Loading...
2023 -06-13-23 PRC Agenda Packet CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION Tuesday, June 13, 2023- 6:30 P.M. Mendota Heights City Hall-Council Chambers AGENDA 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Pledge of Allegiance 4. Approval of Agenda 5. Approval of Minutes a. April 11, 2023 Regular Meeting Minutes b. May 9, 2023 Work Session Meeting Minutes 6. Citizen Comment Period (for items not on the agenda) *See guidelines below 7. Acknowledgement of Reports a. Par 3 Update b. Recreation Update c. Park Improvement Update 8. New Business a. Introduction of Parks and Recreation Intern, Darby Keech b. Park Bench Donation Recommendation c. Park QR Code Signage Approval d. Amendment to the Parks and Recreation Scholarship Program 9. Unfinished Business a. 2024 Budget--Parks Capital Improvement Project Recommendations b. Parks and Recreation Strategic Planning Update 10. Staff Announcements 11. Student Representative Update 12. Commission Comments and Park Updates 13. Adjourn Auxiliary aids for persons with disabilities are available at least 120 hours in advance. If a notice of less than 120 hours is received, the City of Mendota Heights will make every attempt to provide the aids. This may not, however, be possible on short notice. Please contact City Administration at 651-452-1850. Guidelines for Citizen Comment Period: The Citizen Comments section of the agenda provides an opportunity for the public to address the commission on items which are not on the agenda. All are welcome to speak. Comments should be directed to the Chair. Comments will be limited to 5 minutes per person and topic; presentations which are longer than five minutes will need to be scheduled with the Recreation Program Coordinator to appear on a future Parks and Recreation commission agenda. Comments should not be repetitious. Citizen comments may not be used to air personal attacks, to air personality grievances, to make political endorsements, or for political campaign purposes. Commissioners will not enter into a dialogue with citizens, nor will any decisions be made at that presentation. Questions from the Commission will be for clarification only. Citizen comments will not be used as a time for problem solving or reacting to the comments made, but rather for hearing the citizen for information only. If appropriate, the Chair may assign staff for follow up to the issues raised. 1 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA DR AFT PARKS AND RECREATION MEETING MINUTES APRIL 11, 2023 The April meeting of the Mendota Heights Parks and Recreation Commission was held on Tuesday, April 11, 2023, at Mendota Heights City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve. 1. Call to Order – Chair Jaffrey Blanks called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. 2. Roll Call – The following Commissioners were present: Chair Jaffrey Blanks, Commissioners: Stephanie Meyer, Michelle Muller, Jo Schifsky, Dan Sherer, and Michael Toth; absent: Commissioner Tica Hanson. Student Representative: Meg Murphy. Staff present: Parks and Recreation Manager Meredith Lawrence, Recreation Program Coordinator Willow Eisfeldt, and Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek. 3. Pledge of Allegiance The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. 4. Approval of Agenda Motion Muller/second Meyer to approve the agenda AYES 6: NAYS 0 5.a Approval of Minutes from March 14, 2023 Regular Meeting Motion Muller/second Schifsky to approve the minutes of the March 14, 2023 Parks and Recreation Commission Regular Meeting. AYES 6: NAYS 0 5.b Approval of Minutes from March 22, 2023 Joint Work Session Meeting Motion Muller/second Schifsky to approve the minutes of the March 22, 2023 Parks and Recreation Commission Joint Work Session Meeting. AYES 6: NAYS 0 6. Citizen Comment Period (for items not on the agenda) None. 7. Introduction of Recreation Program Coordinator Parks and Recreation Manager Meredith Lawrence introduced Willow Eisfeldt, the new Recreation Program Coordinator who began employment on March 13th. She reviewed the tasks that would be handled by the position and provided additional details on the experience the employee brings with her. She noted that it has been quite amazing as to the things that have been accomplished in her first month. 7.Acknowledgement of Reports Chair Blanks read the titles of the three updates (Par 3, Recreation, and Park Improvement Updates) and polled the Commissioners for questions. 7.a Par 3 Update Parks and Recreation Manager Meredith Lawrence reported that today was the first day open for the course. She expressed thanks to the staff that worked to prepare the course over the weekend. She stated that the course has already been busy with about 40 high school students out today. She reviewed the updates that were completed in the clubhouse as well as the 5a.2 projects still planned. She noted that the new patio furniture is also in place. She stated that they are still awaiting delivery of two pieces of equipment and are working to find loaner equipment until those pieces can be delivered. 7.b Recreation Update Recreation Program Coordinator Willow Eisfeldt highlighted upcoming programing opportunities, activities, and events. She also noted the seasonal positions they are still looking to hire for the upcoming season. Student Representative Murphy asked the age at which students can work. Ms. Eisfeldt replied that those 16 years and older can apply for some of the seasonal positions. 7.c Parks Improvement Update Parks and Recreation Manager Meredith Lawrence provided an update on the progress of park improvement projects as well as the anticipated timelines for approved projects. She also reviewed the current balance of the special parks fund. Commissioner Toth referenced the new dugouts and asked if that was a working relationship with MHAA or whether that was a City expense. Ms. Lawrence stated that the City will be fully funding the project but worked in coordination with the organization. Commissioner Sherer stated that there has been a goal over the past few years to add dugout covers. He referenced the Council discussion related to the canopy addition for the playground which would put the project over budget. He recognized that some other projects have come in under budget. He asked if there is tracking of whether projects are over or under budgets which could help guide additional considerations. Ms. Lawrence noted that Civic Center includes fencing and therefore it is not yet known as to whether it would be over or under budget. She stated that if the budgeted funds are not spent, those are returned to the general fund which helps to fund parks projects as well. She provided an estimate of the playground project which would be funded through the special parks fund. Commissioner Muller commented that if the Council authorizes $75,000, why would they use funds from the special parks fund. Ms. Lawrence commented that it was expected that part of the project cost would be funded through the special parks fund. She explained that there are restrictions on how the special parks fund can be used and therefore when projects can be funded through that source it is recommended as the other option for funding is the general fund and those dollars are used for projects that cannot be funded through the special parks fund. Commissioner Muller recognized the large contribution that was made to the special park fund by the recently approved apartment building. She commented that there is not much land left for development and therefore it would be anticipated that the fund would not be available to use in the future. Ms. Lawrence confirmed that future funding will be part of the joint meeting with the City Council. 3 Commissioner Sherer stated that the hope would be that in collaboration with the Council they could find a sustainable funding source for the future. He commented that the funds are not invested, therefore the sooner they use those funds the more they get in return as costs only increase in the future. Commissioner Toth referenced the total project cost and asked if the bid is itemized and whether the Commission would see that itemized bid. Ms. Lawrence replied that each of the project locations and scope was bid separately. She stated that it was not super detailed but there was a breakdown between labor and materials cost. She noted that most of these projects will go directly before the Council in order to save time and get projects going within the construction season. Commissioner Meyer asked if staff wants to provide input on whether the special parks fund can be used for things such as resurfacing pickleball courts. Ms. Lawrence recognized that residents have reached out requesting that the Marie Park pickleball courts within the hockey rink be resurfaced and staff estimates that work to be about $25,000. She commented that the project was not budgeted for 2023, and staff will recommend that as a 2024 project. She stated that project would need to be funded through the general fund because the courts already exist with the same type of surfacing. She stated that staff will also recommend installing pickleball courts within the already paved hockey rink at Wentworth noting that would be an eligible special parks fund expense. Commissioner Schifsky asked if the Wentworth project could be moved up if the Marie courts are deemed as unsafe for play. Ms. Lawrence stated that has not been budgeted for 2023. She stated that the Council could provide that direction but with the length of time necessary to obtain quotes and a contractor, she did not believe that the courts would be complete for the season. She noted that staff also wanted to wait one year to allow the pavement to settle before applying the surfacing. Commissioner Sherer provided some background information on the Marie Park and Friendly Hills pickleball courts, constructed in 2020 and 2021. He noted that from an engineering standpoint it would not be beneficial to have flooding on those spaces each year, as there should be a drainable base under that type of surface and therefore there will most likely be ongoing maintenance issues. Public Works Director Ryan Ruzek replied that there was a really thick sand filling layer under the acrylic surface that has shrunk and believed that once they address that it would provide a better surface. He believed the original asphalt went down in 2013. Commissioner Sherer asked if there is a drainable aggregate layer under the asphalt. Ms. Ruzek replied that they do follow the standard paving process. He again believed that the sand filler has shrunk as it dried out. 8.New Business 4 8.a Roger’s Lake Skate Park Reconstruction Parks and Recreation Manager Meredith Lawrence stated that the goal for tonight is to provide direction for the next steps on this project. She provided background on the development of the skate park, which opened in 2004 and has been an asset to the community. She noted that the features were installed on an underutilized tennis court and the base is starting to fail, as are some of the features. She stated that the operation and maintenance of the skate park has become more challenging over the past five years. She stated that in 2020 a subcommittee was formed to discuss issues and opportunities and since that time the skate park users have worked to make that more family friendly. She stated that the subcommittee was paused in 2021 and staff brought forward a budget request in November 2022 to allocate $300,000 for the skate park. She stated that since that time the subcommittee has reconvened to help develop the design for the skate park. She provided a photo of the existing facility and reviewed the project team members. She stated that in January, 2023 the subcommittee asked staff to reconsider a full concrete park, but the City Council directed staff to continue to design a modular feature skate park with concrete base within the allotted budget. She stated that the Council also asked staff to utilize a skatelite surfacing for project features, though more expensive, as it would result in quieter and more desirable riding surface. She provided details on the community engagement that has occurred throughout this process. She reviewed the proposal for the skate park base which would have an estimated cost of $145,000 and would be a reduction in size from the existing size. She reviewed the proposed skate park features which were selected based off the input from the public engagement. She displayed the proposed design and proposed timeline. She also provided details on the budget impact, noting that as proposed the project would be over budget and provided options that the Commission could consider tonight. She stated that staff supports bringing the final design as proposed forward to the Council at its next meeting along with additional funding options. Chair Blanks provided an opportunity for residents to speak. Craig Williams, 2259 Field Stone Drive, stated that he has been involved with the subcommittee since 2020 and there has been a lot of discussion related to materials, size and cost. He thanked the Commission for bringing this project back as a priority. He stated that the subcommittee was not able to fully interact with the proposal options as the details on cost were not known at that time. He stated that the option to do nothing would be the worst as this is a desired amenity noting that skateboarding offers a physical opportunity for those that many not participate in organized sports. He stated that there were things that could be edited from the plan in order to save money, but recognized there is balance between special parks fund and general fund expenditures. He noted that some elements could be removed from the center and the mini ramp could be revitalized to be reused. He stated that the improvement from an asphalt surface to cement is a huge improvement in itself. He stated that he would not want a City Council member or City Attorney to discount that type of improvement. He referenced the option related to the bonding bill and provided an update noting that those funds would likely be available in 2024. He provided a contact the City can reach out about the legislative activity. Joshua Paulson, 1709 Buchanan St NW in Minneapolis, stated that he is a regular visitor of the skate park and spent about 3.5 hours there today. He thanked Mr. Williams for his comments and agreed that those comments align with users of the park. He agreed with scaling back on the features or postponing to next year with hopes that additional funding could be gaining through the legislature. He agreed that the skate park is a well-used amenity and the option to do nothing should not be chosen. He commented that it is important to have a facility that is functional and promotes growth. He believed that the design as proposed looks very crowded and could cause conflict between users. He stated that opening some space would create flow 5 for people to use the space safely and provide space for users of all abilities to access space. He believed that Rogers Lake is a great location for the skate park and was glad to see it remaining in that location. Commissioner Meyer asked for information on the mini ramp. Ms. Lawrence identified the mini ramp on the design. Commissioner Meyer asked which features would be recommended for removal. Mr. Williams commented that there are five lanes on this plan and identified those lanes. He stated that with 8,000 square feet, if the lanes are done directly across, one unobservant user can create conflict with four or five other users. He suggested moving the spine ramp in the center and perhaps the grind pad to increase visibility. Commissioner Meyer referenced the bonding bill concept and requirements that could come along with those funds. She noted that Mendota Heights has not qualified for other grants as those have been geared for underserved communities. Mr. Williams stated that there are seven evaluation criteria and Mendota Heights already satisfies several of those. He commented that there are some that could be improved upon, but there would be time to do so. He noted that roller skating has been on the increase which has been great for increasing female users of the park. He noted that design build proposals will be higher priority. He noted that the contact he provided could provide more input on that issue. Commissioner Sherer commented that in grants some expenses are eligible while others are not. He asked if the total project would be eligible or just the equipment. Mr. Williams stated that the new wording that has been floated around would require a dollar-to- dollar match. He stated that dollar for dollar cannot be used to start the fundraising process, explaining that the funding should already be in place and the LGU should be able to demonstrate the ability to provide the matching funds. Mr. Ruzek replied that this project may not score well in the eyes of the grant. He stated that he would fear that the park as designed may not score well for the grant program. Commissioner Schifsky asked if the concrete option would score better. Mr. Ruzek believed that would score better. Commissioner Schifsky stated that wheelchair users have not been mentioned, noting that her youngest was a wheelchair user and loved skateparks. She commented that modular does not work as well for those users. Commissioner Toth commented that years ago when the skate park was introduced there were questions as to why that park would be put in. He commented that he goes by the park daily and it is used all the time, even in the winter months as users shovel that surface for use. He was happy to hear that people from other communities also use the park and agreed that Rogers Lake is a great location. He recognized the proposed reduction in size which impacts the users of different abilities. He hoped that they could work through this to perhaps increase the size as safety of the users should be a consideration. He commented that there are adults 6 and children using the park every day and that should be a consideration when rebuilding the park to ensure it is done right. Commissioner Muller stated that if they decrease the size the project would not be eligible for special park funds. She asked why the size would not be increased, using the special parks fund. Ms. Lawrence explained that only the increased size, over the existing size would be eligible for special parks fund use. She noted that some of the new features would be eligible for special parks fund use. She stated that if the base size were increased that would substantially increase the cost which would be even more over budget. Commissioner Muller asked if the change in surface material could be considered. Ms. Lawrence stated that they have discussed that and did not believe that would be eligible for special park fund use. Mr. Ruzek replied that there was a meeting with the City Attorney, and it was determined that changing from asphalt to concrete would not be eligible. Ms. Lawrence stated that when they brought this forward to the Council in January for direction, there was direction from the Council to proceed with a concrete base and modular features. She did not think a higher budget request would be approved as the project total was supposed to be $300,000. She stated that the Council agreed with the skatelite features, knowing that would increase the cost by 25 percent. Commissioner Muller asked if there would be an option to remove the skatelite use. Ms. Lawrence confirmed that could be an option, although the Council may not choose that option. Commissioner Meyer noted that the current amount estimated to be over budget is in line with the direction of the Council to use the skatelite features. Chair Blanks commented that his interjection would be to ask the Council to approve the plans as proposed with the budget overage, as this additional cost for the skatelite was known by the Council. He stated that he would prefer to continue with the better-quality surface as it lessens the noise and improves safety for users. He believed that this should move forward as proposed. He stated that while he would love to use bonding funds, it would be unknown as to whether the City would even quality. He stated that perhaps that could be an option for a future phase that could increase the size. Ms. Lawrence stated that staff had hoped that the total would not be this much with the skatelite, noting that the concrete costs have surprised them throughout this process. She stated that staff is comfortable presenting this to Council because of the justification. Commissioner Sherer asked the basis of the budget of $300,000. He stated that at one time there was going to be a study and asked if that occurred. 