverished Persons. It is important to note that not having the money to
enable participation is just as likely related to transportation and equipment
costs as recreation user costs (fees and charges) The impoverished are prob
ably not as interested in many recreational activities because that' are striv-
ing to most their basic needs and do not "'envision" themselves participating.
At this time ,in their lives, recreation activities are not likely as high a
priority as ,providing basic needs. As stated earlier in this report, should
the impoverished group attain a non -poverty status, their interest/Incentive
levels In these activities would most likely i::crease.
Although Minneapolis and St Paul have only 32 percent of the region's total
population, the majority of the region's disadvantaged populations reside in
these two cities. No entrance fees are implemented in the 15 regional park
units in these two cities. Over 65 percent of the estimated annual use of the
regional park system occurs in these 15 units.
i
All of the regi.onal implementing,agencIes aro,aware of concerns over the, impact,
of fees on the economically disadvantaged and have made an offo-t to provide
service to this group as well as other speciai population groups. Methods
Implementing no -or very low fees.
Compensated programing in targotedrinner city areas (mostly non -regional).
Periodic free entrance days in entrance fee parks, and,*ntry-user fee areas.
Policies enr-,wraginq fewwaiver/adjustment applications.
Providing free facilities targeted atspecial groups.
Offering fro* annual entrance passes to those on economic assistance.
LITERATURE CITEDCITED
Crompton, John L. 1981. Now to Findthe Price thats_Right. Parks and
Recreation. March,
Crompton, John L. 1984 The Eauitabili'ty of Full Price Policies for Senior
Citizens. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration. 2,1:3-8.
Elerbrock, Mike. 1982. Some Straight Talk on User Fees. Parks and
Recreation, January.
Kozlowski, James C. 1982. NRPA Law Review: Validity of Nonresident and Other
Discriminatory Regulations in Municipal Recreation Parks and Recreation,
March.
Kraus, Richard G., and Joseph E. Curtis. 1973. Creative Administration in< -
Recreation and Parks. St. Louis: C.V. Mosby Co.
Manning, Robert E. and Sidney C. $taker. 1981.. Discrimination through User
Fees: Fact or Fiction? Parks and Recreation, September.
Maslow, A. H. 1970. Motiviation and Perzon_aliT_. 2nd Edition. New York: Harper
and Row.
Scholen, Grant. 1985., Reservable Group Picnic Facilities in the Regional
Racy eation Open Space System. Metropolitan Council of the Twin Cities
Area, SS_. Paul. Publication No. 11-85-158;
Smith, Charles K. 190. Survey of Leisure in the Twin Cities Area, unpublished
information. Metropolitan Council of the Twin Cities Area, St. Paul.
Smith, Cha*les K. 1984. Metropolitan Recreation_' Demand Study, Summary Report.
Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, St. Paul' Publication No. 11-84-065.
Smith. Charles K., at al. 1986. Disadvantaged populations in the Twin Cities
Metropolitan Area. Metropolitan Council of the Twin Cities Area, St..
Paul. Publication No. 3;10-86-015.
Spencer, Rich. 1986. Young are Less Well Off in Family Incomee Washington
Post Syndication, published in St. Paul Pioneer Press, August 25, 1986.
Tedrick, Ted. 1986, Fees and Charges for Seniors: Do They Deserve a Break
Today? Parks and Recreation. August.
U.S. Dept. of Housing anti Urban Development. 1985. HomeE9uity Conversion
Mechanisms., Office of Policy Development and Research, Washington, DC.
U.S. President, 1985 (Reagan) Economic Report of the President. Council of
Economic Advisors, p. 160.
Waters, James R. 1982. Fees and Charges for Recreation Departments Institute
of Community and Area Development,' University of Georgia, Athens.
APPENDICES
49
AOPENDIX A. Interview Surimary Form
1986 METROPOLTTAN PARKS AND. OPEN SPACE FEES STUDY - Summary Form,
IMPLEMENTING AGENCY
FEE INVENTORY 1985 1986 (Circle ones
Fees Pertainin to Regional Facilities
ntra nce Fees*..
User Feeiz
Rental Fees:
Sppecia, ServicesFees:
AdmissionMtth—er ees
Fees Pertaining to Non -Regional -Facilities (summ&-zei
PHILOSOPHICAL FOUNDATIONS
Historical Philosophy/Current Policies/Future Trends
Estimate of Extent and/or Impact of Fee Waivers Reduced Pricing"
Programs Offered tosa vantar::_ or_pecla oPu at ans ecanom ca
minorities, a er ,y, ar,dicappe of ers
50
Special Service
y disadvantaged
EMPACTS ON BUDGET AND USE
Impacts on Annual_ Budget (1985)
1. Regional Expenditures S x2. Regional Fee Revenue S
A. Total Expenditures $
B. Total fee Revenue $ * x
G Total. Taxes Revenue
0. State Trail Grant Revenue S
E. Miscellaneous Revenue S
Include Enterprise Fund Breakdown
Note: B through E should ; A
Is fee revenue dedicated?
Impacts on Use
1. How have fees affected your system's 'total use (over time)?
2. Have fees affected the pattern of use in your portion of the region?
3. Have fees detered the economically disadvantaged or other groups from using your
facilities?
6
51
DattfJ.11ti11l1N. 1.1Z1
01lNNRx PM IM1llx CNVII C 701P CAWING MIP PKIM l PMWVM(M t
a1S111>ititlll Q?iM'T Jtt al1:Y`tsl
it'Iwe11 t Sl 2 Sls tnlninum S15, $20, $100 &VoAinq
0 esm at aitc NO droll clue 1- 650 IF 4 t!1
4+S6 t.l' h4 M1`t 11Y at chet y retye
WIN 0 MMM Irl 2 car 6, $8.50, $10.'90 15 - $50 0 - $ISO 3a !fir fwl ly
pli n"olle/St. Paul) 8 We ckjmklloq on site cnn ntlte
ti il C c1111:ie r-+•
10408tMA CMM, W1, Sokft7 Vokw a Micas veinal
M
Nilr.ukee) car $1.50 $ 2 So-so W per Unit 21 + $10: $35 + $20 15 grasp t^
bus $10 US M11 W11111 toch SM11 cc Vera,
IOU. tel ueaia 100 t rrnclne ry
0;
0.9130 -CI M11 !!'111f), R 2 all testicles b fwllly ctl%)Irxl 5 t*r, nitlltt Na fee rhat'go M) fee charged 1
tleRtvitl 2 per boat Irr yrcxlp ru
rr
OMM O M'i, CA 51 car 5 car + 2.50 cat^ S:l ler family
I" "eles) 5 btw 1 for eec:h 10.UU lu" •1 « for wt Avallkle crnttliie ni
Owl " loree 4",h #wkVI pethty
PKI"Um" alp", !O Irlskata st>Ikslesw(1. w
VWhI1r)Lun, D.C.) Mr 11VARAINS 5 - ;1 $7 - $9 25 day/1-50 pctt ons 150 t $25 delvalt Sl jer rual ty
S50 daf/51 hits stet x•1n r1 lt nite c
rt
a IrX7t BUKk COrtM 0MU a S2 are ppropri ted to tlx Naticvlx Water plttttic;i`
E ttilrella
wr - mute 'hetita
PV • Paradise Volley
IM • !k!lotrtt l l Nuntain
111 - Uaery Mountain
lk . Lake Pleanapt
i
APPFNDTX C, Regional implementinn Agency Fee policies
V District finance policies
A Tax Supported Financing
lk
NOW
CW. Ma owls,
aaaialM os
OWN
ism Ali
MhqMhti. t#il! .Ira IC
Ass tIN ONMri1E olillr r,.=
trom som"1 0 a ,d
must be, p MrF all i 1
innovrtiw naflr i
tion of pih Nt`iit
tivsr"Isk epiiMrM a
shouts ;aonfta. w
1
he District relies largely upon taxation for oper-
ating revenue commensurate with responsibtl-
ities for providing quality recreation opportune
ties and stewardship of park resources.
8.. Fees and Ch.v *s
As a publicly financed park system, the District
shall provide some elements of service free to the
public. However, fees and charges are consideree
to be a responsible and necessary means tc
supplement tax revenue and regulate park use
where appropriate. Revenue from this source
shall be applied twNard the administration, opera-
tion, peration, and maintenance of district parklands,
facilities, and programs,
The following types of fees and charges for park
operations and services are considered
appropriate; user fees, parking, special services
reservations, special use, rental of equipment,
merchandise resale,, and recreational ano
interpretive program fees,
Consideration of available district resources.
i
public need, and public acceptance shall be the
basis for establishing fees and charges, In cases
t"
where certain areas and facilities are highly
specialized by activity and design and appeal to a
select user group, the District shall also take into
account fees charged by private operators of
competitive services,
The Board may approve exceptional fees or fee
waivers upon determination that such fee ar-
rangements will provide benefits in the public
interest,
C. Enterprise Operations
Certain special use sites, a, determined by the
Board, shalt be operated on an enterprise basis.