7 Ms. Lawrence confirmed that funds were spent on consultants to study the soils and surfacing and to develop the design. She stated that staff felt that $300,000 would be adequate to rebuild a similar skate park. Commissioner Sherer asked if there was a size and type of park in mind at that time. Ms. Lawrence stated that the Council wanted to see a very similar modular skate park on a concrete base, which helped to develop the budget. Chair Blanks commented that in 2020, that cost would have provided the same size park but with inflation, the size has been reduced. Commissioner Sherer noted that some pricing has decreased and perhaps that will be the case for this project. Mr. Ruzek commented that the investigation discovered poor soil conditions and provided details on the additional efforts that would be completed to increase the sustainability of the base. He stated that the concrete is estimated at $9 per square foot but noted the additional line items for the soil corrections. He stated that the fill that is removed could perhaps be moved to the hill location in the park, which could provide a cost savings of $8,000 to $10,000 but could cause additional costs if there were to be a second phase. He stated that the sidewalk from the parking lot to the skate park would also need to be replaced. He did not believe the engineer overestimated the unit costs. Commissioner Sherer asked if the proposal from the American Ramp Company would be negotiable. Mr. Ruzek replied that those are set prices through the State contract. He noted that the features suggested for removal by the resident tonight would be eligible for special parks fund use. He stated that some of the equipment could be investigated to determine if there could be reuse but staff would also be comfortable moving forward as proposed as suggested by Chair Blanks. He stated that American Ramp Company is the only company on the State contract, but the base work would be bid. Commissioner Meyer stated that in past discussions it was mentioned that there are other national companies that provide similar services. She felt locked in and uncomfortable that they have gone down this path rather than completing an RFP. Chair Blanks commented that the challenge that they have is that company is the only one on the State contract. Commissioner Meyer commented that the project could be put out to RFP and does not have to go off the State contract. Mr. Ruzek stated that in that scenario another $40,000 to $50,000 would be spent developing plans for contractors to bid on. Ms. Lawrence stated that the Council directed a modular park and that is the only contractor to do so. 8 Commissioner Muller stated that direction was only given a few months ago and ARC was already involved in the process long before that. She stated that the playground reviewed last month included proposals from three contractors. Commissioner Meyer stated that she was simply voicing that she was uncomfortable, but they are too far at this point. She stated that her comments should be considered on future projects. Commissioner Muller commented that she does not believe that the survey had full participation from the community because of the low response. She stated that she wants to ensure that the best features are being incorporated. She stated that as someone that does not have this knowledge, she would like the advice of actual users. She stated that no matter what the Commission says, the Council can take different action noting the recent change in colors for the playground. Mr. Paulson commented that the feature in the very center, the spine and A-frame, could be removed to free up that center space along with the ramp to the side of it. He stated that maybe even the ramp at the top, connected to the mini ramp, unless that needs to be designed in that manner. He stated that the existing mini ramp could even be kept in that corner as that is one of the best half pipes in Minnesota. He stated that outside of one crack in the skatelite, which could be replaced, the ramp is in good condition. He stated that removing that center lane of ramps would improve the flow and functionality and a cost savings. Chair Blanks recognized that would also be less congestion and increase safety. Mr. Paulson stated that there are a lot of features in skateboarding, but it is more important to have functional space for all users rather than filling the space to capacity. He used the Roseville skate park as an example of a park that packs a lot of features into a small space. He stated that if the middle section were removed, the rails could then be moved into that space. He identified the core features that skaters look for in the park noting that the features they have recommended to be removed are not often well used. Commissioner Sherer asked about the reduction that would be seen if those features were removed. Mr. Ruzek replied that those are features that are new and would use special parks funds, which would reduce the budget. Commissioner Meyer commented that she is not concerned as she would prefer not to include features that will not be used and will decrease safety. Chair Blanks agreed with removing those center features as it sounds like it would increase safety and provide better flow to the park. He stated that does not change that they would still want to move this forward to the City Council to request additional funds. He asked if the Commission is comfortable asking the Council for more money for the project. He stated that the issue of equipment removal would be separate. Commissioner Schifsky asked if increasing the size could use those special parks fund. Mr. Ruzek confirmed that an increase in size would be eligible for special parks fund. 9 Commissioner Meyer commented that in order to be eligible for special parks fund use for the increased size, 4,000 square feet would need to be added to get back to the existing base size and then anything above that would be eligible for special parks fund use. Commissioner Muller asked if the users would keep all the features if the size were the same as the existing park. The users replied that they would still remove those features. It was noted that 10,000 square feet seems to be an ideal size. Commissioner Toth referenced the budget of $300,000 and asked what that decision was based upon. Mr. Ruzek stated that in 2020 they discussed replacing the same park with some new features. Ms. Lawrence stated that based on the input of the users features 17, 18 and 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, and 29 would be removed, and features 15 and 16 would be shifted over. Chair Blanks stated that he would want to double check the features that received votes through public engagement. He stated that if one of those features received a lot of votes, that should be considered as feedback was only provided by two users tonight. He stated that conversation can also be had with ARC as to opening up that center. Ms. Lawrence agreed that staff was apprehensive in the playground designs last month about removing features to add more swings, as users could have voted for a certain design based on certain features. She confirmed that staff would compare these features proposed for removal with the votes received by users. Mr. Paulson stated that all those features are great for a skate park, but not in the current locations. He agreed that there could be space for some of those features to remain if they were located in another area. Commissioner Muller referenced the comment that there were grant funds available in 2021 that were not used and asked for more details. Mr. Williams provided details on his conversations which noted that $216,000 were left remaining available in the grant program in 2021. Commissioner Meyer commented that the voting results were included in the packet and people really want a half pipe with no high priority for the other elements. She agreed that people like the mini ramp the City has. Ms. Lawrence stated that staff has been in conversation with the Amateur Sports Commission (ASC) related to the bonding bill and timing. She stated that they could not provide any answers on the timing, and she has asked them to keep the City in the loop. She stated that ASC did not mention any current grant funding available and believed a 2025 or 2026 would be most likely if those funds were allocated. Commissioner Muller asked for staff opinion on the mini ramp. 10 Ms. Lawrence replied that the mini ramp does not meet tier one standards. She stated that if the ramp is not replaced now, she was unsure when funding would be available for future replacement as there are a lot of CIP projects planned for the next few years. Mr. Ruzek stated that the ramp can be repaired. He stated that ARC can provide that surface to reinforce existing features. Commissioner Muller asked the plan for existing features. Mr. Ruzek replied that there is no plan for that right now and noted that would be reviewed as things are approved. He noted that the City is limited in options for equipment disposal. Commissioner Muller commented that it seems the existing equipment has the skatelite surfacing and therefore it is unfortunate that there was a push to get that when the direction was to rebuild the park in the same manner. Ms. Lawrence stated that was an option staff provided to Council in order to receive more for the money. Commissioner Muller asked if the surfacing is known to be quieter or just provides a smoother surface. The users confirmed that the material is quieter. Commissioner Sherer commented that it seems that there is minimal risk to getting quotes on the pad. Mr. Ruzek replied that the pad will not be publicly bid, as the cost is below the threshold. He stated that the City has a list of eight contractors that would receive the information to bid the project. He noted the time constraint that the City would have for contractors to begin the work on July 10th. Commissioner Sherer asked if an alternate could be provided that would be more flexible on the timeline. Mr. Ruzek stated that the concern with timing would be that the features would not be available for use before the snow. He stated that if the bids are high, they would bring this back to review alternate options. Commissioner Schifsky stated that part of the issue is that the base is being replaced because of the damage, therefore part of the cost would be demolition and disposal of that material. She asked if the existing park could remain with the new addition to be placed next to it. Mr. Ruzek replied that there is not that amount of space. He explained the process that would be used to grind up the asphalt base that would be used to go under the new base. He noted that the bad soils under that asphalt would be removed. Commissioner Toth referenced the 28-day curing process for concrete. He asked if that period would need to pass before the features can be installed. He noted that perhaps the existing park could be used for spring, summer and into fall with the concrete being poured with sufficient cure time and then features installed ready for use in the spring. 11 Ms. Lawrence replied that there is a detailed schedule, and her concern would be part of the cost is installation of equipment, therefore if the equipment is purchased and not installed there could be issued. Mr. Ruzek commented that the 28-day cure has been factored into the timeline. He noted that some of the existing features may be available to be moved to Wentworth for skaters to use during construction. Motion Meyer/second Sherer to move this forward to City Council with the removal of the spine, A-frame, and ramp in the center and direct City staff to investigate whether the mini ramp could be reused. Further discussion: Commissioner Toth asked if potential expansion of the surface could be mentioned. Commissioner Meyer commented that expanding could be looked at in the future if the City were able to obtain bonding or grant funds. Commissioner Muller stated that she would amend the motion to consider keeping the A-frame in a different location. Commissioner Meyer accepted that amendment. Chair Blanks noted that the ultimate desire is to open up the center to improve the flow. He reiterated the motion to forward the proposal to City Council as proposed over budget, with direction to more or remove the A frame, spine, and ramp in the middle to increase flow, and investigate the potential to keep the mini ramp. AYES 6: NAYS 0 8.b Friendly Hills Pickleball Light Program Parks and Recreation Manager Meredith Lawrence presented a request for recreational lights at Friendly Hills for pickleball use. She stated that recreational lights in the parks began in 2020, with a trial program approved at Marie Park for the fall of 2021 for basketball and pickleball use. She reviewed the timeline since that time involving light use at Marie Park and the request for similar lighting at Friendly Hills. She noted that Friendly Hills lighting did not move forward in 2022 based on resident input. She stated that the Council provided direction earlier this year to expand the lighting program to Friendly Hills and highlighted changes that have been made to Friendly Hills and the lighting program since the previous consideration in 2022. She provided an overview of the program at Marie Park. She provided details on the community engagement input received. She noted the differences between Marie Park and Friendly Hills related to topography and proximity to residential properties. She stated that two resident comments were received prior to the meeting and provided to the Commission. She stated that Council also directed staff to look into noise abatement at both Marie and Friendly Hills and stated that it would not be feasible to incorporate the recommendation from the noise mitigation company to increase the height of the hockey boards. She stated that staff would recommend planting additional trees to potentially lessen the noise to property owners. She stated that only one noise complaint has been received related to pickleball use at Marie Park. She identified potential tree locations for both Friendly Hills and Marie, noting that those locations would need input from the Natural Resources Coordinator. She stated that trees could also be provided to residents to plant on their private property. 12 Chair Blanks invited residents to provide input. Mary Melzarek, 717 Navaho Lane, stated that her home is about 108 feet from the rink boards. She noted that she did provide similar input last year when this was discussed. She noted that last year it was agreed upon that the lighting program would not be implemented at Friendly Hills because of the proximity to homes and lack of topography change at Friendly Hills compared to Marie. She was pleased to see the mention of adding trees as a buffer. She commented that there was supposed to be a pickleball plan and lighting plan within the Strategic Plan but could not find that information in her research. She commented that the park did not have pickleball lighting last year but there was a note mentioning a fair amount of calls wondering why there were not lights at the park. She stated that signs were installed at Friendly Hills when the push button lighting was implemented, but that was not working at Friendly Hills as it was not approved for the lighting. She stated that Mendota Heights is one of the only communities that has added lighting for pickleball. She recognized that the decision is back before the Commission again this year, but nothing has been done that would be different to change the decision from last year. She stated that if something were to change, she would agree to try the lights for a season but is opposed until that time. She commented that the Friendly Hills courts are not favored for pickleball play because of the surface and rough condition of the courts. She stated that Marie Park users prefer to play on those courts. Commissioner Muller commented that there have been some shades installed on the lights and after seeing how bright the lights are she would not recommend having the lights. Motion Meyer/second Blanks to recommend that pickleball lighting at Friendly Hills does not move forward, but that noise mitigation efforts do move forward for that location. AYES 6: NAYS 0 8.c Park QR Code Discussion Parks and Recreation Manager Meredith Lawrence provided background information on QR codes and how they could be used for public engagement. She stated that the Commission was asked to provide input as was the Natural Resources Commission as a potential partnership opportunity. She stated that there would not be a cost to design a QR code, only the cost to make the signs. Chair Blanks asked if they should begin with a pilot program in certain parks. Commissioner Schifsky stated that there will be a lot going on at Wentworth with upcoming improvement projects and perhaps that would be a good location to obtain feedback. Rogers Lake was also mentioned as a good location. Commissioner Sherer asked what would be done with the input received. Ms. Lawrence stated that would be up to the Commission. She stated that if input is solicited, there would need to be a plan for review to ensure that people feel their input is meaningful. She asked the type of information that the Commission would be looking for, noting that she would not want to use the QR codes as a method for people to not contact staff directly such as an emergency situation or bathrooms that need to be unlocked. She stated that the QR codes could be used to gain input on upcoming improvement projects, such as playground replacements. 13 Commissioner Meyer stated that she liked the ideas mentioned by Chair Blanks in his email, where the QR code brings the user to an informational page about the park. She stated that perhaps there is a button that users could push when they get to that page to report a maintenance issue such as a broken swing. She stated that they can then gauge how well that is used and received by the public and if it is a good way to obtain feedback, they can use it for other reasons. She stated that the pilot could begin with the code bringing the user to a page about the park, noting any upcoming events, and an option to report a maintenance issue; beginning with Wentworth and Rogers Lake parks. Commissioner Muller stated that she likes this as a resource for people to find information and then gather data on how many times the codes are scanned by users. She stated that she would agree with highlighting natural plants and animals in the area and then information on trail routes. Commissioner Meyer stated that Rogers Lake is a good location where people could learn different things, such as how to request a canoe rental space or that licenses are required for fishing. Commissioner Muller agreed that this would be a helpful way to share additional information. Commissioner Sherer stated that he was interested in how the information would be sorted and/or used. He stated that he often receives the same requests from residents when he is at Hagstrom King, requesting certain amenities and recognized that it will be work for someone to sift through the data. He stated that people provide input on things they want and then get frustrated when that is not provided. Commissioner Meyer stated that is why she is suggesting to only include the option for residents to report a maintenance issue. Commissioner Muller stated that she likes the concept of providing users with information on the park and natural features they can look for within the park. Commissioner Meyer commented that there are things embedded within the climbing feature at Wentworth and users might find that interesting. Commissioner Schifsky agreed that information about animals would be helpful and things that visitors could search for. She stated that if they continue to hear requests about drinking fountains or other features that will also be helpful to know. She stated that users may find a QR code as a less intimidating form of engagement. Commissioner Muller asked what the sign may look like. Ms. Lawrence stated that is one of the questions staff would have. She asked whether the Commission would like yard signs or more permanent street type signs. She stated that the Commission has provided a lot of great information that will need to be refined in order to move forward. She stated that building a website will take some time and recapped the ideas the Commission provided. She stated that it will probably take staff a couple months to prepare and then they can discuss the type of signage. Commissioner Meyer commented that she would suggest a pilot at the two parks, Wentworth and Rogers Lake. 14 Commissioner Muller noted that a lot of the information on plants and animals would be the same in any park within Mendota Heights. She stated that other information, such as events, can simply be links to the City website. Ms. Lawrence stated that she would provide the parks department with the maintenance issues reported and can provide the other data to the Commission. She stated that if issues are going to be reported via the QR code, staff will need to check those daily in order to respond appropriately. Commissioner Meyer stated that the maintenance report feature could state that it is only checked once a week and immediate issues should be reported directly to City staff with the phone number. Ms. Lawrence stated that she will continue to work on this and bring back a proposal. Commissioner Muller commented that she found it helpful to look at the results from the ARC survey and that type of data from residents would be helpful and could help the Commission to prioritize future projects. 9.Unfinished Business 9.a Parks and Recreation Strategic Planning Update Parks and Recreation Manager Meredith Lawrence provided a brief update on the strategic planning calendar. 10.Staff Announcements No comments. 11. Student Representative Update Student Representative Murphy commented that she has enjoyed seeing all the progress made on engaging youth in the community through events and programing. She also hoped that the Rogers Lake skate park will move forward. 12. Commission Comments and Park Updates Commissioner Meyer •The nets were installed at Marie Park and pickleball will be busy with users Commissioner Schifsky •Thankful to be on the Commission and visit the different parks •Her kids like the playground at Wentworth •She was able to download the City events calendar to her phone which she found helpful Chair Blanks •A lot of kids out using the playgrounds •Is excited for the upcoming music events at Market Square 15 •Attended the Tour de Rec at Marie Park and it was great to see the families in attendance Commissioner Muller •Thanked everyone for their work on the Rogers Lake Skate Park throughout the past few years to get to this point •Great to see people out enjoying Rogers Lake Commissioner Toth •Public Works will be busy in the next month transitioning from the winter season •Enjoyed seeing the ducks and geese at Rogers Lake Commissioner Sherer •Thanked the residents that provided input tonight •Hoped that something could move forward for the Skate Park •A lot of activity at Hagstrom King with people enjoying the weather •People excited to get on the baseball field at Civic Center Chair Blanks thanked staff for the preparation for this meeting and all the residents that provided input in person or via email. 13.Adjourn Motion Meyer/Second Muller to adjourn the meeting at 9:06 PM AYES 6: NAYS 0 Minutes drafted by: Amanda Staple Timesaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. 16 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Minutes of the Parks and Recreation Commission Work Session May 9, 2023 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a work session of the Parks and Recreation Commission, City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota was held at 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, MN 55118. CALL TO ORDER Chair Jaffrey Blanks called the meeting to order at 6:30pm. Commissioners Michelle Muller, Michael Toth, Tica Hanson and Jo Schifsky were also present. Commissioners Stephanie Meyer and Dan Sherer were absent. City staff present included Meredith Lawrence, Parks and Recreation Manager, Ryan Ruzek, Public Works Director and Kelly Torkelson, Assistant City Administrator. QR CODE SIGNAGE WITHIN PARKS DISCUSSION Parks and Recreation Manager Lawrence briefly reviewed the item with the commissioners and provided a summary of the last discussion of this item at the April Commission meeting. Assistant City Administrator Torkelson provided an overview of the website and showed the commissioners the new maintenance form that staff had designed at their request. The commissioners reviewed the various Parks and Recreation website pages and discussed which page they would want the QR code to go to. The Commissioners determined although they desired park specific signs and website information, they would move forward with universal signage and information as part of the 2023 trial program. The Commissioners asked Parks and Recreation Manager Lawrence to get quotes on the costs for the signs in order for them to determine the sign locations at the June meeting. Assistant City Administrator Torkelson agreed to prepare a final sign design for the commission to review at their June meeting as well. REVIEW OF PARKS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN (CIP) Parks and Recreation Manager Lawrence introduced the City’s newly designed Parks Capital Improvement Plan/Asset Management Plan. The Commissioners discussed its purpose and the different funding options in relation to the projects. Staff presented to the commissioners a description of the proposed FY2024 projects and advised the commissioners they will need to likely cut or push off some of the projects as there are budget constraints. In addition, the Commissioners will be asked to approve their FY2024 budget requests at their June meeting. The Commissioners reviewed the FY2024 projects and discussed which projects were of most importance. Chair Blanks asked Parks and Recreation Manager Lawrence to prepare an exercise for the commissioners to each provide staff with their prioritized list of the FY2024 projects prior to the June meeting. The commission adjourned the meeting at 9:04pm. Minutes Taken By: Meredith Lawrence Parks and Recreation Manager 5b.17 DATE: June 13, 2023 TO: Parks and Recreation Commission FROM: Meredith Lawrence, Parks and Recreation Manager SUBJECT: Par 3 Update Clubhouse Updates The following projects have been completed in 2023 at the clubhouse: •Maintenance building fence for OSHA safety •HVAC installed at the clubhouse •Windows installed at the clubhouse •New patio furniture for the clubhouse •Carpet replacement in the clubhouse The Public Works Director and Senior Engineering Technician are working to engineer the new sidewalk entrance for the clubhouse. Staff intends to get quotes on this project soon. Maintenance Equipment Acquisition The City Council approved the acquisition of the following pieces of equipment in October, 2021: Aerator, Workman/Topdresser and Sandpro. Staff has been working with MTI Distributing to take possession of these pieces of equipment. There has been a manufacturing delay so the estimated arrivals are as follows: •Sandpro: August, 2023 (Par 3 Fund) •Workman: August, 2023 (Par 3 Fund) The Topdresser and Aerator have been delivered. Safety Inspection In May, staff had the City’s safety consultant conduct a safety audit of the maintenance building and clubhouse. A few minor issues were brought to staff’s attention as recommended changes to the buildings and those are being actively addressed by staff. Financial Update Attached is the April Par 3 Financial Report. Staff will review the numbers with the Commission at the meeting. 7a.18 Programming at the Par 3 This Summer staff is providing many recreational opportunities to residents including: Adult Golf Lessons, Women’s Golf League, Senior Golf League, Junior Golf League, Junior Golf Program and Tiger Tots Lessons. Registration is high for each of these programs and staff is excited to get many new faces on the course. Turf Conditions The turf for the month of May was in good condition. Staff has been monitoring moisture levels closely with the heat and little rain that has been received. At this time there are portions of the course that irrigation doesn’t hit and so the grass has become dormant. Once this portion of the grass receives water via rainfall, staff is confident it will become healthy again. Senior Golf Pass On May 16 the City Council decided to re-institute the Senior Golf Pass for 2023 and approved the addition of a Senior Golf pass to the City’s fee schedule via Public Hearing. 19 MONTHLY EXPENDITURE REPORT APRIL 2023 MENDOTA HEIGHTS PAR 3 BUDGET TO ACTUAL REPORT APRIL 2023 (33.33% OF YEAR) April REVENUES April YTD YTD YTD BUDGET 2023 2023 %2022 GREENS, LEAGUE & TOURN FEES $150,000 $12,526 $12,526 8.35%$10,126 RECREATION PROGRAMS $45,000 $4,576 $40,546 90.10%$45,548 CONCESSIONS $22,500 $700 $700 3.11%$897 SUNDRY REVENUE $0 $14 $14 100.00%$8 INTEREST $450 $0 $0 0.00%$0 INSURANCE CLAIM $0 $0 $0 0.00%$0 PAR 3 FUND REVENUE TOTAL $217,950 $17,815 $53,786 24.68%$56,579 EXPENDITURES April YTD YTD YTD BUDGET 2023 2023 %2022 CLUBHOUSE SALARIES $42,300 $1,970 $1,970 4.66%$2,499 ADMINISTRATIVE SALARIES $30,722 $2,460 $10,191 33.17%$7,544 FICA/PERA $12,952 $573 $1,209 9.33%$1,196 MEDICAL INSURANCE $7,187 $599 $2,396 33.34%$2,284 U/E & W/C INSURANCE $3,255 $0 $1,627 49.99%$1,059 RENTALS $6,000 $0 $0 0.00%$0 UTILITIES $14,495 $868 $3,840 26.49%$3,218 PROFESSIONAL FEES - AUDIT $2,990 $0 $0 0.00%$0 PROF FEES - CONSULTING FEES $1,100 $0 $0 0.00%$0 PROF FEES - GROUNDS MGMT $7,250 $0 $0 0.00%$0 PROF FEES - GROUNDS WAGES $25,000 $1,254 $1,328 5.31%$1,005 PROF FEES - TREE MAINTENANCE $1,500 $0 $0 0.00%$2,800 LIABILITY/AUTO INSURANCE $4,800 $0 $3,365 70.11%$3,885 OPERATING COSTS/SUPPLIES $8,850 $99 $2,177 24.60%$1,485 FUEL $2,600 $106 $106 4.09%$133 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE $54,750 $12,990 $14,021 25.61%$6,505 SUNDRY/DUES/MILEAGE/CLOTHING $12,750 $159 $2,844 22.31%$1,969 CONTINGENCY $0 $0 $0 0.00%$0 ONLINE REG & CREDIT CARD FEES $7,975 $1,896 $1,956 24.53%$1,939 PAR 3 EXPENDITURES TOTAL $246,476 $22,973 $47,031 19.08%$37,521 5/24/2023 7a1.20 DATE: June 13, 2023 TO: Parks and Recreation Commission FROM: Willow Eisfeldt, Recreation Program Coordinator SUBJECT: Recreation Update Tour De Rec This Summer youth and families are invited to join us on various Tuesdays at local spots in Mendota Heights and West St. Paul. Staff will set up activities and provide equipment for youth and families to enjoy. There will be games, sports, crafts, and more! This is a drop-in program -- no registration required. •1:30-2:30pm, Tuesday, June 13 @ TPAC- Crafty Creations •1:30-2:30pm, Tuesday, June 20 @ Wentworth Park – Spectacular Science •1:30-2:30pm, Tuesday, June 27 @ Southview Park –Pickleball play Summer Golf Programs Summer Golf Programs are underway and registration is still open for July and August sessions. More information can be found at the City’s website or at City Hall. There will also be an opportunity for youth in the community to play in our summer Junior’s Golf Tournament on July 15. The tournament requires preregistration which can also be found online with more information on the City’s website or at City Hall. Summer Tennis Programs Our crew of 8 tennis seasonal staff are leading tennis lessons at the Marie Courts and Visitation High School Courts this summer. The season kicked off on Monday, June 12 and will continue through late July. We still have registration open for our Adult Tennis Match Play program where community members from Mendota Heights and surrounding cities will have open court time for some friendly competition. Check out more information on the Adult Tennis Match Play Program on the City’s Website. Summer Pickleball Programs Summer Pickleball programs started in late May where community members are learning and fine tuning their pickleball skills with 3 dedicated instructors. If community members are interested in some friendly Pickleball competition, the City just opened registration for the annual Parks Celebration Pickleball Tournament. This tournament is a open for registration on a first come first serve basis limited to the first 32 teams to sign up. It is an open division 7b.21 tournament, any one of any age can participate. One person per pair must be a resident of Mendota Heights to be entered. This is a free event. Summer Concert Schedule Our summer concert series started on April 19th and so far we have had great turn out. The series will continue throughout the summer with the following dates and performances: June 14: Kidsdance @ 6pm June 28: Tiger Ries @ 6pm July 12: Cole Allen & Sena Erhardt @ 6pm July 26: The M&M Show @ 6pm August 9: Helium for Liftoff Trio @ 6pm August 23: Matt Graunke & The Crow River Rebellion @ 6pm September 6: Skippin’ Stones @ 6pm Partnered Summer Programs Mendota Heights is partnering with West St. Paul Parks and Recreation and other cities this summer to bring the following programs to community members that will all occur within the next three months: •Weekly Sports Camps: Highlighting a new sport each week for kids in the community to learn new skills and build relationships with other kids in the community. These camps run Mondays-Thursdays, 9am-12pm at various parks throughout West St. Paul and Mendota Heights •Fascinating Fridays: These themed events on several Fridays throughout the summer are filled with fun and education! From Summer Science Labs to Olympic Games, and Outdoor Adventures, there is a fascinating Friday for everyone. These events will take place at Harmon Park in West St. Paul from 8am-4:30pm •Tech Academy Camps: Children will have the opportunity to learn more about technology in applied camps this summer through Tech Academy. These camps are occurring throughout the summer and feature a Hogwarts Film School and STEAM Camp as well as an Architecture and Design Camps. •Community Field Trips: Partnered with West St. Paul, Inver Grove Heights, and South St. Paul, these field trips are open to anyone between the ages of 8-14 years old. We will be exploring: o Apple Valley Aquatic Center on June 27th o The St. Paul Saints on July 26th o The Rockin’ Jump Trampoline Park in Eagan on August 24th Registration for field trips is open and can be found on the City’s website or at City Hall. 22 DATE: June 13, 2023 TO: Parks and Recreation Commission FROM: Meredith Lawrence, Parks and Recreation Manager SUBJECT: Park Improvement Update Dugout/Fence Work The following projects that were approved in 2022 and have since been completed since the last meeting: •Installation of two dugouts @ Civic Center Field •Installation of two dugouts @ Victoria Highlands •Installation of two dugouts and adding 1st/3rd baseline fences @ Valley Park •Installation of 3rd baseline fence @ Hagstrom King The total project cost was $56,417. Budget/2023 Project Update Included in the 2023 budget for parks capital improvement project are: •Civic Center Foul Ball Fencing/Infield Maintenance: $40,000 •Wentworth Park Warming House: $100,000 (project scope similar to Marie and Friendly Hills Warming Houses) •Roger’s Lake Skate Park Improvements: $225,000 •Wentworth Park Tennis Court Resurfacing: $90,000 •Valley View Heights Playground Replacement: $75,000 Civic Center Infield Renovation Work: Staff received updated bids on this project and received approval from the Council on February 21. The total project cost for the infield work is $28,162.50. The project will be in progress between August 1 and August 18, 2023. The field will be offline for the rest of the year. Civic Center Foul Ball Fencing Replacement: The City Council approved on May 2 the replacement of the first and third base fencing. The total project cost was $10,368. This project has been completed. Wentworth Warming House: Staff received three bids for this project. On June 6, the City Council approved a contract with the low bidder in the amount of $58,800 to construct the new warming house. Not included in the contract price is the new heater and the electrical quote. Staff 7c.23 anticipates this to be an additional $15,000. In addition, the City will also need to pay the City building permit fees. Thus, the total project cost is estimated to be $75,048.64. The new warming house will be ready by the 2023-2024 season. Roger’s Lake Skate Park: The Commission reviewed the design proposal for the skate park at their April Commission meeting. The City Council approved the design at the April 18 meeting, and incorporated the requested changes recommended by the Commission by shifting the design by 90 degrees to provide more open space in the middle of the skate park. Staff sought bids for the concrete portion of the project. The engineers estimate for the 100-foot x 80-foot pad was $147,810. Unfortunately, the low bid for the concrete came in at $227,153.35. Thus, the City Council rejected the bids and staff is working to rebid the concrete pad with a thinner concrete base, which should reduce the project cost. Staff intends to bring the updated quotes to the July 5 City Council meeting for approval. The project is still on track to be completed in the Fall of 2023. Wentworth Tennis Courts: Staff has submitted a grant application to the United States Tennis Association (USTA) for up to $20,000 towards this project. Staff is waiting to hear back on the first round of engineer’s comments for revisions. Valley View Heights Playground: The City Council approved the renovation of the Valley View Heights playground at their March 21 meeting. The project was completed on May 23. The City hosted a ribbon cutting for the new amenity on June 8. Special Park Fund Balance Currently the Special Parks Fund is showing an estimated balance of approximately $759,000 as of June 6, 2023. Approved expenses but not yet paid (but project complete): •Dugouts at Valley, Victoria Highlands, and Civic Center: $53,574 24 DATE: June 13, 2023 TO: Parks and Recreation Commission FROM: Meredith Lawrence, Parks and Recreation Manager SUBJECT: Introduction of Parks and Recreation Intern, Darby Keech BACKGROUND The City Council approved the appointment of Darby Keech to the position of Parks and Recreation Intern at their March 21 meeting. Darby is completing her education at University of Wisconsin Stevens Point with a degree in Child Life and Family Studies in addition to a minor in Health Education. Last summer Darby interned with the City of Inver Grove Heights. She also has experience as a Resident Assistant at Stevens Point and as a Parks and Recreation Concessions Attendant for the City of South Saint Paul. Darby’s duties will include the following: coordinating and supervising the Music in the Park concert series, planning and implementation of the annual Fishing Derby and Safety Camp, planning for the Park Celebration and Trick or Tee-ing Legacy events, capturing updated photos of the park system for the website facility guide, and managing the Tour de Rec program. In addition, Darby’s internship project will be in conjunction with the Parks and Recreation Manager to write the City’s first Parks and Recreation Seasonal Staff Handbook. Darby officially began her duties as Parks and Recreation Intern on June 5. REQUESTED ACTION Informational only. 8a.25 DATE: June 13, 2023 TO: Parks and Recreation Commission FROM: Meredith Lawrence, Parks and Recreation Manager SUBJECT: Park Bench Donation Recommendation BACKGROUND: The Park Bench Donation program was adopted in 2001. Through the program, a resident may donate $1,000 to the city to offset the costs to purchase and install a park bench. Any costs above the donated amount would be the responsibility of the city from the park’s maintenance budget. Mendota Heights received a park bench donation from Ms. Mary Jane Cronin to be installed at Ivy Hills Park near the pond. A map that is attached provides a pin point of where the bench is proposed to be installed. The bench will be South of the retaining wall near the trail. The City is grateful for this donation. The desired plaque language for the bench would read: John and Mary Jane Dittberner “Blue Skies” (Insert 747 Plane Photo) Attachments: Park Bench Donation Application Map of Preferred Location of Bench RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Commission recommend approval of the donation and the location of the proposed bench. If the Commission recommends approval, a formal resolution of acceptance will be brought to the City Council meeting on June 20 and installation would occur in late Summer. ACTION REQUESTED: If the Commission concurs, it should, by motion recommend approval of the Park Bench Donation for Ivy Hills Park by Mary Jane Cronin. 