Sites operated In this manner are intended to
generate revenue to meet a portion of all operat-
ing costs, or revenue in excess of operating costs,
as designated by the Board.
D. Capital Improvements Funding
In accordance with the Metropolitan Parks Act of
1974, the District will rely primarily on funding
from the Metropolitan Council for the acquisition
and development of the District"s regional park
properties,
053
Board wi11
consider
Spring:
197
Garver County
Draft park
ordinance
1 use Eees/dif
lcations
use fees
User and
Specie
and
spec{e1
2.03 Into par , Boar a
resolution•
fees for entrancshall be s
User erg uses to use,
w1 ho't Pay -
for verlous
P arson or
special
f OCeafor wh 1 ch a
user fee wet ved by
It shall
be
unlawful
ar_
payment
1s red
r
facil1e
or
p
merit• anis charged. fees.
use fee
1t 4
elimination
of ,.
Use Perm C uest
Including
uest for,
reduction
the req
Upon group req ehall eve)
C. author lty
the Poll°wine
factors=
the 1ssu1n9
but not
llmlted to
non-
profit-
uPP°
rted,-
1
charitable income tax
ProPerty
or
religious'
be
approved
2. shall the
3.
educat1one1
or
e11m1nate
fees however*
fee
educe
ordesignee.
permits
to r author 17 -ed
he
eht
to def e r
byany
e
the Perk 011 rector °
r
the Board;. pIrector
rese'rVes
Per`h tion
request
to
modlflca
y
t
54
WASHINGTON COU,TY, MINNESOTA 1-23-86
ORDINANCE NO 55
AN ORDINANCE GOVERNING PARKS UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF WAStINGTON COUNTY
AND REQUIRING VEHICLE PARK PERMITS FOR THE USE OF VEHICLES WITHIN SAID
PARKS
Section 1, Permits for Motor Vehicles,
ai Except as provided in clause c,, it shall be unlawful for any person
to bring a motor vehicle or be pertitted to bring a motor vehicle into
any of the following County park facilities:
Lake Elmo Park Reserve
Cottage Grove Ravine Regional. Park
Square Lake Park
unless .it has affixed to its windshield in the lower right cc,ner thereof
a motor vehicle park permit which is provided for hereinafter, This
provision shall take effect on April 1, 1986,
b, The County shall issue without charge aNCounty motor vehicle permit
to; any County employee who, for the purpose of performing official,
duties, must enter places where park stickers are required, The County
employee shall display the permit on his motor vehicle in the same manner
as County park stickers are displayed, A motor vehicle displaying only a
County employee's permit m -,y not enter a place where park stickers are
required if the vehicle is used for purposes other than performing
official duties,
c. No perMa shall be required for County owned Vehicles when brought to
the park for the purpose of performing official duties,
Section 2.. Motor VehiclePark Permits. The director of the Washington County
rtPublicWorksDepament shall procure permits for each calendar year which by
appropriate language shall grant Permission to use any of the above listed
County park facilities. Permits for each calendar year shall be provided and
placed on sale on and after November lot of the preceding year and may be
affixed and oed on or at any time after that date until the end of the
calendar -year for which issued. Permits in eacl category shall be number4d
consecutively for each year of issue.. Permits issuedfor calendar year 1986!
shall be validthrough December 31, 1987. A fee shall be charged for each
annual permit issued and a lesser fee shall be charged for a, separate permit
covering the use of the above listed parks for a designated period of not more
than two days.. The specific fees to be charged for the motor vehicle park
permits to be issued hereunder shall be set by resolution of the Washington
County Board.
Section 3. Misdemeanor, A person Quilty of violating any provision of this
Ordinance shall be Quilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not more
than $700.00 together with taxable costs or by Imprisonment for a period not
to exceed 90 days or both, All fines collected Under this Ordle ance shall be
deposited in the County Park Fund,
55
k
WASHINGTON COUNTY 1/23166
Otidelinew for Park lees and Charges
INTRODUCTION
As a publicly financed park system, the Washington County Board of Commis
afonere shall provide some elements of service free to the public. however,
fees and charges are considered to be a responsible and necessary weans to
supprement tax revenue and regulate park use where appropriate. Revenue from
this source shall be applied toward the administration, operation. and
maintenance of County parklands, facilities and programs, Fees and charges
represent a reasonable approach to having the user pay a portion of the total
costs. The park, user benefits from the operation and maintenance levels
provided;.
The oasis for establishing fees .and charges shall be cost of operation and
maintenance. specialised service needs, availability of County resources.
public need, public acceptance and consideration. of fees and charges by
private operators of competitive services,
GUIDELINES
When consistent with public interest, Washington County will adjust its
pricing structure to accommodate certain individuals or groups on the basis
of financial need, charitable effort or where volunteer or other services are
being received by the County.
Discounts or waiver of fees will be available to agencies such as Municipal
Recreation Department, public and Private Schools, United Way Agencies. and
other service providers which provide recreational and educational services
to youth, senior citizens and special populations.
Payment of rental or special use fees for park facilities would not exempt
park users from purchasing a Vehicle Park Permit,
Vehicle Park Permits shall be available for purchase by call or in person at
the County Auditor's Office, Public Works Department, Lake Elmo Park Reserve
and other county offices and county parks as approved by the Board of Commis -
loners.
Washington County shall naive vehicle park permit fees for motor vehicles
displs,11.ng a vehicle park permit from a Metropolitan Council designated
implementing agency" having a current reciprocal agreement with Washington
County.
Recommended Vehicle Park Permit lees
Vehicle
Annual $10.00
Daily $ 2.00
Daily $ 6.00
Free Day In the Park" First Tuesday every month
56
M
MINNEAPOLIS PARK & RECREATION BOARD
T.J. Prograrp Fir PoVi"cy
Actiow_Rlt"s ted;,.
That, thm abar*i adopt` a. Program{ Feet,PaT.tey as: fal lai
wIeadership4 prolraar-costs. at. nn, charg&, tbr any. Board, sponsored,
pry at,1 t, vlrUW ar.fe*r • 19. charged: Aryt adds ti (mat, progrm caftw
sub-) wt equt ,,,. suppties, trans per tit ian; adaissiortsi,. eta.
M"t, bat Pei* bw thw participant acre raquirs4.1-
On Kay •5;,, 1970, the -.Board approved a,, poticy,whi* z"4 tted!tcftY
ofMiimeaMtTs: residents to participate, in Board -3 red: '
instrutttonal* programs under certain conditions a rs;w .hargft-
The policy; proposed' above, wtli change the pravious pol icy, in(
two imMrtant ways. One.: residents eiigib ility wtil' expand. tar.,
famil ias whose• income• is below the poverty Level ; and' twos.
the: na charge policy wiRli include. all` Board Sponsored° programs.
riot Just instructional programs.
LattAr me th pertizene information should includs
mass
Addrese
Chi.ldrowl a apt, birtbdates
Umam.. for, Uate: year; or present monthly- income
WorkAucation-at ,, compaiq name
Social Sec rr tr Witber
WCOW, ELIGMILITf'CUIDELINES
R
fa ilr of 6 $11,210
a 9,,830
4~ 3,450
Y 7,070
T 5,690'
I 4,310
Approved b7 Center, Director or Recreation Supervisor and. District Supervisor
57
APPENDIX D. "Parks For All People" Postcard
NW 'Meta etde ctpeobXtun00oONi`
111461l7 anIaadjttd x:iuftoutdauuaN
alsen"rinv iv -I I • v
Nn INVU fa WV" it t?fi lyrw>lir •f V10 Iowa
Nt
as M
AtatltiSM11 i
lOYlf 0i1011
ARKS FOR ALL PEOPLE
You don't, have: to drive for hours to enjoy the groat outdoors! There art 21,000 acres of
outdoor fun Just minutes from where you live ---the park%. 0 the Hennepin County Park
flestrve District,
r
r'
a.. A •.R+ is
i \ eta?? . •' Ti i % r
Special offer, free permit!
You can receive a Hennepin County Park Reserve District. Annual Parking Permit and a
subscriptiun to "Time Out," the District's Quarterly magazine, absolutely treat This $12
value will provide you with free parking at any Hennepin Couhty Park. Reserve District
facility, and all the up-to-date Information you'll need about what to do and where to do
It in the Hennepin County Park. Reserve District.
Just fill out; the application on the back page of this flyer and mail, it to; the Hennepin
County Park Reserve District, to receive your free manual parking permit.
A full range of recreation onportunitles ... picnicking, swimming, boating, bicycling,
camping, fishing, golfing, hiking, skiing,, enowmcbiling, nature study A more,
Hennepin County Park Reserve District
i
PARKS FOR. ALL PEOPLE... FREE PARKING PERMIT APPLICATION
Nam.
Address
City -'
W Slat* Zip Coda
Phone Number EKY
Qin-•'
Vehicle license Number
j ... For office use only ,..
Permit Number - T P
of
10
alip
17
WOO
s er 10
C,or tics 1.3v r' 11 t it
s1r pOM/ 13 Al t1 ,o
It to1s
111
i f 1s to 10 20 1
tos 0 • 14 t1 14 t S
3 ,QOM 12 i S 1: It 13 1f ti a
1 M0 tl.s • 11 11 stf 21
1 ,o,p 6 t 1S 11 1 1 f
coo, r:rt IN 1i.1 S 1s 10 t• q '
11 S it 13 t7 SK11 ` s s s s • 21.
a11111lo 311 :1•1 S 1t 11I •. It
MIS Like : `• S
1 1io rf1 » S f
Late "Oleo : 1.3 1• 1 t 11 1i 1• 0tNC& 11 s t11 t IM It, 11
3
1
j S
N1 1s1tf •4 l S' • tt
fii"4 tit 10,1 f to • . tt 12
1f1 t't.o ! Il 11 2s if 6
if
Joker takeEe „.• 1 10 f 1t 1f 11
is a
t 0 IMS i 0 s It 2t 11
2
11
qj f A 16 IS 26 t'
swo t1 a s
t1•
1'
2 1 it
1 ts.o f 5
s M1• 1 :.• • t 10 s
s 1r! vIs 9
MI 1* IM
71
It's t •; jittNlt IS 21 1f to,
Fitt SM " 1S is 2+ ! tt 12 11 14, 1!` 71
Loki
N •
1o, 10 20 1• t
EM s IS It i 4 f N tt it.
21.3 10 t s 13 10
to? ts,s I t 3 12 It 1s S
11+ ts.j t 3 f U t to 10
cootart tM 31.3 IS ' 1' 1 2S`31 11
1T
mom
a11s
110
15,E
t ` 1 1` 11, IS IS
joker `ek n,0 4 1 Il 11 is
Ci W1 is 31's • t It 13 1 23
04WO 3E9 20 1 /0 It 10 19
Lake10!Mw
Like
40It
to tt 9
1
1 11itirtA
1 S 12.
Mlt fh tis 1 0 4
Per iklw' 2S.0
1
o R1e1'
I . t .f
tkw ..206
t. 000
it
Table 17 ICeat.l
KSPOMKNT MOgSEit010 IKM9
ItsNM percent of laeoadeats to tack Cates" fl OlOs1l.2 1
fn1ple lateens OwtAreaSitef1.0.Osl _ f w lees sto 10 10 to 16 If to 26' 20 d 21 2s to 36 36 is 1• fo Oran lewsal
C. Ces+r2roe"ds
War m 241.11 3 1 to 11 is 20 SME:::: O'•rloa 433 U.1 i 1 11 It 33 If I 7KMawthwst16425.6 2 1 6 14 2f 34' Is 3; Carver U , MID 0 4 14 1s Is 22 9 1• 1ValleyFair17322146itto2IIfIt71latentate33424.4 4 s It 14; I7 is 2e IS 6
0. lateWatfve Areae
Can lytta nes 130 22.3 i 4 17 Is 13 21 13 6 14Wwas13624.4 1 3 13 10 3/ 1s 6 71" 137 27.9 3 3; 11 13 Is 20 20 14 iMeIsland12124.2 1 12 17 13 22 17 1 6WArserrtm14132.0 4 6 3 12 if 14 13 74
fyrtaormA 146 12.1 to 7 14 f 24 22 it 3 12HeedLittto22.0 f 1' 16 16 20 If 17 s fTrsrack10621.3 i f Is 13 22 26 6 10
NVIONoed 120 23.2 1 so It 13 17 20 1• 7 12
o Nonny 243 21.2 a 12 11 a 13 11 13 r 4
Cove* 114 21.6 3r 10 Is 16 IS 14 14 to eRoseville13726.4 3 1 IN, s 14 22 24 7 7
Notre A"ioa y 21.1 9 12 13 13 14 21 12 4flow)
IM means less than 0.1 percent of respondents in this category.
as womtws In PAS et•At laces categories total to 100.
Don`t KOO/lefrsal" is based on the total sample size.
except, remedialforremedialerrosampler, end are based on the sample size. The percent given
Sas
4At then areas. ilea shale bar! was covered by the surveyors. At the other. only the'tceic-sris i
The actual 19100 Ceases "do W ame is 120.400. It was calculated using imdtviwal
ane was covered.
data pints. Sine the (acane data to this Holy wasObtainedtocategories. the Voms iocooe was recalculated by this nothed for comparison purposes.
r
BARRIERS TO PARTICIPATION
FOR RESPONDENTS BELOW FEDERAL POVERTY LEVEL BARRIERS' TO PARTICIPATION
FOR RESPONDENTS ABOVE FEOERAL POVERTY LEVEL
D
ro
ro
m
FISHING FISHING
FREQUENCY CUM FREO PERCENT CUR PERCENT A2 FREOUENCY CUM FREO PERCENT CUM PERCENTA2 k
B
I (w 106 37.083 37.063 NO
4'
1123 1123 35,,707' 35,707
T
103 304' 36.014 73.077 YES 12, 1 2364 39.459 75. 167YESco
10 219 3.491 76,573 YES,BUT... 57 2421 11612 76.919 a
YES.BUT...
EXPENSIVEEXPENSIVE. 1 220 0.360 76.923... TOO EXPENSIVE 21 2415 0.703 77.742
TOOToo
o-LY i1NABl Z 222 0.699' 77.622 P1fYStCAI,LY UNARL 1s 2460 0.477 76,219
T00 PAR AWAY 7` 229 AS 60.070 NOT SAFE: DOING 6 2466 0.191 79.4t0-
4`00 CROIAED 1 230 0.3$0 80.420 TOO FAR AWAY 79 2545 2,512 80.922 v+
VACILS: NOT OOOO 3 23.2 0.699 81,119 TOO CROWDED t6 2961 0.509 1.431
Ot NT HAVE ANYONE 1 239' 2.444 83.588
84.61s
FACIES NOT 0000 2569 0,291 81.665 00
FA"/FR TIKE OTHR 3 242; 1.049 OOMT KNOW HOW 9 2378 0.286 81,971
TOIL BUSY-FREETIM 13 2s't 4.549 9` 16;1 DONT KNOW W14ERE 19 24391 0.604 82.576 w
BUSY IN OENR: 17 461 9.441 96.601 DONT HAVE ANYONE 5n 2lT9Z 1,719 81.321 t
TOO
3 289 1.049 991650 FAM/FR LIKE OTHR 30 2682 0,.954 85.270
COMB. OF 16-18
1 208 0.350 100.000 700 BUSY-FREETIN 144 2826 41579 89,957' n
OTNE1 T03 BUSY IN GENR 267 3143 9.126 96.983
NO lJUIPMENT 8 3121 0.254 99.231
NO AMBITION 2 3123 0.064 99.300
COMM. OF 16- 18 18' 3141 0,572 99.873
OTHER 4 3145 0.127 100.000
AT A BEACH
SWIMMING AT A
BEACHSWIMMING
A6 FREQUENCY CUA FREO PERCENT CUM PERCENT
A6 FREO',IENCY CUM FREO PERCENT CUM PERCENT
d3
NO 032 1032 32.804 32,804
NO ' 126 121! 41,058 41.05806 YES 1365 1397 43,388 76.192
YES' 108 134 37..762 a TES.BUTN 4 2445 1,526 77,716
YI?S.sUt... 6' 240 2.098 83.916 EXPENSIVETOOPEN S5 246 0.159 77,877
TOO EXPENSIVE 2 242 0.699 94.6ts PHYSICALLY UNABL 11 24611 0.350 78,226.