8b.26 645 642 632 622 MAPLE PARK DR This ima gery is co p yrighted a n d licen sed by Nea rma p US In c, which reta in so wn ership o f the ima gery. It is bein g p ro vided by Da ko ta Co un ty un der theterms o f tha t licen se. Un der tha t licen se, Da ko ta Co un ty is a llo wed top ro vide a ccess to the “Offlin e Co p y Add-On fo r Go vern men t”, o n which thisima ge services is ba sed, a t 6-in ch reso lutio n , six mo n ths a fter the ca p tureda te, p ro vided the user a ckn o wledges tha t the ima gery will be used in theirn o rma l co urse o f busin ess a n d must n o t be reso ld o r distributed fo r the Park Bench Donation Da te: 5/30/2023 City o fMen do taHeights050 SCALE IN FEET GIS Map Disclaimer:This data is for informational purposes only and should not be substituted for a true title search, property appraisal, plat,survey, or for zoning verification. The City of Mendota Heights assumes no legal responsibility for the information containedin this data. The City of Mendota Heights, or any other entity from which data was obtained, assumes no liability for any errorsor omissions herein. If discrepancies are found, please contact the City of Mendota Heights. Contact "Gopher State One Call" at 651-454-0002 for utility locations, 48 hours prior to any excavation. Pa rk Ben ch Lo ca tio n 8b2.28 DATE: June 13, 2023 TO: Parks and Recreation Commission FROM: Meredith Lawrence, Parks and Recreation Manager SUBJECT: Park QR Code Signage Approval INTRODUCTION Included in the 2023 Strategic Priorities for the Parks and Recreation Commission is the implementation of adding QR codes within the parks for a potential engagement opportunity with residents. BACKGROUND According to Investopedia a QR Code is: “A quick response (QR) code is a type of barcode that can be read easily by a digital device and which stores information as a series of pixels in a square- shaped grid. QR codes are frequently used to track information about products in a supply chain and often used in marketing and advertising campaigns. QR codes are considered an advancement from older, uni-dimensional barcodes, and were approved as an international standard in 2000 by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO).” Below is an example of what a QR code looks like: The City uses QR in many of its marketing and communications mediums. The City has put up portable signs in the past in the parks with QR codes to promote upcoming City events and programs. The Commission discussed at their strategic planning session for 2023 the possibility of adding signage in the parks with a QR code on it to foster an opportunity for engagement with park users. At the time, potential ideas for engagement were to provide an avenue for users to provide suggestions for park maintenance improvements, programming, and capital projects. 8c.29 DISCUSSION At the April Parks and Recreation Commission meeting, the commissioners discussed the goal of the utilization of QR codes within the parks. There were many ideas of what could be provided to park users as part of the QR code program including; park information, an interactive park map, a place to provide park maintenance feedback/concerns, a link to the City’s recreation programs/event calendar, volunteer program promotion, and an animal print/plant type identification. At the May Parks and Recreation Commission work session, the commissioners finalized the website details they would like linked to the QR code. In addition, staff brought some options for signage for the Commissioners to review. The Commissioners showed interest in utilizing trees on the sign, which ties in the branding of the City’s logo. In addition, the commission decided they wanted the signs to say, “Mendota Heights Parks and Recreation.” Chair Blanks is recommending one sign per park to start, as this would be a pilot program. He is recommending each commissioner provide staff with a recommendation of their desired location for the parks they are assigned. Staff is recommending signs be installed at the following parks: Victoria Highlands Roger’s Lake Valley View Heights Ivy Hills Dog Park Marie Valley Wentworth Friendly Hills Hagstrom-King Kensington Mendakota Market Square Park Civic Center Attachment: Proposed QR Code Sign Design BUDGET IMPACT: There is no cost for the City to build a QR code. Based on the 12-inch by 12-inch size sign and proposed design, the cost per sign is $20. With one sign installed at the above parks, the total cost of the project would be $280. The parks maintenance staff would install the signs this Summer as time allows. This project was not included in the FY2023 budget, but staff feels there are sufficient funds in the Park Maintenance budget if this is a priority of the commission. 30 RECOMMENDATION: The Commission should determine next steps in regards to the Park QR Code Signage. 31 8c1.32 DATE: June 13, 2023 TO: Parks and Recreation Commission FROM: Meredith Lawrence, Parks and Recreation Manager SUBJECT: Amendments to the Parks and Recreation Scholarship Program INTRODUCTION The Mendota Heights Recreation Fee Assistance Program provides financial assistance to eligible Mendota Heights Residents for participation in City of Mendota Heights sponsored recreation programs. CURRENT PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS The existing Recreation Fee Assistance Program was adopted by the City Council on March 6, 2018. The program consists of the following: QUALIFICATIONS o Must be a Mendota Heights Resident o Recipient must be under the age of 18 o Recipient must participate in the Free and Reduced Lunch program in District 197 or have a parent on active duty in the military o Provide one of the following as documentation, along with the application: o Copy of eligibility notification letter from ISD 197 Child Nutrition Office; or o Documentation of parent on active duty in the military ASSISTANCE AMOUNT o Assistance of up to $150 per child, per calendar year o Recipients will receive a 50% reduction in cost for each Mendota Heights recreation program they register for ELIGIBLE PROGRAMS o Skating, gymnastics, summer playgrounds, safety camp, tennis camp and golf camp CURRENT PROGRAM USAGE In 2018 one participant applied for the program and received 50% off the sports class the child attended. In 2019 one participant applied for the program and received 50% of a field trip. Since then the City has received no applications for the program. Staff has received inquiries from others interested in applying for the program but they did not meet the residency requirements. 8d.33 RECOMMENDED AMMENDED PROGRAM Staff has reviewed the existing program, as well as neighboring cities programs, and has made the following recommendations for program amendments: •Allow any resident of Mendota Heights regardless of age to participate in the program •Utilize U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development income levels for state, federal and local levels to determine the amount of financial assistance provided •Provide a larger city assistance contribution based on a sliding scale format •Update and allow additional forms of documentation for program approval •Allow any City recreation program, event, class, camp, or trip to be eligible for assistance More details and information on the recommended program are provided in the Parks and Recreation Scholarship program application. For reference, the current Minnesota state median income level is $111,700. The following levels that staff utilized on the application on based off the Minnesota-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI HUD Metro FMR Area income levels and include the following as category criteria: •0% Participant Contribution: “Extremely Low Income” 30% of Area Median Income •10% Participant Contribution: “Very Low Income”  50% of Area Median Income •20% Participant Contribution 60% of Area Median Income •30% Participant Contribution “Low Income” 80% of Area Median Income Attachment: Updated Parks and Recreation Scholarship Program DISCUSSION The Commission should review the proposed program details moving forward in regards to the City’s Parks and Recreation Scholarship Program and determine if they are comfortable with the program details. In an effort to try to increase usage in the program, staff will be working to better promote the program. In the past staff has marketed the program in the Heights Highlights and on program and event brochures. Staff intends to continue those marketing mediums, as well as reaching out to the schools and local assistance programs to provide materials on the program as a resource for those who could be eligible for the program moving forward. The commission should determine if there are any other marketing or promotion avenues that they would like staff to consider implementing in the future. BUDGET IMPACT: Included in the FY2023 Recreation budget is $1,000 for the Scholarship Program. Staff feels this is sufficient to cover the 2023 expenses, and that if the program needed more funding than $1,000 for 2023, staff feels they will be below budget on other line items that could financially supplement this initiative. Staff will review an increase in funding for this program based off the updated criteria for 2024. 34 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Parks and Recreation Commission review the amendments to the City’s Parks and Recreation Scholarship Program and recommend approval of the program to the City Council. ACTION REQUESTED: If the Commission concurs, it should, by motion recommend approval of the amendments to the City’s Parks and Recreation Scholarship Program. 35 PARKS AND RECREATION SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM The City of Mendota Heights recognizes the importance of all residents having the ability to participate in recreation programs in the community. The City’s Parks and Recreation Scholarship Program works to provide financial resources to qualifying Mendota Heights residents to participate in fee-based programs and events to foster positive health and wellness within the community. This program is open to Mendota Heights residents of all ages. The program offers financial options for registration-based programs, events, trips, classes or camps. Each participant that receives approval of the program can receive up to $200 of city funding per calendar year of programming. Anyone interested in utilizing the City’s Parks and Recreation Scholarship Program is asked to complete the request form below: Name of Head of Household: Birthdate: Street Address: City: Mendota Heights State: MN Zip: Email Address: Home/Cell Phone #: Information on annual income is required for data reporting purposes. Please indicate the number of persons in your household and then check the box that contains the amount of annual income. Income is defined as the total gross annual income of all family and non-family members 18+ years old living within the household. All sources of income should be counted for all persons in the family based on anticipated income within the next 12 months. Participant(s) Pays 0% Participant(s) Pays 10% Participant(s) Pays 20% Participant(s) Pays 30% Household of 1: ☐$0 - $24,650 ☐$24,651 - $41,100 ☐$41,101 - $62,600 ☐$62,601+ Household of 2: ☐$0 - $28,200 ☐$28,201 - $46,950 ☐$46,951 - $71,550 ☐$71,551+ Household of 3: ☐$0 - $31,700 ☐$31,701 - $52,800 ☐$52,801 - $80,500 ☐$80,501+ Household of 4: ☐$0 - $35,200 ☐$35,201 - $58,650 ☐$58,651 - $89,400 ☐$89,401+ Household of 5: ☐$0 - $38,050 ☐$38,051 - $63,350 ☐$63,351 - $96,600 ☐$96,601+ Household of 6: ☐$0 - $40,850 ☐$40,851 - $68,050 ☐$68,051 - $103,750 ☐$103,751+ Household of 7: ☐$0 - $43,650 ☐$43,651 - $72,750 ☐$72,751 - $110,900 ☐$110,901+ Household of 8: ☐$0 - $46,500 ☐$46,501 - $77,450 ☐$77,451 - $118,050 ☐$118,051+ *Based on U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development income limits for state, federal and local levels* 8d1.36 Required Documentation (provide one below, check box of what is provided): ☐Participant in CDA Housing☐Veteran☐Parent/Guardian on Active Duty Military☐Foster Child Documentation☐Proof of County Assistance (SNAP or Medical Assistance)☐Income-based Social Security (disability or supplemental. Retirement benefits do not qualify) Household Participant(s) Name and Date of Birth (Please Print) Name: Date of Birth: _______________________________________________ _________________________________ _______________________________________________ _________________________________ _______________________________________________ _________________________________ _______________________________________________ _________________________________ _______________________________________________ _________________________________ _______________________________________________ _________________________________ _______________________________________________ _________________________________ _______________________________________________ _________________________________ _______________________________________________ _________________________________ Signature of Applicant (Parent or Guardian if participant is under 18 years old) I hereby certify that the information on this form is accurate and complete. ________________________________________________________________________ Date__________________ Received by: Mendota Heights Parks and Recreation Staff ________________________________________________________________________ Date__________________ 37 DATE: June 13, 2023 TO: Parks and Recreation Commission FROM: Meredith Lawrence, Parks and Recreation Manager SUBJECT: 2024 Budget- Parks Capital Improvement Project Recommendations INTRODUCTION At the June 13 meeting, the Parks and Recreation Commission is asked to make a formal recommendation to the City Council in regards to Capital Improvement Project budgeting for parks and recreation for FY2024. BACKGROUND In 2021 the City Council, Parks and Recreation Commission, and key staff engaged in 12 hours of strategic planning. This resulted in the following guiding principles and goals: •Sustained Funding for Parks and Recreation o Secure Sustainable Funding for Projects •A Leading Community Agency o Mendota Heights is a Model Organization •Greater Connection to the Natural Environment o Manage Park Natural Resources •A Safe, Connected, Walkable, and Bikeable Community o Improve Trail Connectivity •Vibrant and Diverse Community Programming o Expand Programming •Recreational Facilities for All Ages o Prioritize Projects and Initiatives •Effective Two-Way Communication and an Informed Community o Know the Community •Human Capital o Attract and Retain Qualified Employees and Volunteers As a result of the strategic plan, staff worked to create an updated Capital Improvement Plan. In order to accomplish the goal of providing recreational facilities for all ages and prioritizing projects and initiatives, proactive preparation for the FY2024 budget is necessary. 9a.38 The following is the timeline for FY2024 budget: •May 9: Joint PRC session to review Parks CIP and proposed 2024 projects •June 13: PRC will make FY2024 budget recommendations to the City Council •June/July: Staff will work on Budget Improvement Packages (BIPs) for desired 2024 projects and work with the Finance Director on financing options •August: Staff will meet with the City Council in budget work session to present park and recreation requests •September: City Council will set preliminary budget for FY2024 •December: City Council will approve final budget for FY2024 Included in the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) are the following 2024 projects (including updated cost estimates): After the May 9 meeting, the Commission asked staff to facilitate a survey to see where commissioners feel 2024 budget priorities should be. Included in the packet is the commissioners prioritized lists that staff calculated into a ranked priority from the commission. As requested at the May 9 meeting, staff will provide an updated estimate for the Mendakota Park Fiber project and the Kensington Fence replacement. In addition to the items listed above, staff discussed with Chair Blanks and Vice Chair Muller the importance of undergoing a Parks System Master Plan in the near future. The reasons for undergoing this type of planning document are as follows: •Assess the current and future recreation needs of the community •Establish a long-range vision •Determine gaps within the park system and reduce redundancy •Provide strategies to fill gaps •Scientific community engagement which garners support •Establish priorities CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS 2024 BUDGET IMPROVEMENT PACKAGE (BIP) SUMMARY--PARKS CAPITAL PROJECTS Ivy Hills-Swing Set Replacement $ 20,000 $ 20,000 -$ Kensington-Fencing South Fence 122,500$ 122,500$ -$ Marie-Ballfield Infield Surfacing 10,000$ 10,000$ -$ Marie-Hockey Acryllic Resurfacing for Pickleball 30,000$ 30,000$ -$ Marie-Hockey Light Conversion to LED 7,000$ 7,000$ -$ Marie-Dugout Addition 25,000$ -$ 25,000$ Mendakota-Fiber (Door Access/Cameras)100,000$ -$ 100,000$ Rogers Lake-Picnic Shelter 200,000$ 200,000$ -$ Wentworth-Pickleball Installation on Hockey Rink 30,000$ -$ 30,000$ Wentworth-Hockey Rink Boards (Treated Wood)30,000$ 30,000$ -$ TOTAL 574,500$ 419,500$ 155,000$ Special Parks Fund Capital Item Requested Total Budget Amount General Fund Budget Amount 39 •Potential for and promotion of partnerships •Tool to be used for grant applications •Opportunities for the development of potential future park land •Plan for park amenity life cycle •Align investment and budget with the community’s needs •Education of the public The City of Mendota Heights does not currently have an up to date Parks System Master Plan. Staff would estimate $45,000 for the completion of this plan by a consultant who specializes in this kind of work. Attachments: Commissioner Prioritized Projects Parks Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Example Parks System Master Plan (Little Canada) DISCUSSION The estimated total cost for the projects listed above included in the FY2024 CIP totals $574,500. The Commission should prioritize the projects, as there is a chance the City Council will not fund all of the projects in the next budget year. The Commission should also discuss the projects listed above and determine if any projects should be removed from the FY2024 CIP or if any projects that are not included should be included in next year’s budget requests. BUDGET IMPACT: As of June 6, 2023—the special parks fund totals approximately $759,000. The Commission should keep in mind that the Special Parks Fund fluctuates after new developments, but it is highly unlikely the Special Parks Fund will be a lucrative funding source in the future. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Commission review the desired project list that has been organized for FY2024 and make a recommendation to the City Council in regards to Capital Improvement Funding for next year. Staff is recommending that the Commission prioritize the project list in case there is not sufficient funding available for all of the desired projects. ACTION REQUESTED: The Commission is asked to make a recommendation to the City Council in regards to capital improvement projects or initiatives for FY2024. 