TOO: EAR AWAY 6 248 2..098. 88.713 NOT SAFE DOING 11 2472 0.350 78.576
TOO CROWDED 6 248 2ti097' 89..510
TOO FAR AWAY 9s 2649 1,746
FACILS NOT GOOD 1 257' 0.350 89.860 TOOCROWDED122 2683 84,324
89,2.02
PONT KNOW WHERE 2 259 0.699 90.5'59 FACIES NOT 0000 31 2683 1.87!1
1.061 85,318
FAM/FR LIKE OTHR 3 262 1.049 91.608 DONT KNOW HOE 3 2686 ' 0.095 5,318601TOOBUSY-FREETiM 4 266 1.399 93.007 DONT 7 2693 0,223
TDD BUSY IN OENR 16 282 5.594 98.601
HAVE
ANYONEDONTHAVEANYONE 14' 2707 0,445 86.046SCO46
NO EQUIPMENT 4 283 0,.350. 98.954. FAM/FR LIKE OTHR 17 2724 0.540 86.596
C01i1B. OF to -in 3 286 1.350 100.
951
TOO BUSY-FREETIM 132 2,856 4.196 90.782
TOO BUSY IN GENR' 272 3128 8.646 99.428
NO AMBITION 2 3130 0.064 99.491
COMB, OF 16-18 14 3141 0.350 99.841
OTHER 5 3146 0.159 100.000
r
BARRIERS TO PARTICIPATION
BARRIERS TO PARTICIPATION FOR RESPONDENTS ABOVE FEDERAL POVERTY LEVELFORRESPONDENTSBELOWFEDERALPOVERTYLEVEL
INFORMAL NATURE STUDY
AID FREOUENCY CUM FRIO PERCENT CUM PERCENT AID
INFORMAL NATURE
FREOUENCY CUM FRIO
STUDY
PERCENT CUM PERCENT
6
NO
VES
151
65
184
219
1
94.336
22.727
64,336
87.063
NO
5
1962 1962 62.405 62.405
YES.EUT... 3 252 1..019 88.1t2
YES
YES.BUT.,.
748 2710 23.791 66.196
T00 EXPENSIVE 1 253 0.350 86,462 TOO EXPENSIVE
37
1
2747 1.177 61.373
100 FARAWAY 4 257 1.399 891960 PHYSICALLY UNASL 3
2716 0.032 87,405
DONT KNOW HDV 1' 256 0.350 90.210 NOT SAFE' DOING 2
2751 0.095 67.500
DONT KNOW WHERE 3 261 t.049 91.259 700 FAR AWAY
2753 0.064 67.564
DONT NAVE ANYONE 2 263 0.699 94.,958 TOO CROWDED
17 2770 0.511 66.104
700 BUSY-FREETIM 10 273 3.497 95,455 FACILS NOT GOOD
3 2773 0. 095 ee.200
TOO BUSY IN GENR 11 294 3.846 99.301 DONT KNOW HOW
4 2777 0.127 66.327
OTHER 2 299 0.699 100.000 DONT KNOW WHERE
is
30
2795 0.573 66.699
DONT HAVEANYONE, 25`
2625
2650
0.954
0.795
69.654
90.649FAM/FR LIKE OTHR 6 2669 0.573 91,221100BUSY-FREETIM 125 2993 3.976 95.197' TOO BUSY 1N GENR 142 3138 4.517 99,714NOAMBITION43139; 0.127 99.p41COMB,. OF 16-t6 4 3143 0,127 99.1168OTHER131440.032; 100.00Q
V
FORMAL NATURE STUDY FORMAL NATURE STUDY
A11 FREQUENCY CUM FRED PERCENT CUM PERCENT
A tl FREOUENCY CUM FRIO PERCENT CUM PERCENT
6 5
NO 255 2s5' 69.164 69.161
NO
YES
2794 2794 86.668 66.666
YES 10' 265 3.49'1 92.657 YES.BU7,..
114 2906 3.626 92.194
YES.BUT" . 1 266 0.350 93.007 100 EXPENSIVE
15 2923 0.477 92.971
TOO EXPENSIVE 3 269 1.049 91.056 PHYSICALLY UNABL
3
3
2926 0.095 93.066
PHYSICALLY WIABL 1 270' 0.350 91.403 NOT SAFE DOING
2929 0.095 93.t62
100 FAR AWAY 2 272 0.699 95.105 700 FAR AWAY
1
t3
2930 0,032 93.193
DONT KNOW HOW 1 273 0.350 95.455 TOO CROWDED
2943' 0.413 93.607'
DONT HAVE ANYONE 1 274 0.350 95.60 ' DONT KNOW HOW
2
9
2945 0,061 93.670
TOO BUSY-FREETiM 5 2,79 1.'746 97.552 DONT KNOW WHERE
2951 0.266 93.957
700 BUSY IN OENR 7 296 2,446 100.,000 DONT HAVE ANYONE
25
4
2979 0.795 94,752
FAM/FR LIKE OTHR 7
2993 0.445 95.197
700 BUSY-FREET'IM 65
3000
3065
0.223
2'.163
95 420
97.563' 100 BUSY IN GENR 67 3135 2.131 99.711NOAMBITION231370.064 99,777
COMB. OF 16-19 6 3143 0.191 99.966
OTHER f 3144 0.032 100.000
BARRIERS TO PARTICIPOTTON
FOR RESPONDENTS; ABOVE FEDERAL POVERTY' LEVEL
NON -0W
A'f2
BARRIERS TO PARTICIPATION
FOR RESPONDENTS; BELOW FEDERAL POVERTY LEVEL
CUM FRED
NON -POWER BOATING
CUM PERCENT
Al2 FREOUENCY CUM FRED PERCEJWT CUM PERCENT
No
6
193 67.463 67.483
N0 tog Is; 57.692 57,692
YES 47 212 6,134 74.126
YES.BUT. , . 3 21'S 1.049 75.17S
TOO EXPENSIVE 12 227 4.196 79.371
TOO FAR AWAY 5 232 1.749 81.119
700 CROWDED 2 234 0,699 91.816
DONT KNOW NOM 5 239' f.748 93;.866
DONT KNOW WHERE 3 242 1.049 64.61s
DONT HAVE ANYONE 4 246 J.399 86, 014
FAM/FR LIKE OTHR 7 246 0.699 867i3
TOO BUSY-FREETIM is 263 5.24'5 9119ss
TOO BUSY IN GENR 20 2113 6.993 98.951
NO EQUIPMENT 1 294 0,330 99,30'
COMB:, OF 16-18 2 286 01699 100.000
BARRIERS TO PARTICIPOTTON
FOR RESPONDENTS; ABOVE FEDERAL POVERTY' LEVEL
NON -0W
A'f2 ER Dun TIf+G
FREQUENCY CUM FRED PERCENT
POWER BOATING
4
A13 FREOUENCY CUM FRED PERCENT CUM PERCENT
1959
6
49,971; YES
YES,BUT
754
No 193 193 67.463 67.483
YES 50 243 17,483 84,965
YES,IIUT... 3 246 1,049 861014
100 EXPENSIVE 15 261 5.245 91,259
NUT SAFE DOING 1 262 0.3130 91,608
TOO FAR AWAY 1 263 0.350 91,958
FACILS NOT00001
0.266
264 0.350 92.309
OONT KNOW NOW 2 266 0.699 93.007
DONT KNOW WHERE 1 267 0.350 93.357
OONT HAVE ANYONE 3 270 1.049 94,406
TOO BUSY-FREETIM 4 274 11399 99,804.
TOO BUSY IN OENR 11 285 3.646 99,830.
OTHER 1 286 0.350' 100.000
BARRIERS TO PARTICIPOTTON
FOR RESPONDENTS; ABOVE FEDERAL POVERTY' LEVEL
NON -0W
A'f2 ER Dun TIf+G
FREQUENCY CUM FRED PERCENT CUM PERCENT
4
NO 1559 1959 19.971 49,971; YES
YES,BUT
754 2313 23.975 73.545
TOO EXPENSIVE'
53
91
2366
2497
1.685 73,231
PHYSICALLY UNABL 14' 2471
2.693
0,445
78.124
NOT SAFE DOING 10 2481 0.318
78.569
79.897TOOFARAWAY9225732.925 81.E"2TOOCROWDED2325960.731 92,544FACILSNOTGOOD926090.266 2.8 0DONTKNOWNOW3526401.113 83,943DONTKNOWWHERE3426741.081 85.024DONTHAVEANYONE7427462.353 87,377FAM/FR LIKE OTHR 40 2798 t,272 88:649TOOBUSY-FACTIM 134 2922 4.261 92.909TOOBUSYINGENR18231045.7.87 98,696NOEQUIPMENT19' 3123 0.604 99.300NOAMBITION231250.064 99.364COMB. OF 16-18 13 3136 0.413 99.717OTHER731450.223 100,000
POWER BOATING
A13" FREOUENCY CUM FREO PERCENT CUM PERCENT
4
NO 1969 4969 62,807 62.,607YES720269922.893 85,501YES.BUT,:, 33 2722 1.049 88.550TOOEXPENSIVE14229644.519 91.065PHYSICALLYUNASL729710.223 91.299NOTSAFEDOING428750.t27 91.415TOOFARAWAY3529f01,113 92..528' TOO CROWDED 13 2923 0.413 92.941FACILSNOT0000129240.032 92,973DONTKNOWKW1025340.319 93.291DONTKNOWWHEREf129490.350 93.641DONTHAVEANYONE3229771.017 94,658FAM/FR LIKE OTHR 16 2993 0.509 95,f67TOOBUSY-FREETIM 43 3036 1,367' 96,534TOOBUSYINQENR8331192163999.173NOEOUIPMENT1331320.413 99.587NOAMBITION13/33 0.032' 99.819COA11l. Of to -to 9 3142 0,286 99.905OTHER321450.093 100.000
BARRIERS TO PART'1CIPATION BARRIERS TO PARTICIPATION
FOR RESPONDENTS BELOW FEDERAL POVERTY LEVEL FOR RESPONDENTS ABOVE FEDERAL POVERTY LEVEL
SNOWMOBILINC
SNOWMOBIL1NG A19 FREOUENCY CUM FRED PERCENT CUM PERCENT
At9 FREOUENCY CUM FRED PERCENT CUM PERCENT
4
0
ND 2535 2535 60.604 80.604
NO 7t1 2i7 75.61 70.811
YES 340 2875 10.81 1 91,415
YES 31 274 11.394 80
YF,S';BUT... 30 2905 0.954 92,369
TOO 4 1.397 8787.805 TOO EXPENSIVE 74 2979' 2,353 94.722
700 EXP.,. 6
267
260 2.
394
90.092 PHYSICALLY UNASL 7 2956 0.223 94.974
FAR AWAYTOOFAILAWAY 267 1.397 91.986 NOT SAFE! DOING 3 2999 0.095 95,040
TOO CROWDED 11 269 0.344 92,
683
700 FAR AWAY 24 3013 0.763 95.603
DONT KNOW HOE 1 269 0.348 92.843 TOO CROWDED 5 3018 0.159 95:.962
DONT KNOW 2 268 0.697 93.077
FACILS NOT 0000 9 3026 0.254 96,216
ANYONEFONTHAVEANYONE 271 0,697 94.075 DONT KNOW HOW 3 3029 0.095 96,312
FAM/FR LIKE OTNR 1 271 95.470.
DONT KNOW WHERE 14 3043 0.475 98.757
BUSY IM 3' 271 1.3451.040 99.452
DONT HAVE ANYONE
FAM/FR LIKE DIM
15,
9'
3056 0.477 97.234
100
IN GEOTHBUSYINGENR 12 288 4;141 99+002 100 BUSY-FREET'IM 17
3067
3064
0.288
0.541
97.520
98.:060OTHER1Z870,348 100,000 TOO BUSY IN GENR 42 3126 1.333 99,396
NO EOUIPMENT 10 3136 0.3111 99,714
COMB. OF 16-16 3 3139 0.095 99.809
OTHER 6 3145 O.t91' 100.0o0
rn
A
PICNICKING' PICNICKING
A28 FREQUENCY CUM FRED PERCENT CUM PERCENT 728 FREQUENCY CUM FRED PERCENT CUM PERCENT
5 1
NO 69 69 27.042 24.042 NO 567 567 18.029 14.029
YES 165. 234' 37.491' 81,533 YES 1837 2404 58.410 76.439
YES,BUT... 7 241 2.439 83,972 YES,Bl1T... 62 2766 1.971 76.710
TOO EXPENSIVE 2' 243 0,697 87.669 TOO EXPENSIVE 4 2470 0..1.27 78,531
PHYSICALLY UNABL 1 247 01344 85.011 PHYSICALLY UNABL 7 2477 0.223 75.760
TOO FAR AWAY 3 247 1.045 86.063 NOT SAFE DOING 1 2475 0.032 78.792
Too CROWDED 1 278 0.348 86.411 TOO FAR AWAY 23 2501 0.731 79.523
DONT "AVEANYONE7 255 2,439 88.850 TOO CROWDED' 63 2564 2.003 81.526
FAM/FR.'LIKE. OTHR 4 259 1.397 90.344 FACILS NOT GOOD 16 2580 0.509 82.035
TO0 BUSY-FRF,ETiM 6 265 2.091 92.334 DONT KNOW WHERE 23 2603 0.731 82.766
Too BUSY 1N GENR 16 28.1 5,575 97.909 DONT' HAVE ANYONE' 42 2645 1.335 64.102
NO AMBITION 1 282' 0.348 98.258 FAM/FR LIKE OTHR 69 2714 2,194 86.296
COMB. OF 16.16 3 285 1.045 99.303 TOO BUSY-FREETIM 177 2891 5.629 91.924
2 287 01491 100.000 TOO BUSY IN GENR 239 3130 7.599 99.523OTHERNOAMBITION431340.127 99,650
COMB. OF 16-18 7 3141 0.223 99.873
OTHER 4 3145 0.127 100.000
13A31 AI43AO4 1VS301A 3AORY S1N30NOdS3d d03
N011vdioltdvJ 01 Sd3ldava
BARRIERS TO PARTICIPAT1ClN
FOR RESPONDENTS ABOVE, FEDERAL POVERTY LEvFL
001 t 8 C"0io6
000"001 LLi,a
L6ti'O
213N10
Ct9`6u 90110 RARRIEKIWO PARTtrRPATION 91-91 30 '0110'3 ,
9L0'd6 FQR1 S l ONQFNTS OV FEOFMAL POVERTY LWhJUWY ON.
499"96 99t 0 li1C 6 IN3w4It1U3 ON:
109'96 L&9'L t tC Oct Mau NI Asna 001
00116 9O0'le C99t Ari W;'13d.1-ASf1Q 001666IL49111011LCLtCb"IU 3x11 d:J/WVJ616' 611 COC' t COLI 1 3NO" 3AVH 1NOG
919'ii 9f9`0.
af16:Cp i 91 ,t
L' AirttNfl PARKS IdIHA AUNA 1N00
WNERNORTI0005Y1Wio ` tLs 0 FR!EUit fF00HtiCUMF0PERC
179t 22* 0:95*
ISN3d,19BAR
ION S110ki
9 t " 1 V 9tit'a GSL
4,577 In
7 1
03t1A0d3 001
OZ6109 I so.1
6!`'6L
tit
91 O.31s T7S 2
31, 359+VAV aVty 1g0i9Let0
i+yf56L 99L:'0 1221
tL
0,540 77,
e2X100 31V1Ala Ld
ojf#!S% UT,,.,
XPFISIV
99.1 9L 212
22 O6cft! CALLY
L1 t
t
22 1,712 „Inq 9M6
Gjp1'1 ¢AFE Oi?t
TOO FAN` AWAY
t9 t1ii
2 41.39!
2161
OM31it9
3,833 a3,:M 2
OGNT KNOW VIRRE` 2 3 0.691 81,663
It 3A AN!'tPW09 3 Wn3
FAM/FR i [KE OTt11kS
A
Sad
2.091 66,760
1 ,OIR XtiMbS
BUSY4REETI
Aa1i103-SSD 7 1,712 !!9,517TOO
0,032 991t42, NO AMBITION 7
TOO BUSY IN GENR: 29 285 1,756 99,303
I COMM, OF 16*16 1 286 0,348 99,652
DINER 1 281 01348 100.000
0O,0 'lli tGO'0
17196'610 lko2q'Q
9 1c
tic
1
In
aiHIO
901021'aC'66 CZC'f, 9tiC'
1.
L
81--91 30
Lot I"i tC0'O at I ' 1
40111001V ON
1N3WdlilG3 (IN
cotGLq'
011*66 sCt'01
99 GLA `9
Bi1C
961.1
trc dN35 tail Asne
O0L'r9 Cil'1
Olt i lt 133d:+Sna 001
3xt`l d.1/W1tjSKILNi,,
CUML90'i 9 H' 1 PSS-icamftvm
ifto PF.R kNv %ft1fEAPmtFRED000764. Ot'.