40 Rank Michelle Muller Points Rank Dan Sherer Points 1 Marie Hockey Acrylic Resurfacing for Pickleball 10 1 Marie-Ballfield Infield Resurfacing 10 2 Mendakota Fiber (Door Access/Cameras)9 2 Marie-Dugout Addition 9 3 Marie Ball Field Infield Surfacing 8 3 Ivy Hills-Swing Set Replacement 8 4 Marie Dugout Addition 7 4 Marie-Hockey Light Conversion to LED 7 5 Kensington - Fencing South Fence 6 5 Kensington-Fencing South Fence 6 6 Rogers Lake Picnic Shelter 5 6 Wentworth-Pickleball Installation on Hockey Rink 5 7 Marie Hockey Light Conversion to LED 4 7 Wentworth-Hockey Rink Boards (Treated Wood)4 8 Wentworth - Hockey Rink Boards (Treated Wood)3 8 Rogers Lake-Picnic Shelter 3 9 Wentworth - Pickleball Installation on Hockey Rink 2 9 Marie-Hockey Acryllic Resurfacing for Pickleball 2 10 Ivy Hills Swing Set Replacement 1 10 Mendakota-Fiber (Door Access/Cameras)1 Rank Jaffrey Blanks Points Rank Jo Schifsky Points 1 Mendakota Fiber 10 1 Ivy Hills-Swing Set replacement 10 2 Ivy Hills Swing set 9 2 Mendakota – fiber 9 3 Marie Hockey Light 8 3 Marie – hockey acrylic resurfacing for pickleball.8 4 Marie Ballfield Surfacing 7 4 Marie - hockey light conversion to LED.7 5 Marie Dugout Addition 6 5 Wentworth - Pickleball installation on hockey rink.6 6 Wentworth Pickleball Installation 5 6 Wentworth - hockey rink boards.5 7 Marie Hockey Acrylic Resurfacing for Pickleball 4 7 Kingsington – fencing South fence.4 8 Wentworth - Hockey Rink Boards 3 8 Marie dugout edition.3 9 Kensington - Fencing 2 9 Marie ballfield infield surfacing 2 10 Roger Picnic Shelter 1 10 Rogers Lake - Picnic shelter 1 Rank Michael Toth Points Rank Steph Meyer Points 1 Mendakota Fiber Door Access 10 1 Rogers Lake Shelter 10 2 Rogers Lake Picnic Shelter 9 2 Mendakota Fiber 9 3 Kensington South Fence 8 3 Kensington South fence 8 4 Marie Hockey Lights 7 4 Marie ballfield infield surfacing 7 5 Ivy Hills Swing 6 5 Marie hockey LED lights 6 6 Marie Dugout 5 6 Marie pickleball 5 7 Marie Ball field Surfacing 4 7 Wentworth hockey boards 4 8 Marie Resurface 3 8 Ivy Hills swings 3 9 Wentworth Rink Boards 2 9 Wentworth pickleball 2 10 Wentworth Pickle Ball 1 10 Marie dugouts 1 9a1.41 PROJECT MM DS JB JS MT SM SUM Ivy Hills‐Swing Set Replacement 189106337 Kensington‐Fencing South Fence 66248834 Marie‐Ballfield Infield Surfacing 810724738 Marie‐Hockey Acryllic Resurfacing for Pickleball 10 2 4 8 3 5 32 Marie‐Hockey Light Conversion 47877639 Marie‐Dugout Addition 79635131 Mendakota‐Fiber (Door Access/Cameras)9110910948 Rogers Lake‐Picnic Shelter 531191029 Wentworth‐Pickleball Installation on Hockey Rink 25561221 Wentworth‐Hockey Rink Boards (Treated Wood)34352421 TOTAL 55 55 55 55 55 55 9a2.42 FY 2024 PRIORITY PROJECT POINTS 1 Mendakota-Fiber (Door Access/Cameras)48 2 Marie-Hockey Light Conversion 39 3 Marie-Ballfield Infield Surfacing 38 4 Ivy Hills-Swing Set Replacement 37 5 Kensington-Fencing South Fence 34 6 Marie-Hockey Acryllic Resurfacing for Pickleball 32 7 Marie-Dugout Addition 31 8 Rogers Lake-Picnic Shelter 29 9 Wentworth-Pickleball Installation on Hockey Rink 21 10 Wentworth-Hockey Rink Boards (Treated Wood)21 9a3.43 PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN City of Little Canada, Minnesota April 18, 2018 9a4.44 1 CITY OF LITTLE CANADA - PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN1 Acknowledgements The City of Little Canada gratefully acknowledges the dedication and contributions of all who participated in the development of this Plan. Without their diligence and assistance, the successful completion of this Plan would not have been possible. The City is also grateful for the people of Little Canada who provided feedback, attended public meetings, and otherwise supported the effort. PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION Dave Miller (chair) Sharen Darling Patti Sullivan (2017) Anna Abruzzese (2018) Ron Horwath Tom Ray Peter Schletty Rose Chu MAYOR John Keis CITY COUNCIL Christian Torkelson Tom Fischer Michael McGraw Rick Montour CITY STAFF Bryce Shearen Parks & Recreation/Community Services Manager Joel Hanson, City Administrator Derek Anderson, Parks Maintenance Supervisor PARK PLANNING CONSULTANT Bob Kost - Short Elliot Hendrickson, Inc. Anna Springer - Short Elliot Hendrickson, Inc. 45 CITY OF LITTLE CANADA - PARKS MASTER PLAN 2 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION............................................................4 Purpose of the Plan Relationship to the Comprehensive Plan Use of The Plan Planning Process CHAPTER 2: EXISTING CONDITIONS & NEEDS.............................8 Demographic Park Classifications Existing Facilities Service Area & Facility Guidelines CHAPTER 3: TRENDS..........................................................................30 CHAPTER 4: THE PLAN.......................................................................36 Mission & Vision Park Recommendations Facility Recommendations Trails Recommendations Programming Recommendations Operations & Maintenance Recommendations CHAPTER 5: IMPLEMENTATION......................................................58 Funding Recommendations Funding Sources Priorities APPENDIX A...........................................................................................64 Table of Contents Individual Park Inventories and Recommendations Firebarns Skate Park & Old Fire Hall...........................................65 Firefighters Historical Trail..............................................................67 Gervais Lake Beach........................................................................69 Gervais Mill Park.............................................................................71 Little Canada Elementary School..........................;......................73 Nadeau Wildlife Area...................................................................75 Pioneer Park.....................................................................................77 Rondeau Park....................................................................................81 Roseville Area Middle School.....................................................83 Spooner Park...................................................................................85 Thunder Bay Park & Westwinds Park.........................................89 Veterans Memorial Park................................................................93 Water Works Right-of-Way..........................................................95 APPENDIX B...........................................................................................96 Community Survey Summary 46 47 Chapter 1: Introduction Purpose of The Plan...........................................5 Relationship to the Comprehensive Plan.........6 Use of The Plan..................................................6 Planning Process................................................7 48 CITY OF LITTLE CANADA - PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN5 Purpose of the Plan Throughout the history of parks in this country, communities have considered the costs and benefits of providing parks, trails, and open space. In the late 1800s, when the City of Minneapolis was struggling with how to balance these considerations, H.W.S. Cleveland (a landscape architect) told the Minneapolis Park Commission the following: “Look forward for a century to the time when the City has a population of a million, and think what will be their wants. They will have enough to purchase all that money can buy, but all that wealth cannot purchase a lost opportunity, or restore natural features of grandeur and beauty, which would then possess priceless value, and which you can preserve if you but say the word and save them from destruction that certainly await them if you fail to utter it.” Like Minneapolis, which is currently ranked as the nation’s best park system by the Trust for Public Land, Little Canada was fortunate to have leaders with the wisdom and foresight to develop the community’s park system while the city was still young and growing. Today, Little Canada’s park system is a vital part of the community. Although much of Little Canada is developed and the opportunity to acquire additional parkland has diminished, there is much that the City of Little Canada can and should do to ensure that its park system is preserved and enhanced for present and future generations. This Plan follows the vision for Little Canada’s park system. It sets goals and policies for attaining that vision. More specifically, this Plan serves the following purposes of: 1. Addressing physical planning issues including the development of parks, open space, and trails. Yet, it also considers related social and economic issues. 2. Integrating the park, open space, and trail components of the City into a system plan that reflects the interrelationships between those components and other components of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. 3. Providing a long‐term plan that can serve the City through the year 2040, but it also provides specific recommendations that address current issues. 49 CHAPTER 1 6 4.Identifying key issues facing the park system and setting goals and policies for addressing those issues. This provides the legal basis for controls and it guides the City in budgeting for parks, open space, and trails. 5.Guiding City Staff, the Parks and Recreation Commission, the Planning Commission, the City Council, landowners, and private developers in decisions relating to parks, open space, and trails in the community. This Plan brings together various elements (facilities, programs, trails, and operations and maintenance) into a unified system. It is not intended to provide detailed development plans for individual parks or trails. Rather, it provides the framework for guiding the future development of Little Canada’s park system. It is a dynamic plan that the City should review and refine as Little Canada continues to grow and evolve. The City should consider updating this plan every 5-6 years. Relationship to the Comprehensive Plan This Park System Plan is intended to be consistent with the City’s adopted Comprehensive Plan. However, this Plan provides a more detailed plan for Little Canada’s park system. Should a conflict exist between this Plan and the City’s adopted Comprehensive Plan, the Comprehensive Plan shall be applied. Use of The Plan Several parties will use this Plan for various tasks including, but not limited to the following: 1.City Staff, the Parks and Recreation Commission, the City Council, and others can use the Plan to assist them with tasks such as acquisition and development decisions, maintenance decisions, budgeting capital improvements, and communicating Little Canada’s vision for parks, open space, and trails. 2.Neighboring and overlapping jurisdictions can refer to this Plan to help determine how their park systems relate to Little Canada’s park system. 50 CITY OF LITTLE CANADA - PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN7 3. Developers and landowners can use this Plan to develop an understanding of how existing and future development should relate to the City’s park system. 4. Residents can refer to this Plan to learn about parks, open space, and trails in Little Canada. Planning Process This Park System Plan updates the Little Canada Park and Recreation Master Plan that was originally adopted by the City in 1991 and updated in 2009. The City gratefully acknowledges the work of all who participated in past and present park system planning efforts in Little Canada. The Parks and Recreation Commission met with the City’s park planning consultant on a regular basis to develop this Plan. The Parks and Recreation Commission provided broad- based representation of the community. The City publicly noticed all meetings of the Parks and Recreation Commission and the public and media were welcome to attend the meetings. On _______, the Parks and Recreation Commission recommended that the City Council approve a resolution directing the City to distribute copies of the Plan to all applicable neighboring and overlapping jurisdictions for their review and comments. After the Parks and Recreation Commission reviewed the submitted comments, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on _____ and recommended that the City Council approve the Plan. On _____the City Council passed a resolution adopting the Plan contingent upon acceptance of the Plan from the Metropolitan Council. 51 Chapter 2: Existing Conditions & Needs Assessment Demographics...................................................9 System Overview..............................................11 Park Classifications..........................................13 Existing Facilities..............................................15 Recreation Facility Service Standards...........19 Park & Recreation Agency Benchmarks.......22 Gap Analysis..................................................23 System Condition...........................................25 Programming..................................................25 Trails & Connectivity .....................................27 Little Canada is located in Ramsey County, roughly 4.5 miles north of downtown Saint Paul. The city has an area of approximately 4.5 square miles and is bounded or bisected by the major highways of I‐35E, I‐694, and State Highway 36. Little Canada’s close proximity to major employment centers, its easy access to the transportation system, its abundance of natural features, and its small town character are qualities that make Little Canada a highly desirable community. 52 CITY OF LITTLE CANADA - PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN9 Little Canada has a rich history that is well recorded in the book “Little Canada – A Voyageur’s Vision.” From its history as a summer camping ground for Dakota Indians to its settlement by French‐Canadian pioneers in 1844, Little Canada takes great pride in its past. Until it became a village in 1953, Little Canada was part of a larger area known as New Canada Township. The Village of Little Canada officially became the City of Little Canada in 1974. The natural beauty of Little Canada has always been important to the community. In 1959, the Saint Paul Dispatch newspaper quoted Village officials as saying: “Little Canada residents are interested, first and foremost, in retaining the contour of their beautiful countryside, generously laden with sparkling lakes, and green and gentle knolls.” Village leaders, including Carl Spooner and Murph Jespersen, encouraged the Village to set aside land for future parks. In 1973, the Village established the first Park Planning Committee, which later evolved into the Parks and Recreation Commission. The City dedicated its first park, Spooner Park, on July 4, 1976. Since the acquisition of Spooner Park, the City has acquired and developed many more parks and trails. Demographics Little Canada is a suburb of Saint Paul that lies within the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area. According to the Metropolitan Council the population of Little Canada was 10,101 in 2016. The City is approximately 4+ square miles. Its nearest neighbors include Roseville(35,000 residents and 13+ square miles), Maplewood (38,000 residents and 18 square miles), and Shoreview (25,000 residents and 12+ acres). Population and Growth Between 2000 and 2040, according to the Metropolitan Council’s population forecasts, Little Canada is expected to grow 5%, from 9,771 to 10,300. While the overall population will increase, the average number of people per household is expected to decline from 2.23 persons per household to 2.1. 53 CHAPTER 2 10 Age Like most communities, the City of Little Canada is aging. If current trends continue, by the year 2030, Little Canada will experience a dramatic increase in the percentage of residents over the age of 65, whereas the percentage of young residents will likely decrease. Race and Ethnicity According to the 2016 American Community Survey 5-year estimates, the population of Little Canada is 76.3 % white, 10.1% Asian, 6.7% two or more races, 6.3% black or African American, .3% American Indian and Alaska Native, and .3% other. Hispanic and Latinos (of any race) make up 6.3% of Little Canada. 54 CITY OF LITTLE CANADA - PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN11 Income Median family income in Little Canada is $67,826. This is slightly less than the median family income in Ramsey County of $69,079. Between 2000 and 2010, the percent of individuals in Little Canada living in poverty rose from 5.5% to 10.8%. System Overview Little Canada’s park system is comprised of a variety of parks, facilities, and trails. Residents currently have access to 178 acres of public park space within the City limits, including 9 city parks, 1 county park, 2 school parks, and 1 nature area. Collaboration with Other Entities The Little Canada park system benefits through collaborations with other government and quasi‐government entities. For example, the City of Little Canada and the Ramsey‐Washington Metro Watershed District collaborated in the development of Gervais Mill Park. In addition, Gervais Beach is a Ramsey County Park, located within the City of Little Canada, which provides recreation opportunities for Little Canada residents as well as others in the region. The City also has cooperative agreements with the Saint Paul Regional Water System and shares Xcel Energy transmission line right‐of‐way for trails and parks. The Little Canada Historical Society and Ramsey County have also been good collaborative partners. The City should continue to collaborate with other government entities to provide parks, open space, and trails that not only benefit the residents of Little Canada, but also the region. 55 CHAPTER 2 12 LITTLE CANADA RECREATION ASSOCIATION Since its founding in 1957, Little Canada Recreation Association (LCRA) has funded numerous projects that benefit residents of Little Canada and has helped provide access to a multitude of recreation opportunities. LCRA is an essential partner for the City of Little Canada Parks & Recreation. Proceeds from the annual LCRA Ice Fishing Contest help fund projects such as the warming house at Fire Barns Park and equipment purchases for local athletes. Collaboration with Schools The Roseville Area School District - ISD #623- has two schools in Little Canada; Little Canada Elementary School at 400 Eli Road and Roseville Area Middle School at 15 County Road B‐2 East. Although schools are not city parks, residents use the schools’ recreation facilities, and the City of Little Canada has a unique relationship with the Roseville Area School District. The City has facility use agreements with the district, utilizes school field space, and contributed funds to aid in the construction of the gym at the elementary school. In addition, Community Education (part of the Roseville Area School District) offers and facilitates recreation opportunities throughout the school district that benefit Little Canada residents. The City of Little Canada and the Roseville Area School District have a synergistic relationship that allows both entities to work together to ensure that all residents in the city and the school district have an excellent park system and recreation program. Saint John the Evangelist School at 2621 McMenemy Street is a private school that provides recreation facilities for its students. However, others in the community may also benefit from the school’s recreation facilities. As budgets tighten, the need for open communication and cooperation between the City and the schools becomes even more critical. The schools and their relationship to Little Canada’s park system are described in more detail throughout this Plan. Athletic, Non‐Profit, and Community Organizations Several athletic, non‐profit, and community organizations contribute experience, knowledge, labor, and funding that benefit Little Canada’s park system. Conversely, Little Canada’s park system benefits these organizations by helping to provide the facilities and opportunities that they need and desire. It is critical that collaboration between the City and other organizations be based on a shared vision for Little Canada’s park system. One of the organizations that contribute to the parks and recreation in Little Canada is the Little Canada Recreation Association (LCRA). The LCRA was established 1957 as a volunteer, non‐profit organization to promote recreational activities for the youth of Little Canada. The LCRA has worked closely with the City of Little Canada to develop recreation facilities and programs that are of great benefit to the community. The organization currently provides a 25% subsidy of all fees. 56 CITY OF LITTLE CANADA - PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN13 Park Classifications Park classifications define and clarify the intended use of each park type and clarify the area served, the size, and ideal site locations. This table is useful when planning for new parks or when contemplating park needs for major redevelopment projects. Classifications will help guide facility and use plans. Little Canada does not currently have any parks classified as youth athletic, community athletic, or mini. TABLE 2.1 PARK CLASSIFICATIONS CLASSIFICATION PURPOSE SERVICE AREA SIZE (TYPICAL) LOCATION CITY FACILITIES Neighborhood Park Meets the day-to-day needs of neighborhoods. Provides active recreation and informal gathering spaces. Fields are sized for practice/youth games. 1/4 to 1/2 mile radius, free of major barriers such as highways or waterways 2 to 14 acres Easily accessible to neighborhood residents with safe walking and biking access Community Park Serves the entire community. May provide access to natural areas and programmed, active recreation areas. May serve regional visitors, although not as its primary function. Community-wide in strategic, consolidated locations throughout the city 15-50+ acres Accessible to the community by foot, bike, auto, and bus and takes advantage of natural amenities Linear Park Provide linkages throughout the community. Community wide in strategic locations Varies Centered around natural resources and trail corridors Special Use Areas serving a single-use activity such as golf, fitness, indoor ice-skating, nature education. Community & Regional Draw Varies Site specific Natural Area Areas focused on the provision of natural environments, passive recreation, and ecological education. Community & Regional Draw Varies Centered around natural resources and amenities Youth Athletic Park Provides youth athletic fields and associated facilities. May include neighborhood park functions. Community Wide in strategic, consolidated locations at a few sites 10 to 20 acres Connected to trails and sidewalks. Vehicle parking provided Community Athletic Complex Focused on organized athletic recreation with regulation sized fields and associated facilities. May include neighborhood park functions. Community Wide in strategic, consolidated locations at a few sites 10 to 25+acres Connected to trails and sidewalks. Automobile parking provided Mini Park Addresses limited, isolated, or special needs of a neighborhood, or utilizes a unique or opportune location. 1/4 mile radius 2,500 sq ft to 1 acre Site specific NON-CITY FACILITIES Regional Park Parks that are part of a Regional System. Uses vary, focus on outdoor and natural resource based recreation and learning. Community & Regional Draw Varies Varies, often centered around natural features School Park Provides recreational facilities that can be used by surrounding neighborhoods. Adjacent Neighborhoods Varies Easily accessible to neighborhood with safe walking/biking access 57 CHAPTER 2 14 ROSEVILLE MAPLEWOOD VADNAIS HEIGHTS SHOREVIEW GERVAIS LAKE ROUND LAKE 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000500 Feet NEIGHBORHOOD PARK COMMUNITY PARK SPECIAL USE PARK LINEAR PARK NATURAL AREA PARK CLASSIFICATIONSSCHOOL PARK REGIONAL PARK OTHER PARKS Roseville Area Middle SchoolRoseville Area Middle School Veterans Memorial Veterans Memorial Water Works Right-of-WtayWater Works Right-of-Wtay Fireman’s TrailFireman’s Trail Gervais Mill Gervais Mill Firebarns Skate & Old Fire HallFirebarns Skate & Old Fire Hall Roseville Area Middle SchoolRoseville Area Middle SchoolRoseville Area Middle School Veterans Memorial Veterans Memorial Veterans Memorial Water Works Right-of-WtayWater Works Right-of-WtayWater Works Right-of-Wtay Fireman’s TrailFireman’s TrailFireman’s Trail Gervais Mill Gervais Mill Gervais Mill Firebarns Skate & Old Fire HallFirebarns Skate & Old Fire HallFirebarns Skate & Old Fire Hall Gervais Lake BeachGervais Lake Beach SpoonerSpooner Little Canada ElementaryLittle Canada Elementary WestwindsWestwindsThunder Bay Thunder Bay Pioneer Pioneer RondeauRondeau Nadeau Wildlife AreaNadeau Wildlife Area Gervais Lake BeachGervais Lake BeachGervais Lake Beach SpoonerSpoonerSpooner Little Canada ElementaryLittle Canada ElementaryLittle Canada Elementary WestwindsWestwindsWestwindsThunder Bay Thunder Bay Thunder Bay Pioneer Pioneer Pioneer RondeauRondeauRondeau Nadeau Wildlife AreaNadeau Wildlife AreaNadeau Wildlife Area Keller Regional Park Vadnais-Snail Lakes Regional Park ROSEVILLE MAPLEWOOD VADNAIS HEIGHTS SHOREVIEW GERVAIS LAKE ROUND LAKE 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000500 Feet NEIGHBORHOOD PARK COMMUNITY PARK SPECIAL USE PARK LINEAR PARK NATURAL AREA PARK CLASSIFICATIONSSCHOOL PARK REGIONAL PARK OTHER PARKS Roseville Area Middle SchoolRoseville Area Middle School Veterans Memorial Veterans Memorial Water Works Right-of-WtayWater Works Right-of-Wtay Fireman’s TrailFireman’s Trail Gervais Mill Gervais Mill Firebarns Skate & Old Fire HallFirebarns Skate & Old Fire Hall Roseville Area Middle SchoolRoseville Area Middle SchoolRoseville Area Middle School Veterans Memorial Veterans Memorial Veterans Memorial Water Works Right-of-WtayWater Works Right-of-WtayWater Works Right-of-Wtay Fireman’s TrailFireman’s TrailFireman’s Trail Gervais Mill Gervais Mill Gervais Mill Firebarns Skate & Old Fire HallFirebarns Skate & Old Fire HallFirebarns Skate & Old Fire Hall Gervais Lake BeachGervais Lake Beach SpoonerSpooner Little Canada ElementaryLittle Canada Elementary WestwindsWestwindsThunder Bay Thunder Bay Pioneer Pioneer RondeauRondeau Nadeau Wildlife AreaNadeau Wildlife Area Gervais Lake BeachGervais Lake BeachGervais Lake Beach SpoonerSpoonerSpooner Little Canada ElementaryLittle Canada ElementaryLittle Canada Elementary WestwindsWestwindsWestwindsThunder Bay Thunder Bay Thunder Bay Pioneer Pioneer Pioneer RondeauRondeauRondeau Nadeau Wildlife AreaNadeau Wildlife AreaNadeau Wildlife Area Keller Regional Park Vadnais-Snail Lakes Regional Park FIGURE 2.1 LITTLE CANADA PARK CLASSIFICATION MAP 58 CITY OF LITTLE CANADA - PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN15CLASSIFICATIONOWNERSHIPACRESBALLFIELDSBASKETBALLBEACHBOCCE BALLCONCESSIONSFISHING PIERHORSESHOESICE RINK OUTDOORMULTI-PURPOSE INDOOR SPACEOPEN PLAY FIELDPARKINGPICNIC TABLEPLAYGROUNDPAVILIONPICKLEBALLPICNIC SHELTERRESTROOMSSKATE PARKSOCCER TENNISTRAILSFIREBARNS SKATE PARK/ OLD FIRE HALL SPECIAL USE PARK LITTLE CANADA & SPRWS 1.0 CITY 1.5 OTHER ●●●●● FIREFIGHTERS HISTORICAL TRAIL LINEAR PARK LITTLE CANADA & SPRWS .5 CITY 4.1 OTHER ● GERVAIS LAKE BEACH COUNTY PARK RAMSEY COUNTY 4.0 OTHER ●●●●●●●● GERVAIS MILL PARK NATURAL AREA LITTLE CANADA & OTHER 17.0 CITY 1.0 OTHER ●●●● LITTLE CANADA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ROSEVILLE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT 10.0 OTHER ●●●●●● NADEAU WILDLIFE AREA NEIGHBORHOOD PARK LITTLE CANADA & OTHER 5.7 CITY 0.1 OTHER ●●● PIONEER PARK COMMUNITY PARK LITTLE CANADA 33.2 ●●●●●●●●●●●●●● Existing Facilities Little Canada’s park system is comprised of a variety of parks, facilities, and trails. Residents currently have access to 178 acres of public park space within the City limits. The City of Little Canada owns 123 of those acres, and the rest are available through agreements/easements with other entities (Saint Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS), Ramsey County, Roseville Area School District, etc). The table below provides a snapshot of the parks and amenities within Little Canada. The distribution of these facilities, organized by type, can be found on page 14. A more detailed assessment for each facility is located in the appendix of this document. TABLE 2.2 LITTLE CANADA PARK FACILITIES 59 CHAPTER 2 16CLASSIFICATIONOWNERSHIPACRESBALLFIELDSBASKETBALLBEACHBOCCE BALLCONCESSIONSFISHING PIERHORSESHOESICE RINK OUTDOORMULTI-PURPOSE INDOOR SPACEOPEN PLAY FIELDPARKINGPICNIC TABLEPLAYGROUNDPAVILIONPICKLEBALLPICNIC SHELTERRESTROOMSSKATE PARKSOCCERTENNISTRAILSFIREBARNS SKATE PARK/ OLD FIRE HALL SPECIAL USE PARK LITTLE CANADA & SPRWS 1.0 CITY 1.5 OTHER ●●●●● FIREFIGHTERS HISTORICAL TRAIL LINEAR PARK LITTLE CANADA & SPRWS .5 CITY 4.1 OTHER ● GERVAIS LAKE BEACH COUNTY PARK RAMSEY COUNTY 4.0 OTHER●●●●●●●● GERVAIS MILL PARK NATURAL AREA LITTLE CANADA & OTHER 17.0 CITY 1.0 OTHER ●●●● LITTLE CANADA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ROSEVILLE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT 10.0 OTHER●●●●●● NADEAU WILDLIFE AREA NEIGHBORHOOD PARK LITTLE CANADA & OTHER 5.7 CITY 0.1 OTHER ●●● PIONEER PARK COMMUNITY PARK LITTLE CANADA33.2●●●●●●●●●●●●●● TABLE 2.2 CONTINUED LITTLE CANADA PARK FACILITIES CLASSIFICATIONOWNERSHIPACRESBALLFIELDSBASKETBALLBEACHBOCCE BALLCONCESSIONSFISHING PIERHORSESHOESICE RINK OUTDOORMULTI-PURPOSE INDOOR SPACEOPEN PLAY FIELDPARKINGPICNIC TABLEPLAYGROUNDPAVILIONPICKLEBALLPICNIC SHELTERRESTROOMSSKATE PARKSOCCER TENNISTRAILSRONDEAU PARK NEIGHBORHOOD PARK LITTLE CANADA 2.7 ●●●●● ROSEVILLE AREA MIDDLE SCHOOL SCHOOL ROSEVILLE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT 32 OTHER ●●●●●● SPOONER PARK COMMUNITY PARK LITTLE CANADA 22.0 CITY ●●●●●●●●●●●●● THUNDERBAY & WESTWINDS PARK LINEAR PARK LITTLE CANADA & NORTHERN STATES POWER 14.0 CITY 2.3 OTHER ●●●●● VETERAN’S MEMORIAL SPECIAL USE PARK LITTLE CANADA .9 ●●● WATER WORKS RIGHT-OF- WAY LINEAR PARK SPRWS 26 OTHER ● 60 CITY OF LITTLE CANADA - PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN17 FIGURE 2.2 LITTLE CANADA PARK FACILITIES MAP SPOONER PARK VETERANS MEMORIAL ROSEVILLE AREA MIDDLE SCHOOL RONDEAU PARK THUNDER BAYPARK WATERWORKS R.O.W WESTWINDS PARK GERVAIS LAKE BEACH GERVAIS MILL PARK NADEAU WILDLIFE AREA FIREBARNS PIONEER PARK LITTLE CANADA ELEMENTARY FIREFIGHTERS HISTORICAL TRAIL 61 CHAPTER 2 18 WINTER USE HOCKEY RINK SKATING RINK OTHER FACILITIES PLAYGROUND PEDESTRAIN BRIDGE GYMNASIUM SKATE PARK PAVED WALKING PATH DOG PARK AQUATICS FISHING PIER NON-MOTORIZED BOATING BEACH COURTS SAND VOLLEYBALL COURT GAMES TENNIS /PICKLEBALL COURT BASKETBALL COURT HORSESHOE COURT BOCCE BALL COURT SPOONER PARK VETERANS MEMORIAL PARK ROSEVILLE AREA MIDDLE SCHOOL RONDEAU PARK THUNDER BAY PARK WATERWORKS ROW WESTWINDS PARK GERVAIS LAKE BEACH GERVAIS MILL PARK NADEAU WILDLIFE AREA FIREBARNS PIONEER PARK LITTLE CANADA ELEMENTARY FIREFIGHTERS HISTORICAL TRAIL SITE ACCESSORIES BENCH PARKING PICNIC TABLE PERGOLA PICNIC SHELTER FIELDS SOFTBALL/BASEBALL FIELD FOOTBALL FIELD SOCCER FIELD OPEN/INFORMAL FIELD 62 CITY OF LITTLE CANADA - PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN19 Recreation Facility Service Standards The Recreation Facility Service Standards identify a minimum level of service for recreation facilities, such as ball fields, courts, etc. to assure convenient access to recreation. The Standards list the desired minimum number of facilities, the existing number, and note any excess or deficiencies. The recommendations/notes section relates to the recommendations outlined in the objectives in Chapter 5. Recreation trends vary and flexibility is needed to respond to changing needs and new activities/uses. Consideration should be given to public access to other non-city facilities when infrastructure decisions are made. Surplus or deficit does not automatically mean the need to add or remove facilities. However, it does indicate the potential to re-position the facility mix within the park system to better meet needs. Numbers alone do not tell the whole story as facility usability is affected by quality, size, access, durability, etc. The guidelines are intended to give the City flexibility in replacing unused or poor quality facilities with facilities for popular activities at any given time. The population of Little Canada according to the Met Council’s estimate for 2016 is 10,101. TABLE 2.3 RECREATION FACILITY SERVICE STANDARDS FACILITY SERVICE AREA MINIMUM NUMBER PER POPULATION STANDARD RANGE CURRENT NUMBER EXCESS/ DEFICIT RECOMMENDATIONS/ NOTES Indoor Gyms (full size) 10-15 minute travel time 1 gym per 20,000 0-1 2 0 7 non-city gyms available for city use: 2 at Little Canada Elementary School, 1 at St. John’s School, 4 at Roseville Area Middle School Swimming Pools / Aquatics 15-30 minute travel time 1 per 20,000 to 40,000 (pools should accommodate 3-5% of total population at a time) 0-1 0 0 Swimming beach at Gervais Lake Beach, nearby facilities at Como Regional Park Pool, Shoreview Community Center, and Maplewood Community Center Playgrounds 1/2 mile 1 per 5,000 2-3 5 +2 Focus playgrounds in neighborhood parks. Develop a large all- inclusive playground at Pioneer Park Pleasure Skating Ice Rinks 1-2 miles NA NA 2 outdoor 0 1 at Firebarns, 1 at Roseville Area Middle School maintained by the City 63 CHAPTER 2 20 TABLE 2.3 CONTINUED RECREATION FACILITY SERVICE STANDARDS FACILITY SERVICE AREA MINIMUM NUMBER PER POPULATION STANDARD RANGE CURRENT NUMBER EXCESS/ DEFICIT RECOMMENDATIONS/ NOTES Ice Hockey 10-15 minute travel time Outdoor: 1 per 5,000-10,000 (Indoor rinks influence demand for outdoor rinks) 2 2 0 Nearby indoor rinks at Aldrich Arena, Vadnais Heights Dome, Roseville Oval, White Bear Lake Arena Baseball Adult: 10-15 minutes travel time Youth: 1-2 miles Full Size: 1 per city plus 1 per 5,000 - 10,000 plus lighted: 1 per 15,000- 30,000 Youth: 1 per 2,500-5,000 2-3 full size fields, 1 lighted 2-4 youth fields 0 full size 0 lighted 1 youth - Gilbertson Field -1full size lighted 1 full size field at Roseville Area Middle School 1 youth at St. Johns School 4 youth at Little Canada Elementary Add a full size lighted fields as demand warrants Softball Adult: 1-2 miles Youth: 1 mile Full Size: 1 per city plus 1 per 5,000 - 10,000 plus lighted: 1 per 15,000- 30,000 Youth: 1 per 2,500-5,000 2-3 full size fields (1 lighted) 2-4 youth fields 4 full size/ youth lighted fields 0 4 youth fields at Little Canda Elementary School 4 lighted adjustable size fields at Pioneer that serve regional demand Outdoor Basketball 1/2 to 1 mile Full Court: 1 per 5,000 Half Court: 1 per 3,000 2 full courts 3 half courts 1 full courts 2 half courts -1 half court 2 smaller full size courts at Little Canada Elementary Half court at St. Johns School Volleyball 2 miles 1 per 7,500-15,000 1 Court 1 sand court 0 Maintain and upgrade court at Spooner Park Maintain open lawn at Pioneer for informal volleyball Indoor courts at LC Elementary and Roseville Area Middle School 64 CITY OF LITTLE CANADA - PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN21 TABLE 2.3 CONTINUED RECREATION FACILITY SERVICE STANDARDS FACILITY SERVICE AREA MINIMUM NUMBER PER POPULATION STANDARD RANGE CURRENT NUMBER EXCESS/ DEFICIT RECOMMENDATIONS/ NOTES Tennis 1 mile 1 per 2,000-4,000 3-5 courts 4 courts dual striped for pickleball 0 8 additional courts at Roseville Area Middle School Multi-use fields (Soccer, football, lacrosse, ultimate frisbee) 1-2 miles 1 per 4,000 2-3 fields 2 0 Monitor demand and add 1 high quality multi-purpose (soccer/ lacrosse/ football/ rugby/ultimate frisbee) 1 at Little Canada Elementary, 7 at Roseville Area Middle School Sledding Hills Entire City NA NA 0 0 Explore future improvements at Firebarns to support sledding Horseshoe courts Entire city NA NA 2 0 Nearby facilities at Ramsey County Horseshoe Courts on White Bear Ave Community gardens Entire City NA NA 0 0 As demand warrants, explore opportunities to add Off-leash dog exercise areas 10-15 minute travel time NA NA 1seasonal park at Roseville Area Middle School 0 Consider adding a dedicated dog park Alternative Sport Facilities Entire city NA NA Skate park at Firebarns 0 Explore opportunities to add Frisbee Golf Golf courses Entire city NA NA 0 Nearby public facilities include Keller Golf Course and Phalen Park Golf Course 65 CHAPTER 2 22 Park & Recreation Agency Benchmarks This report contains data from 925 park and recreation agencies across the United States as reported between 2014 and 2016, as published by the National Park and Recreation Association in their NRPA Park Metrics report. It provides a snapshot comparison for the City of Little Canada compared to national averages. In general, Little Canada is in line or doing better compared to the rest of the country when it comes to acres of parkland and number of parks. From this data, however, Little Canada has fewer staff members per resident and spends less in operating expenditures per resident than the rest of the country. This data can be interpreted in different ways, and is meant to provide one measure of comparison/analysis for consideration. TABLE 2.4 PARK & RECREATION AGENCY BENCHMARKS BENCHMARK THE TYPICAL U.S. PARK & RECREATION AGENCY LITTLE CANADA Acres of Parkland per 1,000 residents 9.6 9.4 (City-owned parkland only) 17.2 (All parkland managed by the City) Staff members per 10,000 residents (full-time equivalent staff, including maintenance, operations, programming, administration, capital development and other) 7.3 5.8 Residents per park 2,266 1,293 Annual Operating Expenditures per Resident $77.32 $43.84 Percent recovery of operating expenditures through revenue generation 29.1%13% Median operation expenditures per acre of park and non-park sites managed by the agency $6,561 $2,548 Typical annual operating expenditures per employee $93,748 $78,186 Percent of expenditures that go towards personnel services 55%62% Portion of operating expenditures derived from general fund 60%87% Annual revenue generated from each resident $19.04 $5.80 Designation of capital budget 55% for renovation 30% for new development 100% for renovation 0% for new development (2017 only) 66 CITY OF LITTLE CANADA - PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN23 Gap Analysis Neighborhood and Community Parks The majority of residents in Little Canada currently have a neighborhood or community park within a 10-minute walk from their home. There are several neighborhoods, however, that are not served by a Little Canada neighborhood or community park. GERVAIS LAKE ROUND LAKE ROSEVILLE MAPLEWOOD VADNAIS HEIGHTS SHOREVIEW 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000500Feet NEIGHBORHOOD PARK COMMUNITY PARK OTHER LITTLE CANADA PARK 1/4 MILE WALKING DISTANCE (5 MINUTE WALK) 1/2 MILE WALKING DISTANCE (10 MINUTE WALK) RESIDENTIAL LAND USE OTHER PARK SPOONER PARK SPOONER PARK PIONEER PARK PIONEER PARK RONDEAU PARK RONDEAU PARK NADEAU WILDLIFE AREA NADEAU WILDLIFE AREA ACCESS TO NEIGHBORHOOD AND COMMUNITY PARKS GERVAIS LAKE ROUND LAKE ROSEVILLE MAPLEWOOD VADNAIS HEIGHTS SHOREVIEW 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000500Feet NEIGHBORHOOD PARK COMMUNITY PARK OTHER LITTLE CANADA PARK 1/4 MILE WALKING DISTANCE (5 MINUTE WALK) 1/2 MILE WALKING DISTANCE (10 MINUTE WALK) RESIDENTIAL LAND USE OTHER PARK SPOONER PARK SPOONER PARK PIONEER PARK PIONEER PARK RONDEAU PARK RONDEAU PARK NADEAU WILDLIFE AREA NADEAU WILDLIFE AREA ACCESS TO NEIGHBORHOOD AND COMMUNITY PARKS FIGURE 2.3 NEIGHBORHOOD AND COMMUNITY PARK DISTRIBUTION AND GAP ANALYSIS 67 CHAPTER 2 24 GERVAIS LAKE ROUND LAKE ROSEVILLE MAPLEWOOD VADNAIS HEIGHTS SHOREVIEW 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000500 Feet LITTLE CANADA PARK/OPEN SPACE QUARTERMILE SERVICE AREA (5 MINUTE WALK) HALFMILE SERVICE AREA (10 MINUTE WALK) RESIDENTIAL AREAS OTHER PARKS Lorem ipsum ACCESS TO PARKS & OPEN SPACE ROSEVILLE AREA MIDDLE SCHOOL ROSEVILLE AREA MIDDLE SCHOOL VETERANS MEMORIAL PARK VETERANS MEMORIAL PARK WATER WORKS RIGHTOFWAY WATER WORKS RIGHTOFWAY FIREMAN’S TRAIL FIREMAN’S TRAIL GERVAIS MILL PARK GERVAIS MILL PARK FIREBARNS SKATE PARK & OLD FIRE HALL FIREBARNS SKATE PARK & OLD FIRE HALL GERVAIS LAKE BEACH GERVAIS LAKE BEACH SPOONER PARK SPOONER PARK LITTLE CANADA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL LITTLE CANADA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL WESTWINDS PARKWESTWINDS PARK THUNDER BAY PARKTHUNDER BAY PARK PIONEER PARK PIONEER PARK RONDEAU PARK RONDEAU PARK NADEAU WILDLIFE AREA NADEAU WILDLIFE AREA GERVAIS LAKE ROUND LAKE ROSEVILLE MAPLEWOOD VADNAIS HEIGHTS SHOREVIEW 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000500 Feet LITTLE CANADA PARK/OPEN SPACE QUARTERMILE SERVICE AREA (5 MINUTE WALK) HALFMILE SERVICE AREA (10 MINUTE WALK) RESIDENTIAL AREAS OTHER PARKS Lorem ipsum ACCESS TO PARKS & OPEN SPACE ROSEVILLE AREA MIDDLE SCHOOL ROSEVILLE AREA MIDDLE SCHOOL VETERANS MEMORIAL PARK VETERANS MEMORIAL PARK WATER WORKS RIGHTOFWAY WATER WORKS RIGHTOFWAY FIREMAN’S TRAIL FIREMAN’S TRAIL GERVAIS MILL PARK GERVAIS MILL PARK FIREBARNS SKATE PARK & OLD FIRE HALL FIREBARNS SKATE PARK & OLD FIRE HALL GERVAIS LAKE BEACH GERVAIS LAKE BEACH SPOONER PARK SPOONER PARK LITTLE CANADA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL LITTLE CANADA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL WESTWINDS PARKWESTWINDS PARK THUNDER BAY PARKTHUNDER BAY PARK PIONEER PARK PIONEER PARK RONDEAU PARK RONDEAU PARK NADEAU WILDLIFE AREA NADEAU WILDLIFE AREA GERVAIS LAKE ROUND LAKE ROSEVILLE MAPLEWOOD VADNAIS HEIGHTS SHOREVIEW 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000500Feet NEIGHBORHOOD PARK COMMUNITY PARK OTHER LITTLE CANADA PARK 1/4 MILE WALKING DISTANCE (5 MINUTE WALK) 1/2 MILE WALKING DISTANCE (10 MINUTE WALK) RESIDENTIAL LAND USE OTHER PARK SPOONER PARK SPOONER PARK PIONEER PARK PIONEER PARK RONDEAU PARK RONDEAU PARK NADEAU WILDLIFE AREA NADEAU WILDLIFE AREA ACCESS TO NEIGHBORHOOD AND COMMUNITY PARKS FIGURE 2.4 PARKS AND OPEN SPACE DISTRIBUTION AND GAP ANALYSIS Parks and Open Space When the gap analysis is expanded to include all parks and open space only a few neighborhoods are not served by any park or open space. The neighborhood north of 694 cannot walk to a Little Canada park or open space, but is potentially being served by the Snail Lakes Regional Park, although park facilities such as playgrounds or open fields are further than half a mile away for these residents. Efforts to link this neighborhood with a connection over 694 is a priority. NEIGHBORHOOD LACKING ACCESS TO PARK FACILITIES LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL WITH LARGE LOT SIZES ZONED RESIDENTIAL BUT LACKING HOUSING (WETLAND AREA) 68 CITY OF LITTLE CANADA - PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN25 System Condition In general, parks and trails are in good condition in Little Canada. Parks range from older, more established parks with mature trees and aging infrastructure to recent developments with new walking paths and structures. All parks are generally tidy, with ornamental vegetation, including lawns, raingardens, and trees that are well cared for. Some of the naturalized and wooded areas could benefit from invasive species control measures to improve their value as places to relax, enjoy, and observe nature. A number of courts have recently been resurfaced and playing fields are rested and maintained for evenness. Routine upkeep ensures that there are not large numbers of individual complaints about parks, but with strategic investments the system could be even more meaningful to residents. Discussions throughout the planning process indicate that the system is not in dire need of significant investment to meet the expectations of users. There are no facilities in unsafe conditions, but investments to several features are needed to meet modern standards of residents, many of whom report traveling outside of Little Canada to access certain faciltities including playgrounds and water features. The playgrounds at Pioneer and Spooner Parks need to be updated, and there is community momentum to make improvements at Pioneer Park. Investments in facilities for pedestrians and bicyclists have also risen as a priority for residents, and the City aims to make strides in expanding the current system of trails and sidewalks. Programming Little Canada residents of all ages and abilities have access to a wide range of program offerings. The City works with other entities to ensure a robust mix of programs, and offers a number of programs and activities themselves. Adult Programs Little Canada Parks & Recreation offers a variety of recreation programs for adults. Examples of programs include: • Fall Softball • Open Co-Ed Volleyball • Summer Softball 69 CHAPTER 2 26 Youth Activities Youth activies include: • Baseball/Softball/T-ball • Tennis/pickleball • Skating Lessons • Fall and Winter Gymnastics • Basketball Clinic • Soccer Clinic • After school basketball for boys and girls • Soccer league and pre-league • Volleyball league • Basketball league Seniors Programming Senior programs include: • 55 Alive Driving Classes • Excercise classes • Market Place Morning Talks for seniors • Roseville Area Senior Program • 55+ Club for seniors Others Special events and offerings include a weekly Farmers Market, Annual Ice Cream Social, movies in the park,and a 5k run/walk. Activities are published in the local paper “The Review”, in the Roseville Area School District brochure, the city newsletter, “Le Petit Canadien”, the cable access channel, the City’s website, and on social media. Other athletics, classes, programs and events are available to residents through Roseville Area School District, Roseville Parks & Recreation, Roseville Athletic Association, White Bear Lake Area Community Services, Little Canada Recreation Association, Maplewood Parks & Recreation, Maplewood Athletic Association, and others. Links to these various organizations are provided on Little Canada’s website. While some residents would like to see more opportunities available in Little Canada, the City’s size and corresponding resources require cooperation with partner organizations to provide program services. Continued outreach and communication with community members about gaps in programming is needed to see what additional programs make sense of offer. 