9co'0L 90': t
9C 3a3HA AONA .INOO
193i*t
2 t 20
AON AON)l ANO
72 Otft ION S;1 i 5
Lm LL9t C to L 24 12, 19 0' wkicp 2)
1 tEsl LLS, or
LEVE20UT, . , ` G.ii3O
s t 2Iy1
2 3
t ,06%V+Ai ulp 66
2.YmooLmoLExPENsttc
9'0 d
1 6RVISN3JX. e
o
LQ3ij LrAR AWA 14 C'O
L9 O*t KNOW 1311
L
Lt
23'!
2%
O011M11 A1'riairkl4
1, 0411 SN3JX36ii 9 '
OYWrIC HAVE Al, iz 2R 1.712 '"IfiO 33 38-
698AMtFR LIKe It j
t,Oe1 so 0
1.391 95UJ2.1
Too BUSY-FRIR,
9 7-
10992411V1
2>)ts9, 2,091 95 22.
TOO BUSY IN GENR i0 213 3,181 98.6o6
1NWdIGUAMJENIN33d3d 03d 3
2e4 98.955
NO AMBITIQN
Wn A 31ld 0.970,6697 9 f52
COMB. OF I6-t1l SiidVd NI JVNIx1V$% 287 0.318, 190,(500
13A31 AI43AO4 1VS301A 3AORY S1N30NOdS3d d03
N011vdioltdvJ 01 Sd3ldava
BARRIERS TO PARTICIPAT1ClN
FOR RESPONDENTS ABOVE, FEDERAL POVERTY LEvFL
001 t 8 C"0io6 Lilt WALKING GIN PARKS 61-91 30 I M(10
L6ti'O FRE00MY CUM 1'AtEO PERCENT N t
Tf19969611`C'Fi 0t 1 IN.
8 `il6 i:b'C car, 0i d030 N1 ASOR 001
s 16a't
t1041
stta z e' a-As11,
3x1dAVN f22:131 0-3 1 stowsCALLYi7iit229tAVAVow0 O,60,1 8C6S;AFE DOI *r 179t 22* 0:95*
ISN3d,19BARAWA` 0' 1 1400 212 4,577 In
7 1
ifRQWOED G61 "t1 I r 21 O.31s T7S 2
qW,LL toot 21'56064 0,540 77, KNO'J NOM 2 215'11 0,061 78,038' DONT KNOW wmFRE
ANl1 Wkj1d
38
x1113 wnD
2493
1
1.2.09 79
1:),yq& ivonQ3d 1, &44 a t t!!t7MFi: LIKE OTt 1IXS. ASSM103-SSi1i6 t, M 82,200TOOBUSY-FREETIM 2tO 2796 6,675 S5,e75T00BUSY1NGENR3223.118 10.235 99, 110NoEVUIMcsir131110,032 991t42, NO AMBITION 7 3126 0.223 99.364COMB. OF tO-18 19 3.t/3 0, 80.1 99.96ew
OTHER 1 3116 01032 too.000
t X0'001 a c'O Lot kilHlo
tG9'66 90C'0 QvC 1 111-91 30 '`UN03
COC'66 95L't Got lit m30 Ni ASne 001
L S'66 L L'1 LVAOSS-COUNTRY SKI—hu133dA-ASi16 001
SOwsL6'' 9101 FREOLkWY CUM AEt) PER R 3 1 1T
09L1911 160'L 60L 9 NvAN
699'ty L6910 @*t t 3113iN AON;. 'NOU
ctwcv Cco'C 193i*t 19:aV 61 .75AVAv av t0 s
601Es>a 06C ` 1 4dwt 240h t4,44%100 3.1v 3
GtIIIE'B.t1T.. , tkL" ( wz 24Af try A -11v3 1 1
C=nLEXPENSIV1l09'O t 2'S h 1 6RVISN3JX. e
L064MCALLV t9MLL` v# r 25A 0„286 • '1(, 2
QM1 6AFE OOIMii't Olt 25101 O,127
6MMIFAR AWA169C`IC 2'S t,Oe1 so 0
TOO CROWDED ` 25' 4 0.286 e t . 246
FACiLS Nor GOOD is 7571 0.372 81 tl
1lil&wa&Nm NOW33d3d Odd Nn3 iNvw3d3 2,161
QONT KNOW WI4ERE SxdV4 4b tNN I 1V&662 0.636 84,@t5
QQNT NAVE ANYONE Al 2703 t.303 85.919
FAM/FR LIKE OTHR 31 2737 I.OBt 8x.999
TOO BUSY-FREETiM 126 2863 1.005 9t.001
1010 BUSY IN GENR 239 3102 7.597 98.60t
NO EOUi=tIENT 9 3111 0.286 98 887
NO AMB[ t11 1d3rf d 1V2 U?3 llClliillalNLCWOc IWtdCiJ 99 07”
COMB, 0 16'15 NU1 iVjIS1! 1i Vj 013 %t31ddVli 0.145 99.523
OTHER 15 7146 0,377 100,000
olfers flock to greens
PuLAblicco esry dtiveecol"1t'i fes
opment,"
By JOHN G. FALCION Estimates by the foundation show there are more than.
Local governmeata are scrambling to develop public 20.2 minion golfers in the United States, and; 75% of,
golf courses that will satisfy the growing demands of them play at municipal or daily fee courses, As of year-
common folk who have joined the upper-class elite in end 1987, 1,926 of the nation's 12,407 golf courses were
taking to the greens, public.
Besides appeasing the men and women, youngsters Most city and county golf courses run on a break-even
and seniors .vho are flocking to public courses in rec- basis, but they're usually profitable in terms of enhanc-
ord numbers the creations of a nino.-hole or 18-hole ing local economic development and raising nearby
course in a, city or county also functions as an eco- property values,
noetic catalyst,
In Eugene, Ore„ city and county officials and private
A golf course can turn into a profitable venture," developers are looking at six parcels of lend as passible
said Barry S; Frank, project director of the National locations for a golf course.: Continucd on Page 29
Golf. Foundation, "It's not just golf, it's economic devel
Public golf Tips on
Continued front mage 1
Y ,t1 as< ,•
The community of .106,000 resi- tdents. is also reviewing the possibil- buildingltyofexpandinganine -hole course
into an 18 -hole facility.
a course
ECONQIVII'r Want to build a golf course?
According the National Galt
OwELOPMENT Foundation, serious research must
be conducted to determine the char -
In, Eugene, t". here development acte, uF the community where the
activity has n.mained dormant for facillty is planned,
some time, officials are viewing Some factors to look for Includet
creation of a new course as a way to size, location, climate, population,
lure new business and, industry, an economic base, growth potential,
wet) as to accommodate blue-collar and recreational asuets,
golfers seeking courses that have af- once the city or county decides to.
fordable greens fees, build a course, selecting an ade-
Our economy is pretty soft," ex- quate site is paramount.
plained Ernest Drapela, director of. Survey the area, urges the golf
the Eugene Parks, Recreation and foundation, Look at the size and
Cultural. Services Departmeat, "We shape of the plot, Irreguiarahaped
are largely a timber -producing
economy. But we are attempting to
r "t'. to"f "'
EVWYOne can mos f0 gmww at SN c" Coun til t 11 Course at Hunf rVton Beach, Calif,
ilea often provide more interesting
course design, Gently rolling acres
improve our amenities to lure: out- with some trees make ideal condi-
side investment,"
Eugene officials. are; taking a Usually, there is no debt payment From development'Wtee-off, a erwise be developed into profitable
tions,
Public courstis "should not be off
careful look" at the proposed golf until the course is open and able to golf course usually takes about two housing or commercial space, the beaten track," the group said,'
course because it will be difficult to generate enough revenue to cover years to construct, Development officials in Arvada The course should be designed so.