70 CITY OF LITTLE CANADA - PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN27 GERVAIS LAKE KELLER LAKE ROUND LAKE ROSEVILLE MAPLEWOOD VADNAIS HEIGHTS SHOREVIEW 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000500Feet LITTLE CANADA PARK/OPEN SPACE PARK OUTSIDE LITTLE CANADA RESIDENTIAL AREAS OFFROAD TRAIL SIDEWALK TRAILSONROAD TRAIL (PAVED SHOULDER) NATURAL SURFACE TRAIL GATEWAY STATE TRAIL PROPOSED SIDEWALK PROPOSED OFFROAD TRAILEDGERTON STDESOTO STCENTERVILLE RDMCMENEMY STI35EJACKSON STRICE STARCADE STCO RD B2E CO RD D CO RD B2E CO RD BE DEMONT AVE S OWASSO BLVD KELLER PKWYLABORE R D LITTLE C A N A D A R D HWY 36 HWY 36 E CO RD C CO RD C E 694 VIKIN G D R FIGURE 2.5 SIDEWALKS AND TRAILS 71 CHAPTER 2 28 Trails & Connectivity Existing Conditions Overall, Little Canada has a number of key pedestrian and bicycle connections made throughout the City, but has a number of gaps that preclude the system from being complete. Strengths of the system include: • A strong backbone of linear parks and park trails, which include the Water Works Right-of-Way, Firefighters Historical Trail, Westwind and Thunderbay Parks/Power Line Trail, and paved trail loops within Spooner and Pioneeer Parks and other community and neighborhood parks • Off-road trails on County Road C and Jackson Street • Natural surface trail loops at Gervais Mill Park Needs Trail connections and safe walking and biking conditions came up repeatedly as top priorities among participants during the public engagement phase of the planning process. The City has identified opportunities to make connections, and is continually adding sidewalks, trails, and safe crossings as opportunities arise. Some collector streets that carry higher volumes of traffic do not have dedicated facilities for pedestrians and bicycles, but do provide wide, paved shoulders. See box at right for survey results regarding respondents opinions on the use of paved shoulders in Little Canada. is Acceptable is Unacceptable Responses Edgerton Street for Pedestrians Count Row % 66 48.9% 69 51.1% 135 Edgerton Street for Bicyclists Count Row % 80 59.7% 54 40.3% 134 Labore Road for Pedestrians Count Row % 68 52.3% 62 47.7% 130 Labore Road for Bicyclists Count Row % 81 62.3% 49 37.7% 130 Keller Parkway for Pedestrians Count Row % 59 46.5% 68 53.5% 127 Keller Parkway for Bicyclists Count Row % 71 55.9% 56 44.1% 127 Arcade Street for Pedestrians Count Row % 79 65.8% 41 34.2% 120 Aracde Street for Bicyclists Count Row % 88 75.2% 29 24.8% 117 McMenemy Street for Pedestrians Count Row % 85 74.6% 29 25.4% 114 McMenemy Street for Bicyclists Count Row % 93 82.3% 20 17.7% 113 Totals Total Responses 176 20 is Acceptable is Unacceptable Responses Edgerton Street for Pedestrians Count Row % 66 48.9% 69 51.1% 135 Edgerton Street for Bicyclists Count Row % 80 59.7% 54 40.3% 134 Labore Road for Pedestrians Count Row % 68 52.3% 62 47.7% 130 Labore Road for Bicyclists Count Row % 81 62.3% 49 37.7% 130 Keller Parkway for Pedestrians Count Row % 59 46.5% 68 53.5% 127 Keller Parkway for Bicyclists Count Row % 71 55.9% 56 44.1% 127 Arcade Street for Pedestrians Count Row % 79 65.8% 41 34.2% 120 Aracde Street for Bicyclists Count Row % 88 75.2% 29 24.8% 117 McMenemy Street for Pedestrians Count Row % 85 74.6% 29 25.4% 114 McMenemy Street for Bicyclists Count Row % 93 82.3% 20 17.7% 113 Totals Total Responses 176 20 is Acceptable is Unacceptable Responses Edgerton Street for Pedestrians Count Row % 66 48.9% 69 51.1% 135 Edgerton Street for Bicyclists Count Row % 80 59.7% 54 40.3% 134 Labore Road for Pedestrians Count Row % 68 52.3% 62 47.7% 130 Labore Road for Bicyclists Count Row % 81 62.3% 49 37.7% 130 Keller Parkway for Pedestrians Count Row % 59 46.5% 68 53.5% 127 Keller Parkway for Bicyclists Count Row % 71 55.9% 56 44.1% 127 Arcade Street for Pedestrians Count Row % 79 65.8% 41 34.2% 120 Aracde Street for Bicyclists Count Row % 88 75.2% 29 24.8% 117 McMenemy Street for Pedestrians Count Row % 85 74.6% 29 25.4% 114 McMenemy Street for Bicyclists Count Row % 93 82.3% 20 17.7% 113 Totals Total Responses 176 20 is Acceptable is Unacceptable Responses Edgerton Street for Pedestrians Count Row % 66 48.9% 69 51.1% 135 Edgerton Street for Bicyclists Count Row % 80 59.7% 54 40.3% 134 Labore Road for Pedestrians Count Row % 68 52.3% 62 47.7% 130 Labore Road for Bicyclists Count Row % 81 62.3% 49 37.7% 130 Keller Parkway for Pedestrians Count Row % 59 46.5% 68 53.5% 127 Keller Parkway for Bicyclists Count Row % 71 55.9% 56 44.1% 127 Arcade Street for Pedestrians Count Row % 79 65.8% 41 34.2% 120 Aracde Street for Bicyclists Count Row % 88 75.2% 29 24.8% 117 McMenemy Street for Pedestrians Count Row % 8 5 74.6% 29 25.4% 114 McMenemy Street for Bicyclists Count Row % 93 82.3% 20 17.7% 113 Totals Total Responses 176 20 is Acceptable is Unacceptable Responses Edgerton Street for Pedestrians Count Row % 66 48.9% 69 51.1% 135 Edgerton Street for Bicyclists Count Row % 80 59.7% 54 40.3% 134 Labore Road for Pedestrians Count Row % 68 52.3% 62 47.7% 130 Labore Road for Bicyclists Count Row % 81 62.3% 49 37.7% 130 Keller Parkway for Pedestrians Count Row % 59 46.5% 68 53.5% 127 Keller Parkway for Bicyclists Count Row % 71 55.9% 56 44.1% 127 Arcade Street for Pedestrians Count Row % 79 65.8% 41 34.2% 120 Aracde Street for Bicyclists Count Row % 88 75.2% 29 24.8% 117 McMenemy Street for Pedestrians Count Row % 85 74.6% 29 25.4% 114 McMenemy Street for Bicyclists Count Row % 93 82.3% 20 17.7% 113 Totals Total Responses 176 20 is Acceptable is Unacceptable Responses Edgerton Street for Pedestrians Count Row % 66 48.9% 69 51.1% 135 Edgerton Street for Bicyclists Count Row % 80 59.7% 54 40.3% 134 Labore Road for Pedestrians Count Row % 68 52.3% 62 47.7% 130 Labore Road for Bicyclists Count Row % 81 62.3% 49 37.7% 130 Keller Parkway for Pedestrians Count Row % 59 46.5% 68 53.5% 127 Keller Parkway for Bicyclists Count Row % 71 55.9% 56 44.1% 127 Arcade Street for Pedestrian s Count Row % 79 65.8% 41 34.2% 120 Aracde Street for Bicyclists Count Row % 88 75.2% 29 24.8% 117 McMenemy Street for Pedestrians Count Row % 85 74.6% 29 25.4% 114 McMenemy Street for Bicyclists Count Row % 93 82.3% 20 17.7% 113 Totals Total Responses 176 20 is Acceptable is Unacceptable Responses Edgerton Street for Pedestrians Count Row % 66 48.9% 69 51.1% 135 Edgerton Street for Bicyclists Count Row % 80 59.7% 54 40.3% 134 Labore Road for Pedestrians Count Row % 68 52.3% 62 47.7% 130 Labore Road for Bicyclists Count Row % 81 62.3% 49 37.7% 130 Keller Parkway for Pedestrians Count Row % 59 46.5% 68 53.5% 127 Keller Parkway for Bicyclists Count Row % 71 55.9% 56 44.1% 127 Arcade Street for Pedestrian s Count Row % 79 65.8% 41 34.2% 120 Aracde Street for Bicyclists Count Row % 88 75.2% 29 24.8% 117 McMenemy Street for Pedestrians Count Row % 85 74.6% 29 25.4% 114 McMenemy Street for Bicyclists Count Row % 93 82.3% 20 17.7% 113 Totals Total Responses 176 20 is Acceptable is Unacceptable Responses Edgerton Street for Pedestrians Count Row % 66 48.9% 69 51.1% 135 Edgerton Street for Bicyclists Count Row % 80 59.7% 54 40.3% 134 Labore Road for Pedestrians Count Row % 68 52.3% 62 47.7% 130 Labore Road for Bicyclists Count Row % 81 62.3% 49 37.7% 130 Keller Parkway for Pedestrians Count Row % 59 46.5% 68 53.5% 127 Keller Parkway for Bicyclists Count Row % 71 55.9% 56 44.1% 127 Arcade Street for Pedestrian s Count Row % 79 65.8% 41 34.2% 120 Aracde Street for Bicyclists Count Row % 88 75.2% 29 24.8% 117 McMenemy Street for Pedestrians Count Row % 85 74.6% 29 25.4% 114 McMenemy Street for Bicyclists Count Row % 93 82.3% 20 17.7% 113 Totals Total Responses 176 20 is Acceptable is Unacceptable Responses Edgerton Street for Pedestrians Count Row % 66 48.9% 69 51.1% 135 Edgerton Street for Bicyclists Count Row % 80 59.7% 54 40.3% 134 Labore Road for Pedestrians Count Row % 68 52.3% 62 47.7% 130 Labore Road for Bicyclists Count Row % 81 62.3% 49 37.7% 130 Keller Parkway for Pedestrians Count Row % 59 46.5% 68 53.5% 127 Keller Parkway for Bicyclists Count Row % 71 55.9% 56 44.1% 127 Arcade Street for Pedestrian s Count Row % 79 65.8% 41 34.2% 120 Aracde Street for Bicyclists Count Row % 88 75.2% 29 24.8% 117 McMenemy Street for Pedestrians Count Row % 85 74.6% 29 25.4% 114 McMenemy Street for Bicyclists Count Row % 93 82.3% 20 17.7% 113 Totals Total Responses 176 20 is Acceptable is Unacceptable Responses Edgerton Street for Pedestrians Count Row % 66 48.9% 69 51.1% 135 Edgerton Street for Bicyclists Count Row % 80 59.7% 54 40.3% 134 Labore Road for Pedestrians Count Row % 68 52.3% 62 47.7% 130 Labore Road for Bicyclists Count Row % 81 62.3% 49 37.7% 130 Keller Parkway for Pedestrians Count Row % 59 46.5% 68 53.5% 127 Keller Parkway for Bicyclists Count Row % 71 55.9% 56 44.1% 127 Arcade Street for Pedestrian s Count Row % 79 65.8% 41 34.2% 120 Aracde Street for Bicyclists Count Row % 88 75.2% 29 24.8% 117 McMenemy Street for Pedestrians Count Row % 85 74.6% 29 25.4% 114 McMenemy Street for Bicyclists Count Row % 93 82.3% 20 17.7% 113 Totals Total Responses 176 20 is Acceptable is Unacceptable Responses Edgerton Street for Pedestrians Count Row % 66 48.9% 69 51.1% 135 Edgerton Street for Bicyclists Count Row % 80 59.7% 54 40.3% 134 Labore Road for Pedestrians Count Row % 68 52.3% 62 47.7% 130 Labore Road for Bicyclists Count Row % 81 62.3% 49 37.7% 130 Keller Parkway for Pedestrians Count Row % 59 46.5% 68 53.5% 127 Keller Parkway for Bicyclists Count Row % 71 55.9% 56 44.1% 127 Arcade Street for Pedestrian s Count Row % 79 65.8% 41 34.2% 120 Aracde Street for Bicyclists Count Row % 88 75.2% 29 24.8% 117 McMenemy Street for Pedestrians Count Row % 85 74.6% 29 25.4% 114 McMenemy Street for Bicyclists Count Row % 93 82.3% 20 17.7% 113 Totals Total Responses 176 20 is Acceptable is Unacceptable Responses Edgerton Street for Pedestrians Count Row % 66 48.9% 69 51.1% 135 Edgerton Street for Bicyclists Count Row % 80 59.7% 54 40.3% 134 Labore Road for Pedestrians Count Row % 68 52.3% 62 47.7% 130 Labore Road for Bicyclists Count Row % 81 62.3% 49 37.7% 130 Keller Parkway for Pedestrians Count Row % 59 46.5% 68 53.5% 127 Keller Parkway for Bicyclists Count Row % 71 55.9% 56 44.1% 127 Arcade Street for Pedestrians Count Row % 79 65.8% 41 34.2% 120 Aracde Street for Bicyclists Count Row % 88 75.2% 29 24.8% 117 McMenemy Street for Pedestrians Count Row % 85 74.6% 29 25.4% 114 McMenemy Street for Bicyclists Count Row % 93 82.3% 20 17.7% 113 Totals Total Responses 176 20 is Acceptable is Unacceptable Responses Edgerton Street for Pedestrians Count Row % 66 48.9% 69 51.1% 135 Edgerton Street for Bicyclists Count Row % 80 59.7% 54 40.3% 134 Labore Road for Pedestrians Count Row % 68 52.3% 62 47.7% 130 Labore Road for Bicyclists Count Row % 81 62.3% 49 37.7% 130 Keller Parkway for Pedestrians Count Row % 59 46.5% 68 53.5% 127 Keller Parkway for Bicyclists Count Row % 71 55.9% 56 44.1% 127 Arcade Street for Pedestrian s Count Row % 79 65.8% 41 34.2% 120 Aracde Street for Bicyclists Count Row % 88 75.2% 29 24.8% 117 McMenemy Street for Pedestrians Count Row % 85 74.6% 29 25.4% 114 McMenemy Street for Bicyclists Count Row % 93 82.3% 20 17.7% 113 Totals Total Responses 176 20 is Acceptable is Unacceptable Responses Edgerton Street for Pedestrians Count Row % 66 48.9% 69 51.1% 135 Edgerton Street for Bicyclists Count Row % 80 59.7% 54 40.3% 134 Labore Road for Pedestrians Count Row % 68 52.3% 62 47.7% 130 Labore Road for Bicyclists Count Row % 81 62.3% 49 37.7% 130 Keller Parkway for Pedestrians Count Row % 59 46.5% 68 53.5% 127 Keller Parkway for Bicyclists Count Row % 71 55.9% 56 44.1% 127 Arcade Street for Pedestrians Count Row % 79 65.8% 41 34.2% 120 Aracde Street for Bicyclists Count Row % 88 75.2% 29 24.8% 117 McMenemy Street for Pedestrians Count Row % 85 74.6% 29 25.4% 114 McMenemy Street for Bicyclists Count Row % 93 82.3% 20 17.7% 113 Totals Total Responses 176 20 is Acceptable is Unacceptable Responses Edgerton Street for Pedestrians Count Row % 66 48.9% 69 51.1% 135 Edgerton Street for Bicyclists Count Row % 80 59.7% 54 40.3% 134 Labore Road for Pedestrians Count Row % 68 52.3% 62 47.7% 130 Labore Road for Bicyclists Count Row % 81 62.3% 49 37.7% 130 Keller Parkway for Pedestrians Count Row % 59 46.5% 68 53.5% 127 Keller Parkway for Bicyclists Count Row % 71 55.9% 56 44.1% 127 Arcade Street for Pedestrians Count Row % 79 65.8% 41 34.2% 120 Aracde Street for Bicyclists Count Row % 88 75.2% 29 24.8% 117 McMenemy Street for Pedestrians Count Row % 85 74.6% 29 25.4% 114 McMenemy Street for Bicyclists Count Row % 93 82.3% 20 17.7% 113 Totals Total Responses 176 20 is Acceptable is Unacceptable Responses Edgerton Street for Pedestrians Count Row % 66 48.9% 69 51.1% 135 Edgerton Street for Bicyclists Count Row % 80 59.7% 54 40.3% 134 Labore Road for Pedestrians Count Row % 68 52.3% 62 47.7% 130 Labore Road for Bicyclists Count Row % 81 62.3% 49 37.7% 130 Keller Parkway for Pedestrians Count Row % 59 46.5% 68 53.5% 127 Keller Parkway for Bicyclists Count Row % 71 55.9% 56 44.1% 127 Arcade Street for Pedestrians Count Row % 79 65.8% 41 34.2% 120 Aracde Street for Bicyclists Count Row % 88 75.2% 29 24.8% 117 McMenemy Street for Pedestrians Count Row % 85 74.6% 29 25.4% 114 McMenemy Street for Bicyclists Count Row % 93 82.3% 20 17.7% 113 Totals Total Responses 176 20 is Acceptable is Unacceptable Responses Edgerton Street for Pedestrians Count Row % 66 48.9% 69 51.1% 135 Edgerton Street for Bicyclists Count Row % 80 59.7% 54 40.3% 134 Labore Road for Pedestrians Count Row % 68 52.3% 62 47.7% 130 Labore Road for Bicyclists Count Row % 81 62.3% 49 37.7% 130 Keller Parkway for Pedestrians Count Row % 59 46.5% 68 53.5% 127 Keller Parkway for Bicyclists Count Row % 71 55.9% 56 44.1% 127 Arcade Street for Pedestrians Count Row % 79 65.8% 41 34.2% 120 Aracde Street for Bicyclists Count Row % 88 75.2% 29 24.8% 117 McMenemy Street for Pedestrians Count Row % 85 74.6% 29 25.4% 114 McMenemy Street for Bicyclists Count Row % 93 82.3% 20 17.7% 113 Totals Total Responses 176 20 is Acceptable is Unacceptable Responses Edgerton Street for Pedestrians Count Row % 66 48.9% 69 51.1% 135 Edgerton Street for Bicyclists Count Row % 80 59.7% 54 40.3% 134 Labore Road for Pedestrians Count Row % 68 52.3% 62 47.7% 130 Labore Road for Bicyclists Count Row % 81 62.3% 49 37.7% 130 Keller Parkway for Pedestrians Count Row % 59 46.5% 68 53.5% 127 Keller Parkway for Bicyclists Count Row % 71 55.9% 56 44.1% 127 Arcade Street for Pedestrians Count Row % 79 65.8% 41 34.2% 120 Aracde Street for Bicyclists Count Row % 88 75.2% 29 24.8% 117 McMenemy Street for Pedestrians Count Row % 85 74.6% 29 25.4% 114 McMenemy Street for Bicyclists Count Row % 93 82.3% 20 17.7% 113 Totals Total Responses 176 20 is Acceptable is Unacceptable Responses Edgerton Street for Pedestrians Count Row % 66 48.9% 69 51.1% 135 Edgerton Street for Bicyclists Count Row % 80 59.7% 54 40.3% 134 Labore Road for Pedestrians Count Row % 68 52.3% 62 47.7% 130 Labore Road for Bicyclists Count Row % 81 62.3% 49 37.7% 130 Keller Parkway for Pedestrians Count Row % 59 46.5% 68 53.5% 127 Keller Parkway for Bicyclists Count Row % 71 55.9% 56 44.1% 127 Arcade Street for Pedestrians Count Row % 79 65.8% 41 34.2% 120 Aracde Street for Bicyclists Count Row % 88 75.2% 29 24.8% 117 McMenemy Street for Pedestrians Count Row % 85 74.6% 29 25.4% 114 McMenemy Street for Bicyclists Count Row % 93 82.3% 20 17.7% 113 Totals Total Responses 176 20 is Acceptable is Unacceptable Responses Edgerton Street for Pedestrians Count Row % 66 48.9% 69 51.1% 135 Edgerton Street for Bicyclists Count Row % 80 59.7% 54 40.3% 134 Labore Road for Pedestrians Count Row % 68 52.3% 62 47.7% 130 Labore Road for Bicyclists Count Row % 81 62.3% 49 37.7% 130 Keller Parkway for Pedestrians Count Row % 59 46.5% 68 53.5% 127 Keller Parkway for Bicyclists Count Row % 71 55.9% 56 44.1% 127 Arcade Street for Pedestrians Count Row % 79 65.8% 41 34.2% 120 Aracde Street for Bicyclists Count Row % 88 75.2% 29 24.8% 117 McMenemy Street for Pedestrians Count Row % 85 74.6% 29 25.4% 114 McMenemy Street for Bicyclists Count Row % 93 82.3% 20 17.7% 113 Totals Total Responses 176 20 is Acceptable is Unacceptable Responses Edgerton Street for Pedestrians Count Row % 66 48.9% 69 51.1% 135 Edgerton Street for Bicyclists Count Row % 80 59.7% 54 40.3% 134 Labore Road for Pedestrians Count Row % 68 52.3% 62 47.7% 130 Labore Road for Bicyclists Count Row % 81 62.3% 49 37.7% 130 Keller Parkway for Pedestrians Count Row % 59 46.5% 68 53.5% 127 Keller Parkway for Bicyclists Count Row % 71 55.9% 56 44.1% 127 Arcade Street for Pedestrians Count Row % 79 65.8% 41 34.2% 120 Aracde Street for Bicyclists Count Row % 88 75.2% 29 24.8% 117 McMenemy Street for Pedestrians Count Row % 85 74.6% 29 25.4% 114 McMenemy Street for Bicyclists Count Row % 93 82.3% 20 17.7% 113 Totals Total Responses 176 20 THE CURRENT UTILIZATION OF PAVED SHOULDERS ON: COMMUNITY SURVEY RESULTS REGARDING USE OF PAVED SHOULDERS 72 CITY OF LITTLE CANADA - PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN29 73 CHAPTER 3 30 Competitive Recreation People find motivation and fun in competing against others and themselves. In addition to the competition found in traditional team sports (see figures for national participatory trends on p.33), there is increased participation in adventure racing, lifetime games (pickleball and bocce ball) and individual fitness tracking. Team sports that have the highest participation rates are basketball, golf, and tennis. Traditional Team Sports When it comes to traditional team sports, the pay-for-play model is impacting the role of the park and recreation department. More schools saw an increase in the extra charge for sport participation (2017 Physical Activity Council Report), which is resulting in increased interest in club teams at both the recreational and elite levels (National Recreation and Park Association, 2017). This means heightened communication and cooperation between cities, schools, and other organizations is critical. Chapter 3: Trends Keeping up with trends is a way to stay relevant, but can be challenging from an implementation perspective. Consequently, one of the current trends in parks and recreation planning is for cities to be nimble and flexible in response to the ever-changing needs and desires of the public. The following provides an overview of current trends affecting parks and recreation departments. PHOTO BY JAMES NETZ 74 CITY OF LITTLE CANADA - PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN31 Fitness and Non-traditional Sports On the flip side of the trends in traditional sports participation is an increased interest in sport fitness (walking, running, yoga, etc) and non- traditional sports such as trap shooting, mountain biking, and archery. According to the Sports & Fitness Industry Association’s (SFIA) 2016 Study of Sports, Fitness, and Leisure Activities Topline Participation Report, the 5 most popular sport and recreation activities are fitness walking, treadmill, running/jogging, free weights, and road bicycling. These activities have greater participation rates than any of the traditional sports. See Figure 3.1on page 33 for a summary of national participatory trends from the 2016 SFIA report. Activity/Inactivity Levels Overall activity of the US population increased .3% from 2015 to 2016, but the rate of inactive individuals is 27.5% (2017 Physical Activity Council Report). Whether this modest gain is the result of improved access to recreation programs and facilities or individual responses to health concerns, the implication for the role of parks and recreation departments is a need to help integrate routine physical activity in people’s daily lives. Unfortunately, activity levels continue to correlate negatively with income and age; the lowest income earners have the highest inactivity levels, while the highest income earners have the lowest inactivity levels, and rates of inactive individuals increase by age group. This presents another opportunity (and challenge) for communities to reach out to and better serve low-income and older residents. 