obtain, public funding for it, Mr, payments" But course development seldont say they hope: a new course will one or two holes parallel a high=
Drapela,said, In the two years It's been operat- runs smoothly, and two years often raise property values in the sur- way; it's good advertising,
Voters are cynical," he sAid, "We Ing, first Golf has developed a turns into five years or longer, rounding area. Most existing municipal golf
just invested a tot of money on air- nine -hole course in Rapid City, S;D, In Arvada, Colo,, for example, city Rockford, Ill., faces a different courses are financed through the
port improvements and on a major But Mr, Gunderson said the cam- and county officials have been situation, Residents there just can't sale of general obligation bonds or
arts center," pany has received inquiries from working with businessae for 3V% get enough golf, said David Claeys- by general' budget allocations, Other
Fortunately, local officials don't governments in all 5o states about years to develop a course, sons, manager of golf services fo financial plana include municipal
have to come up with the full bal- building new courses, Officials in Arvada, a Denver sub- the Rockford Park District, leaseback, which Is a tax-exempt
ance of the cost up -front, said W, Complete design and building urb of 86,000 people,hue eonsid- "Our courses are at capacity and lease financing program that uses a
Samuel Gunderson, president of costs for an 18 -hole golf course ering building a, courisOln a high- waiting time is two hours, he said, non-profit corporation as, its funds-
First Golf Corp,, Mesa, Ariz, The range between $
21
million and $3 rent residential subdi%- on, said "This is a golfing community." disbutsing agency,
company designs, builds and fl- million, Revenue bonds, lease-pur- Don Kinney, directories+economic The city already sports four mu- For more golf course Information,
nances municipal courses. Chase agreements, certificates of development. ": nicipat courses; Winnebago County, call the National Golf Foundation,
We can structure the city's debt participation or mortgage payments Opponesits argue that golf courses of which Rockford is the county 305) 744-8008,
imaginatively,'" Mr. Gunderson said, provide the financing,, take up vacant land thakcould oth- seat, owns three golf. courses, a John G, Faicioni
r, a.. . ..::q .+..x Sr'vuw r. < ,..Z'i - 4 `i a •4v A .y :%tif.:ni IYA{ ,ei.`.a . ,...A. e. .. _ __
5 Star TrHmne
ro/s, met1{
x a
InWWWO
June 3/1988
oust...park"i settrnAnoka_
RY ili+erXl <lbhnson
i •
bean i Traynor, president of Mwwi-
stttlt`Writer willJune i.-. at Bunker ITIS at, f cul
ractorra
Erste ut i n,rck,
pool, tied rth a Ott tttY" Bunker Ftill
10,000 (Lakes and one wave
pla
will he the ool d of
A motor -driven machine "
xti
wro
ffpopularity
ceSoon
provides a t'orSt, planned bydcvelopers of Fashion protitabtlity, "11 might wear otl"onrc
current of air underwater that makes Malt of America in Bloomington, they are no lunger novel," he said,
Isun ter Hills Regional lark in Coon waves of various sizes in the pool, Admission will. be $3 for adults and But for now, "lust about all rccr(:- 1
Rapids and Andover is about to open which will be 6 feet at its deepest $2 for people ill and younger when "it is the trend not oily for private, ational parks have them,"
tlw stalo's first wave pool, a $1,4 point, the pool opens June 12, investments but, we are finding, for
million project that will generate 4-, municipalities," said Shirley Salerno, Anoka County officials were looking I
fni>t waves across a pool half the size Although surfboards will not be at. Such pools have become popular at marketing administrator for Aquatic fir a grown jewel. for Hooker Hills,
of a foolbstli field, lowed, smtIMet, "boogic boards" and tourist attractions around the, r -dun- Amusement Associates Lid, of Alba- x
inner lubes, will be avaliable for rent try, An indoor wave pool is being ny, N,Y,, which makes the, puts. %Varna continued. on page 48 C
t
r
r, a.. . ..::q .+..x Sr'vuw r. < ,..Z'i - 4 `i a •4v A .y :%tif.:ni IYA{ ,ei.`.a . ,...A. e. .. _ __
5 Star TrHmne
ro/s, met1{
x a
InWWWO
June 3/1988
oust...park"i settrnAnoka_
RY ili+erXl <lbhnson
i •
bean i Traynor, president of Mwwi-
stttlt`Writer willJune i.-. at Bunker ITIS at, f cul
ractorra
Erste ut i n,rck,
pool, tied rth a Ott tttY" Bunker Ftill
10,000 (Lakes and one wave
pla
will he the ool d of
A motor -driven machine "
xti
wro
ffpopularity
ceSoon
provides a t'orSt, planned bydcvelopers of Fashion protitabtlity, "11 might wear otl"onrc
current of air underwater that makes Malt of America in Bloomington, they are no lunger novel," he said,
Isun ter Hills Regional lark in Coon waves of various sizes in the pool, Admission will. be $3 for adults and But for now, "lust about all rccr(:- 1
Rapids and Andover is about to open which will be 6 feet at its deepest $2 for people ill and younger when "it is the trend not oily for private, ational parks have them,"
tlw stalo's first wave pool, a $1,4 point, the pool opens June 12, investments but, we are finding, for
million project that will generate 4-, municipalities," said Shirley Salerno, Anoka County officials were looking I
fni>t waves across a pool half the size Although surfboards will not be at. Such pools have become popular at marketing administrator for Aquatic fir a grown jewel. for Hooker Hills,
of a foolbstli field, lowed, smtIMet, "boogic boards" and tourist attractions around the, r -dun- Amusement Associates Lid, of Alba- x
inner lubes, will be avaliable for rent try, An indoor wave pool is being ny, N,Y,, which makes the, puts. %Varna continued. on page 48 C
t
Waves
oatllia[ Prna graRr f `' k``
1,4!70 acre park that featur.s hikiog i ash
horseback riding, camping, archery, t . ...
a
golfing and playing fields, Jack Maur--
itz, senior pisinet for the Metropoli-
tan council, said they were looking , :
for something that would add "extra ` N4
spice" to the park, ' se #R , 4A
They wantedone major attraction ! • t ! ! l `
that will mak it a very, very heavily r
used, busy park," said Maurits., "fiv- .
e ythinf; I've heard about the wave
pool (suggest that now) they will s , #6,1 ^
probably get heavy uses"
David Torkildson, the county's park
and recreation director, said, "I think
it certainly is going .to be a moor '•
attraction. We've established the ince- ;
essary people for controlling crowds, !
adequate life guards, policing and .,
provided for concessions and park
Anoka Count Commissioner Nat., County ,
clic Hass StclTen, in whose: district. Y
R
most of the park lies, said, "Sonic p,
peiple get into a pool, and stand i . ,. <•
around, The waves give you some ssQc cess
thing, to compete with," Swinwaars cavortedMroNMq Waters of a waw pool M d park in Nashville, Tom. reuunkar HillsRsgional Bark,
Before municipalities got into the ac- located M RapCoon lds and ndaver, w111 open wwsota's first waw pool on June 12.
tion, Wave pawls were found mainly
ak large amusement parks, which "Aquatic recreations make money, It- iWdition to making money the Wave action,
have been dunking and sliding park- rather than tun at a deficit as do t,, c,,tgh turnover, wave pools lend
aper
into water attractions for some rectangular
apawl ou rent rafts, and there wider audience than
traditionalOwls,"
different
safety record. She said she knew of`
seems to be a bigger turnover. At a pools, Salerno said Wave pools have no accidents. or deaths caused by the
hile industry figures are scarce, rectangular pool people stay all day; been used for surfboard and kayak equipment. "'The wave is not above
Aquatic Amusement said that since at a Wave pool they stay a hall' a training and rented by the US. Ma- the 6 -foot level, with its perks and
1,990 its equipment has been put imo day." tines for water exercises, troughs," she said, "The wave
115 pools in large and small cities doesn't travel on top of the Water,"
around the country. Its equipment She said visitors don't stay as long Strenuous activities can take place at
also has been installed in 40 wave because. playing or, computerized one end while, at the shallow end',
pools in Europe And four in Asia; waves is extremely exhausting, "It's a children and people in wheelchairs
principally Japan. good workout," she said, can get in the water and experience
6.
t;]A N1nowA1'd 00te
1d3Q 03M 1 Md H1noWOAHNd'iS aT?0 ah s . +
0011 'ON tnv)ed'
CPA '40 cesurlH,
piedef9etsod ,5.n
eted 41ne
is no secret, The romance is dead
For thousands of cities In the
United States and Canada, the
traditional public swimming pool
has lost its charm, Suffering this of<
fects of a broken relationship, many e, pub
Ile, -,swimming pool has become a revenue
drain.
But as the: public pioneers who have
added waterpark attractions report sUc-
ass, many cities are no longer sitting still,
for the thousands of dollars in deficits they
were accumulating each month from oper.
ating their pools, They're P Iding water -
slides and wave pools to breathe new
magic into their facilities and offset some
of their losses,
In 1984, the city of Miamisburg, Ohio,
added aTechnstic SRI wi;terslide, "We had
a 50 -year-old facility that used to be the only
facility in the area," said Rick Bryant, su-
perintendent, "A lot of neighboring commu-
nity swimming pools were having a nega-
tive Impact on the number of people that
we. %bre having at our facility, so we needed
something 'splashy' that would attract peo-
ple," he described,
A conservative small town, there was
some opposition from the city council,
whose members, were concerned about
public support for such a large project, 'But
we were losing as much as $35,000 a year,
Rick said, adding that the council approved
the project eventually, Money was borrowed
utilizing the city's borrowing power, They set
Up a 10 -year note period with a low interest
rate to build the waterslide,
To get the facility off the ground, the city
had a contest in local schools and dis-
tributed flyers throughout the area, News
media personalities and local politicians
were Invited to a ribbon -cutting ceremony
on opening day, "I think that's important,"
he said,
A flat fee is charged at the facility, which
has the waterslide, a 50 -meter Olympic
awirnt'ning pool, small wading pool, open
bath area and refreshment stand, "We're not
1'I%99 sust1o)i Cvaaua
9G8PT X09 I04
1109 t'POSSIV
KJOA,
trying to compete with waterparks in the
area; Wire just trying to create more in-
terest in the facility as a whole, and the
watersilde has done that for us.' Before the
slide was added, total revenue In a good'
year was about $35,000 to $40,000, "Now
we make $70,000 to $75,000,"
Burdette Park in Evansville, Indiana,
has also reported success with their water-
slide additions, Their 25 -year-old pool was
operating at a half million dollar a year
oeficit before they added two 350 -foot -long
Alberisson-Hunter serpentine slides in July
of 1985. "i guess recreation needs are just
changing more and more all the time, said
Mark Tuley, park general manager, "It
seems like the public here Is reacting very,.
very favorably to the latest improvements
to this park,"
The park has a campground, BMX track,
roller skating rink, batting cages and other
amenities. Average attendance before the
waterslide was 44,000 per season, which
jumped to 59,000 the first full season of the
waterslide and over 70,000. In 1987,
Although there is no admission fee to the
park, each attraction is set tip on a userµ
fee structure, "our revenue has doubled in
the last flee years and 1 think the waterslide
has been the big kick; Mark continued, in
1987, revenue was $3(0,000 compared to
150,000 in 1982,
Burdette Park is looking into a three-
phase expansion which will include two
more, waterslides, a lazy river and wet/dry
rides, such as bumper boats; go-karts and
a mini-golfcourse,
Colorado Is another state that has gone
waterslide wild. Water World in Hyland
Mills has grown continually year atter year
and Is now the kingpin of public waterparks,
The park was built by the Hyland Hills
Metropolitan Park and Recreation District,
and two waterslides opened the first year,
1979,
After observing; the success of Hyland
Hills, the city of Lowland decided to stretch
their wings in 1985 and add a waterslide
to their outdoor pool, They also bulft a multi-
purpose playground. 'We wanted to make
the pool mote attractive andhelpIncrease
revenues and offset expenses, said Tim
Larkin, aquatics coordinator,
They used various funds to finance the
Aquaflume, built by Churchich & Associ-
ates, a local playground comp€ny In Boul-
der, The city introduced It to the public
through a "name-the-silds contest" held at
local grade schools, and the nntirR winning
school was Invited to the facility for a free.
pool party,
The waterslide had to be retrofitted to
their existing pool and part of the coping
stone (the concrete tile on top of the pool)
hRd to be cut away so that the flume would
be within a few Inches of the water, "it was
not an Ideal situation, Tim recalled "it
worked out fine, be we have to keep extra
water in the pool at all times"
Since Loveland added the one -flume
waterslide, they have gone from 40% cost
recovery to 90% cost recovery, The city had
a projected payback of 21/2 years, but they
were able to pay it back in about two years,
It"s a, great Idea and the watersildes really
do add to the versatility of the pool, Tim
added, noting that the waterslide also
tripled their rentals,
Excerpts from Splash Magazine
Dr, David L. Kennedy & Dr. Clinton C. St>rehle
optotttctrists
1025 N we -ren Dane: - Ply mouth, AIN 554:1 • "let. 612 -545 -WO
DHy 27e 1988
Mr. Eric Blank
Park &1 Recreation. Dept,
City of Plymouth
3400 Plymouth Blvd.
Plymouth, W 55441
Dear Eric
I'm writing to urge your department to piati and support the
expansion of Tennis participation in Plymouth by developing ne«
public tennis courts preferably in the Plymouth City Center area.
As a, cititen of Plymouth for 14 years, my family and Z have
participated in irany of the Plymouth - sponsored events tennis
tournaments, soccer and wining. We would like to have tennis
courts in the central area of Plymouth - hopefully when, discussion
of a Central Park concept might be. The trail, system seems to be
coming along well and perhaps the paths could be used by adults and
teenagers for biking or walking to the central courts.
Please look into the possibility of developing these Tennis
Courts. Thank; you :for your time.
Sincerely,
64E
Clinton C. Strehl.e O.D.
CCS: mk
NWK
motes,
law
AtivA!,ws Doctixs
J
AN
tti't,tuttxtw7, a0d. AVSiNfft.lS tFfN,1U@t rrI iipiNmr17 Yk 3c010 mitkS.Aiid ttidemi(Mi Ut timlli(iY N010- at OplUmgtn', Inti`,. Tfadi*, ,NR M17%
1
DAVE WMENeERGIN
MONNOOTA
aXniteb Ztateis.Senate
WASNlNGTOtlr Q.C. 10910
May 27, 1988.
tric J. Blank
Director, Parks and ROC,
City of Plymouth
3400 Plymouth Blvd,
Plymouth, Minnesota 55447
Dear Eric;
Thank you for your thoughts regarding the American Meraitage
Trust Tuna Act, designed to reauthorize the Land and Water
Conservation Fund (LAWCON). I appreciate hearing from you;.
Senator Chafee has; sponsored the bill, S.2199, in the
Senate: while Congressman Udall has introduced identical
legislation in the House, M.H.4127. Both bills would establish
a trust fund that would ultimately be; able to appropriate
1 billion annually for the Cana and dater Conservation Fund. I
understand that the appropriated money would. be split between
the state and federal governments.
As a private citizen, I war deeply involved in state and
local recreation. As a Senator, I have been committed to the
preservation and maintenance of our natural resources for future
generations. I have always supported the Land. and Water
Conservation Fund. I have been dismayed .t the trend of reduced
funding, particularly for state and Local governments, of
LANCON accordingly, I support the Udall/Chafer bill and will:
work for its passage in; the hopes that it will provide stable
and permanent funding. In the interim, I will also work to s e
that LAWCON is adequately funded and that outAoor recreation
gets the share it needs and deserves
Once again, thank you for your, thoughts. It is -a privilege
to serve Iyou in the United States Senate.
jincerely
w
DD/eq
Dive Durenberger
United States Stnato
px
ly s
CMGAM
M" IM
MMM .s
RAS IMM•• -
Am X1 N -
MNr
C' i r p 1} r 3015 Golden Valley Road * Golden Valley, Minnesots SU220 (617) W8-08"
ourageage Chi 1 e1 Duluth Area Services a 206 waist 2nd Street + Duluth, MN &W2 0 (?18) 72%68
Dear Readers:
Immediately following the Seoul Olympic Games athletes from ST nations will compete
In the Seoul Paralympic Games. The following athletes have been selected by their
respective national organizations to represent the USA at the Socul Paralympic Games
October 15-28. Based on their previous parformances, these people will reprmgont you
very well. You will be proud of them.
f Dick Crumb St, Paul Track d Field'
Ken Hardy Plymouth Archery
Mark Knutson Brooklyn Center Wetghtlitting
Scott Lehman St, Louis Park Archery
Tarns Oothoudt Minneapolis track a Marathon
army Nterson Plymouth Archery
Mike Stouner Golden Valley Archery
Bob Tuna Jackson Field
Karen Casper -Robeson St. Paul Basketball
Susan Hegel New Hope Basketball
Mary Ann O'Neill New HoPe Basketball
Deb Sunderman Savage Basketball
Scott Tjade,n Willman Swimming
Mary Jo Kittok Annandale Field
Patti Baxter Spicer Goal Ball
Lori Johnson St. Paul SwimminglField
Jim Mesto Fridley FleldlJudo
Bob Grong Minneapolis Track and Field/
Table Tennis
Mike Jwanouskos St. Paul Archery
Allison Locsy Arden Hills Track 5 Field
It you have time, call your local papers and T. V. and radio stations. Ask them to keep
the community abreast of the Seoul Paralympic Games and its local athletes,
Sincerely,
SPORTS, PHYSICAL EDUCATION AND RECREATION STAFF AND VOLUNTEERS'
MlEMAI sOt
Hilt WIN='
CITY ODg11Clt
wtllC "M swam
IV"E
tKAPP" ! ac Oil..
AifAttllIS1M11ME
1111 itn
3