75 CHAPTER 3 32 P3 Funding and Delivery Models Many cities are increasingly reliant on public/private partnerships (P3) to fund capital improvements, supplement operations and maintenance, and deliver services. Partnerships may come in the form of donations, privatization of services such as food and technology provision, matching funds from investors that recoup investments from revenue streams, and social impact bonds. Flexibility The increasingly busy and diverse structure of family life has resulted in more demand for access to flexible facilities and events such as recreation centers, trails, community gardens, dog parks, festivals, and drop-in community events that do not require registration or commitments. Remember the five most popular activities, according to SFIA (Fitness Walking, Treadmill, running/jogging, free weights, road biking). These are pursuits that can be done at the convenience of the individual. Technology The increasing pervasiveness of and rapid changes in technology continues to affect the way people recreate, how communities deliver services and find efficiencies, and individual’s desires to ‘unplug’. Many communities have responded to public demand for connectivity by providing wifi at public parks and facilities, as well as prioritizing timely and comprehensive communications via the web and social media. Technology also continues to provide cost savings and safety improvements in forms that include lighting, alternative energy sources, irrigation, and automation. At the same time, access to natural areas is increasingly sought as a way to reconnect with nature and combat nature-deficit disorders. 76 CITY OF LITTLE CANADA - PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN33 2010 2014 2015 14-15 10-15 Fitness Walking 112,082 112,583 109,829 -2.4% -2.0% Treadmill 52,275 50,241 50,398 0.3% -3.6% Running/Jogging 46,650 51,127 48,496 -5.1% 4.0% Free Weights (Hand Weights) under 15 lbs N/A 41,670 42,799 2.7% N/A Stretching 35,720 35,624 35,776 0.4% 0.2% Sta onary Cycling (Recumbent/Upright) 36,036 35,693 35,553 -0.4% -1.3% Weight/Resistant Machines 39,185 35,841 35,310 -1.5% -9.9% Free Weights (Dumbells) over 15 lbs N/A 30,767 31,409 2.1% N/A Ellip cal Mo on Trainer 27,319 28,025 27,981 -0.2% 2.4% Free Weights (Barbells)27,194 25,623 25,381 -0.9% -6.7% Yoga 20,998 25,262 25,289 0.1% 20.4% Calisthenics/Bodyweight Exercise N/A 22,390 22,146 -1.1% N/A Choreographed Exercise N/A 21,455 21,487 0.1% N/A Aerobics (High Impact)14,567 19,746 20,464 3.6% 40.5% Stair Climbing Machine 13,269 13,216 13,234 0.1% -0.3% Cross-Training Style Workout N/A 11,265 11,710 4.0% N/A Sta onary Cycling (Group)7,854 8,449 8,677 2.7% 10.5% Pilates Training 8,404 8,504 8,594 1.1% 2.3% Trail Running 4,985 7,531 8,139 8.1% 63.3% Cardio Cross Trainer N/A 7,484 7,982 6.7% N/A Boot Camp Style Cross-Training N/A 6,774 6,722 -0.8% N/A Cardio Kickboxing 6,287 6,747 6,708 -0.6% 6.7% Mar al Arts 6,002 5,364 5,507 2.7% -8.2% Boxing for Fitness 4,788 5,113 5,419 6.0% 13.2% Tai Chi 3,193 3,446 3,651 5.9% 14.3% Barre N/A 3,200 3,583 12.0% N/A Triathlon (Tradi onal/Road)1,593 2,203 2,498 13.4% 56.8% Triathlon (Non-Tradi onal/O Road)798 1,411 1,744 23.6%118.5% Na onal Par cipatory Trends - General Fitness Ac vity Par cipa on Levels % Change NOTE: Par cipa on figures are in 000's for the U.S. popula on ages 6 and over Legend:Large Increase (greater than 25%) Moderate Increase (0% to 25%) Moderate Decrease (0% to -25%) Large Decrease (less than -25%) 2010 2014 2015 14-15 10-15 Swimming (Fitness) N/A 25,304 26,319 4.0% N/A Aqua c Exercise 8,947 9,122 9,226 1.1% 3.1% Swimming (Compe on) N/A 2,710 2,892 6.7% N/A Na onal Par cipatory Trends - Aqua cs Ac vity Par cipa on Levels % Change NOTE: Par cipa on figures are in 000's for the U.S. popula on ages 6 and over Large Increase (greater than 25%) Moderate Increase (0% to 25%) Moderate Decrease (0% to -25%) Large Decrease (less than -25%) 2010 2014 2015 14-15 10-15 Bicycling (Road)39,730 39,725 38,280 -3.6% -3.6% Fishing (Freshwater)39,911 37,821 37,682 -0.4% -5.6% Hiking (Day) 32,534 36,222 37,232 2.8% 14.4% Camping (< 1/4 Mile of Vehicle/Home)32,667 28,660 27,742 -3.2% -15.1% Wildlife Viewing (>1/4 Mile of Home/Vehicle) 21,158 21,110 20,718 -1.9% -2.1% Camping (Recrea onal Vehicle)16,651 14,633 14,699 0.5% -11.7% Birdwatching (>1/4 mile of Vehicle/Home) 13,317 13,179 13,093 -0.7% -1.7% Fishing (Saltwater)12,056 11,817 11,975 1.3% -0.7% Backpacking Overnight 7,998 10,101 10,100 0.0% 26.3% Archery 6,323 8,435 8,378 -0.7% 32.5% Bicycling (Mountain)7,152 8,044 8,316 3.4% 16.3% Skateboarding 7,080 6,582 6,436 -2.2% -9.1% Fishing (Fly)5,523 5,842 6,089 4.2% 10.2% Roller Ska ng, In-Line 8,128 6,061 6,024 -0.6% -25.9% Climbing (Sport/Indoor/Boulder)4,542 4,536 4,684 3.3% 3.1% Adventure Racing 1,214 2,368 2,864 20.9%135.9% Bicycling (BMX) 2,090 2,350 2,690 14.5% 28.7% Climbing (Tradi onal/Ice/Mountaineering)2,017 2,457 2,571 4.6% 27.5% Na onal Par cipatory Trends - Outdoor / Adventure Recrea on Ac vity Par cipa on Levels % Change NOTE: Par cipa on figures are in 000's for the U.S. popula on ages 6 and over Large Increase (greater than 25%) Moderate Increase (0% to 25%) Moderate Decrease (0% to -25%) Large Decrease (less than -25%) 2010 2014 2015 14-15 10-15 Canoeing 10,306 10,044 10,236 1.9% -0.7% Kayaking (Recrea onal)6,339 8,855 9,499 7.3% 49.9% Snorkeling 9,332 8,752 8,874 1.4% -4.9% Jet Skiing 7,739 6,355 6,263 -1.4% -19.1% Sailing 4,106 3,924 4,099 4.5% -0.2% Water Skiing 4,849 4,007 3,948 -1.5% -18.6% Ra ing 4,389 3,781 3,883 2.7% -11.5% Scuba Diving 2,938 3,145 3,274 4.1% 11.4% Wakeboarding 3,611 3,125 3,226 3.2% -10.7% Kayaking (Sea/Touring)1,958 2,912 3,079 5.7% 57.3% Stand-Up Paddling 1,050 2,751 3,020 9.8%187.6% Surfing 2,585 2,721 2,701 -0.7% 4.5% Kayaking (White Water)1,606 2,351 2,518 7.1% 56.8% Boardsailing/Windsurfing 1,373 1,562 1,766 13.1% 28.6% Na onal Par cipatory Trends - Water Sports / Ac vi es Ac vity Par cipa on Levels % Change NOTE: Par cipa on figures are in 000's for the U.S. popula on ages 6 and over Large Increase (greater than 25%) Moderate Increase (0% to 25%) Moderate Decrease (0% to -25%) Large Decrease (less than -25%) 2010 2014 2015 14-15 10-15 Bicycling (Road)39,730 39,725 38,280 -3.6% -3.6% Fishing (Freshwater)39,911 37,821 37,682 -0.4% -5.6% Hiking (Day) 32,534 36,222 37,232 2.8% 14.4% Camping (< 1/4 Mile of Vehicle/Home)32,667 28,660 27,742 -3.2% -15.1% Wildlife Viewing (>1/4 Mile of Home/Vehicle) 21,158 21,110 20,718 -1.9% -2.1% Camping (Recrea onal Vehicle)16,651 14,633 14,699 0.5% -11.7% Birdwatching (>1/4 mile of Vehicle/Home) 13,317 13,179 13,093 -0.7% -1.7% Fishing (Saltwater)12,056 11,817 11,975 1.3% -0.7% Backpacking Overnight 7,998 10,101 10,100 0.0% 26.3% Archery 6,323 8,435 8,378 -0.7% 32.5% Bicycling (Mountain)7,152 8,044 8,316 3.4% 16.3% Skateboarding 7,080 6,582 6,436 -2.2% -9.1% Fishing (Fly)5,523 5,842 6,089 4.2% 10.2% Roller Ska ng, In-Line 8,128 6,061 6,024 -0.6% -25.9% Climbing (Sport/Indoor/Boulder)4,542 4,536 4,684 3.3% 3.1% Adventure Racing 1,214 2,368 2,864 20.9%135.9% Bicycling (BMX) 2,090 2,350 2,690 14.5% 28.7% Climbing (Tradi onal/Ice/Mountaineering)2,017 2,457 2,571 4.6% 27.5% Na onal Par cipatory Trends - Outdoor / Adventure Recrea on Ac vity Par cipa on Levels % Change NOTE: Par cipa on figures are in 000's for the U.S. popula on ages 6 and over Large Increase (greater than 25%) Moderate Increase (0% to 25%) Moderate Decrease (0% to -25%) Large Decrease (less than -25%) 2010 2014 2015 14-15 10-15 Canoeing 10,306 10,044 10,236 1.9% -0.7% Kayaking (Recrea onal)6,339 8,855 9,499 7.3% 49.9% Snorkeling 9,332 8,752 8,874 1.4% -4.9% Jet Skiing 7,739 6,355 6,263 -1.4% -19.1% Sailing 4,106 3,924 4,099 4.5% -0.2% Water Skiing 4,849 4,007 3,948 -1.5% -18.6% Ra ing 4,389 3,781 3,883 2.7% -11.5% Scuba Diving 2,938 3,145 3,274 4.1% 11.4% Wakeboarding 3,611 3,125 3,226 3.2% -10.7% Kayaking (Sea/Touring)1,958 2,912 3,079 5.7% 57.3% Stand-Up Paddling 1,050 2,751 3,020 9.8%187.6% Surfing 2,585 2,721 2,701 -0.7% 4.5% Kayaking (White Water)1,606 2,351 2,518 7.1% 56.8% Boardsailing/Windsurfing 1,373 1,562 1,766 13.1% 28.6% Na onal Par cipatory Trends - Water Sports / Ac vi es Ac vity Par cipa on Levels % Change NOTE: Par cipa on figures are in 000's for the U.S. popula on ages 6 and over Large Increase (greater than 25%) Moderate Increase (0% to 25%) Moderate Decrease (0% to -25%) Large Decrease (less than -25%) 2010 2014 2015 14-15 10-15 Golf 26,122 24,700 24,120 -2.3% -7.7% Basketball 25,156 23,067 23,410 1.5% -6.9% Tennis 18,719 17,904 17,963 0.3% -4.0% Baseball 14,198 13,152 13,711 4.3% -3.4% Soccer (Outdoor)13,883 12,592 12,646 0.4% -8.9% Badminton 7,645 7,176 7,198 0.3% -5.8% So ball (Slow Pitch)8,477 7,077 7,114 0.5% -16.1% Football, Touch 8,663 6,586 6,487 -1.5% -25.1% Volleyball (Court)7,315 6,304 6,423 1.9% -12.2% Football, Tackle 6,850 5,978 6,222 4.1% -9.2% Football, Flag 6,660 5,508 5,829 5.8% -12.5% Soccer (Indoor)4,920 4,530 4,813 6.2% -2.2% Volleyball (Sand/Beach) 4,752 4,651 4,785 2.9% 0.7% Gymnas cs 4,418 4,621 4,679 1.3% 5.9% Ul mate Frisbee 4,571 4,530 4,409 -2.7% -3.5% Track and Field 4,383 4,105 4,222 2.9% -3.7% Racquetball 4,603 3,594 3,883 8.0% -15.6% Cheerleading 3,134 3,456 3,608 4.4% 15.1% Ice Hockey 2,140 2,421 2,546 5.2% 19.0% Pickleball N/A 2,462 2,506 1.8% N/A So ball (Fast Pitch)2,513 2,424 2,460 1.5% -2.1% Lacrosse 1,423 2,011 2,094 4.1% 47.2% Wrestling 2,536 1,891 1,978 4.6% -22.0% Roller Hockey 1,374 1,736 1,907 9.9% 38.8% Squash 1,031 1,596 1,710 7.1% 65.9% Field Hockey 1,182 1,557 1,565 0.5% 32.4% Boxing for Compe on 855 1,278 1,355 6.0% 58.5% Rugby 940 1,276 1,349 5.7% 43.5% Na onal Par cipatory Trends - General Sports Ac vity Par cipa on Levels % Change NOTE: Par cipa on figures are in 000's for the U.S. popula on ages 6 and over Large Increase (greater than 25%) Moderate Increase (0% to 25%) Moderate Decrease (0% to -25%) Large Decrease (less than -25%) 2010 2014 2015 14-15 10-15 Golf 26,122 24,700 24,120 -2.3% -7.7% Basketball 25,156 23,067 23,410 1.5% -6.9% Tennis 18,719 17,904 17,963 0.3% -4.0% Baseball 14,198 13,152 13,711 4.3% -3.4% Soccer (Outdoor)13,883 12,592 12,646 0.4% -8.9% Badminton 7,645 7,176 7,198 0.3% -5.8% So ball (Slow Pitch)8,477 7,077 7,114 0.5% -16.1% Football, Touch 8,663 6,586 6,487 -1.5% -25.1% Volleyball (Court)7,315 6,304 6,423 1.9% -12.2% Football, Tackle 6,850 5,978 6,222 4.1% -9.2% Football, Flag 6,660 5,508 5,829 5.8% -12.5% Soccer (Indoor)4,920 4,530 4,813 6.2% -2.2% Volleyball (Sand/Beach) 4,752 4,651 4,785 2.9% 0.7% Gymnas cs 4,418 4,621 4,679 1.3% 5.9% Ul mate Frisbee 4,571 4,530 4,409 -2.7% -3.5% Track and Field 4,383 4,105 4,222 2.9% -3.7% Racquetball 4,603 3,594 3,883 8.0% -15.6% Cheerleading 3,134 3,456 3,608 4.4% 15.1% Ice Hockey 2,140 2,421 2,546 5.2% 19.0% Pickleball N/A 2,462 2,506 1.8% N/A So ball (Fast Pitch)2,513 2,424 2,460 1.5% -2.1% Lacrosse 1,423 2,011 2,094 4.1% 47.2% Wrestling 2,536 1,891 1,978 4.6% -22.0% Roller Hockey 1,374 1,736 1,907 9.9% 38.8% Squash 1,031 1,596 1,710 7.1% 65.9% Field Hockey 1,182 1,557 1,565 0.5% 32.4% Boxing for Compe on 855 1,278 1,355 6.0% 58.5% Rugby 940 1,276 1,349 5.7% 43.5% Na onal Par cipatory Trends - General Sports Ac vity Par cipa on Levels % Change NOTE: Par cipa on figures are in 000's for the U.S. popula on ages 6 and over Large Increase (greater than 25%) Moderate Increase (0% to 25%) Moderate Decrease (0% to -25%) Large Decrease (less than -25%) Team Sports Water Sports/ Activities FIGURE 3.1 NATIONAL PARTICIPATORY TRENDS The Sports & Fitness Industry Association’s 2016 Study of Sports, Fitness and Leisure Activities Topline Participation Report 77 CHAPTER 3 34 2010 2014 2015 14-15 10-15 Fitness Walking 112,082 112,583 109,829 -2.4% -2.0% Treadmill 52,275 50,241 50,398 0.3% -3.6% Running/Jogging 46,650 51,127 48,496 -5.1% 4.0% Free Weights (Hand Weights) under 15 lbs N/A 41,670 42,799 2.7% N/A Stretching 35,720 35,624 35,776 0.4% 0.2% Sta onary Cycling (Recumbent/Upright) 36,036 35,693 35,553 -0.4% -1.3% Weight/Resistant Machines 39,185 35,841 35,310 -1.5% -9.9% Free Weights (Dumbells) over 15 lbs N/A 30,767 31,409 2.1% N/A Ellip cal Mo on Trainer 27,319 28,025 27,981 -0.2% 2.4% Free Weights (Barbells)27,194 25,623 25,381 -0.9% -6.7% Yoga 20,998 25,262 25,289 0.1% 20.4% Calisthenics/Bodyweight Exercise N/A 22,390 22,146 -1.1% N/A Choreographed Exercise N/A 21,455 21,487 0.1% N/A Aerobics (High Impact)14,567 19,746 20,464 3.6% 40.5% Stair Climbing Machine 13,269 13,216 13,234 0.1% -0.3% Cross-Training Style Workout N/A 11,265 11,710 4.0% N/A Sta onary Cycling (Group)7,854 8,449 8,677 2.7% 10.5% Pilates Training 8,404 8,504 8,594 1.1% 2.3% Trail Running 4,985 7,531 8,139 8.1% 63.3% Cardio Cross Trainer N/A 7,484 7,982 6.7% N/A Boot Camp Style Cross-Training N/A 6,774 6,722 -0.8% N/A Cardio Kickboxing 6,287 6,747 6,708 -0.6% 6.7% Mar al Arts 6,002 5,364 5,507 2.7% -8.2% Boxing for Fitness 4,788 5,113 5,419 6.0% 13.2% Tai Chi 3,193 3,446 3,651 5.9% 14.3% Barre N/A 3,200 3,583 12.0% N/A Triathlon (Tradi onal/Road)1,593 2,203 2,498 13.4% 56.8% Triathlon (Non-Tradi onal/O Road)798 1,411 1,744 23.6%118.5% Na onal Par cipatory Trends - General Fitness Ac vity Par cipa on Levels % Change NOTE: Par cipa on figures are in 000's for the U.S. popula on ages 6 and over Legend:Large Increase (greater than 25%) Moderate Increase (0% to 25%) Moderate Decrease (0% to -25%) Large Decrease (less than -25%) 2010 2014 2015 14-15 10-15 Swimming (Fitness) N/A 25,304 26,319 4.0% N/A Aqua c Exercise 8,947 9,122 9,226 1.1% 3.1% Swimming (Compe on) N/A 2,710 2,892 6.7% N/A Na onal Par cipatory Trends - Aqua cs Ac vity Par cipa on Levels % Change NOTE: Par cipa on figures are in 000's for the U.S. popula on ages 6 and over Large Increase (greater than 25%) Moderate Increase (0% to 25%) Moderate Decrease (0% to -25%) Large Decrease (less than -25%) 2010 2014 2015 14-15 10-15 Fitness Walking 112,082 112,583 109,829 -2.4% -2.0% Treadmill 52,275 50,241 50,398 0.3% -3.6% Running/Jogging 46,650 51,127 48,496 -5.1% 4.0% Free Weights (Hand Weights) under 15 lbs N/A 41,670 42,799 2.7% N/A Stretching 35,720 35,624 35,776 0.4% 0.2% Sta onary Cycling (Recumbent/Upright)36,036 35,693 35,553 -0.4% -1.3% Weight/Resistant Machines 39,185 35,841 35,310 -1.5% -9.9% Free Weights (Dumbells) over 15 lbs N/A 30,767 31,409 2.1% N/A Ellip cal Mo on Trainer 27,319 28,025 27,981 -0.2% 2.4% Free Weights (Barbells)27,194 25,623 25,381 -0.9% -6.7% Yoga 20,998 25,262 25,289 0.1% 20.4% Calisthenics/Bodyweight Exercise N/A 22,390 22,146 -1.1% N/A Choreographed Exercise N/A 21,455 21,487 0.1% N/A Aerobics (High Impact)14,567 19,746 20,464 3.6% 40.5% Stair Climbing Machine 13,269 13,216 13,234 0.1% -0.3% Cross-Training Style Workout N/A 11,265 11,710 4.0% N/A Sta onary Cycling (Group)7,854 8,449 8,677 2.7% 10.5% Pilates Training 8,404 8,504 8,594 1.1% 2.3% Trail Running 4,985 7,531 8,139 8.1% 63.3% Cardio Cross Trainer N/A 7,484 7,982 6.7% N/A Boot Camp Style Cross-Training N/A 6,774 6,722 -0.8% N/A Cardio Kickboxing 6,287 6,747 6,708 -0.6% 6.7% Mar al Arts 6,002 5,364 5,507 2.7% -8.2% Boxing for Fitness 4,788 5,113 5,419 6.0% 13.2% Tai Chi 3,193 3,446 3,651 5.9% 14.3% Barre N/A 3,200 3,583 12.0% N/A Triathlon (Tradi onal/Road)1,593 2,203 2,498 13.4% 56.8% Triathlon (Non-Tradi onal/O Road)798 1,411 1,744 23.6%118.5% Na onal Par cipatory Trends - General Fitness Ac vity Par cipa on Levels % Change NOTE: Par cipa on figures are in 000's for the U.S. popula on ages 6 and over Legend:Large Increase (greater than 25%) Moderate Increase (0% to 25%) Moderate Decrease (0% to -25%) Large Decrease (less than -25%) 2010 2014 2015 14-15 10-15 Swimming (Fitness) N/A 25,304 26,319 4.0% N/A Aqua c Exercise 8,947 9,122 9,226 1.1% 3.1% Swimming (Compe on) N/A 2,710 2,892 6.7% N/A Na onal Par cipatory Trends - Aqua cs Ac vity Par cipa on Levels % Change NOTE: Par cipa on figures are in 000's for the U.S. popula on ages 6 and over Large Increase (greater than 25%) Moderate Increase (0% to 25%) Moderate Decrease (0% to -25%) Large Decrease (less than -25%) 2010 2014 2015 14-15 10-15 Fitness Walking 112,082 112,583 109,829 -2.4% -2.0% Treadmill 52,275 50,241 50,398 0.3% -3.6% Running/Jogging 46,650 51,127 48,496 -5.1% 4.0% Free Weights (Hand Weights) under 15 lbs N/A 41,670 42,799 2.7% N/A Stretching 35,720 35,624 35,776 0.4% 0.2% Sta onary Cycling (Recumbent/Upright)36,036 35,693 35,553 -0.4% -1.3% Weight/Resistant Machines 39,185 35,841 35,310 -1.5% -9.9% Free Weights (Dumbells) over 15 lbs N/A 30,767 31,409 2.1% N/A Ellip cal Mo on Trainer 27,319 28,025 27,981 -0.2% 2.4% Free Weights (Barbells)27,194 25,623 25,381 -0.9% -6.7% Yoga 20,998 25,262 25,289 0.1% 20.4% Calisthenics/Bodyweight Exercise N/A 22,390 22,146 -1.1% N/A Choreographed Exercise N/A 21,455 21,487 0.1% N/A Aerobics (High Impact)14,567 19,746 20,464 3.6% 40.5% Stair Climbing Machine 13,269 13,216 13,234 0.1% -0.3% Cross-Training Style Workout N/A 11,265 11,710 4.0% N/A Sta onary Cycling (Group)7,854 8,449 8,677 2.7% 10.5% Pilates Training 8,404 8,504 8,594 1.1% 2.3% Trail Running 4,985 7,531 8,139 8.1% 63.3% Cardio Cross Trainer N/A 7,484 7,982 6.7% N/A Boot Camp Style Cross-Training N/A 6,774 6,722 -0.8% N/A Cardio Kickboxing 6,287 6,747 6,708 -0.6% 6.7% Mar al Arts 6,002 5,364 5,507 2.7% -8.2% Boxing for Fitness 4,788 5,113 5,419 6.0% 13.2% Tai Chi 3,193 3,446 3,651 5.9% 14.3% Barre N/A 3,200 3,583 12.0% N/A Triathlon (Tradi onal/Road)1,593 2,203 2,498 13.4% 56.8% Triathlon (Non-Tradi onal/O Road)798 1,411 1,744 23.6%118.5% Na onal Par cipatory Trends - General Fitness Ac vity Par cipa on Levels % Change NOTE: Par cipa on figures are in 000's for the U.S. popula on ages 6 and over Legend:Large Increase (greater than 25%) Moderate Increase (0% to 25%) Moderate Decrease (0% to -25%) Large Decrease (less than -25%) 2010 2014 2015 14-15 10-15 Swimming (Fitness) N/A 25,304 26,319 4.0% N/A Aqua c Exercise 8,947 9,122 9,226 1.1% 3.1% Swimming (Compe on) N/A 2,710 2,892 6.7% N/A Na onal Par cipatory Trends - Aqua cs Ac vity Par cipa on Levels % Change NOTE: Par cipa on figures are in 000's for the U.S. popula on ages 6 and over Large Increase (greater than 25%) Moderate Increase (0% to 25%) Moderate Decrease (0% to -25%) Large Decrease (less than -25%) 2010 2014 2015 14-15 10-15 Fitness Walking 112,082 112,583 109,829 -2.4% -2.0% Treadmill 52,275 50,241 50,398 0.3% -3.6% Running/Jogging 46,650 51,127 48,496 -5.1% 4.0% Free Weights (Hand Weights) under 15 lbs N/A 41,670 42,799 2.7% N/A Stretching 35,720 35,624 35,776 0.4% 0.2% Sta onary Cycling (Recumbent/Upright) 36,036 35,693 35,553 -0.4% -1.3% Weight/Resistant Machines 39,185 35,841 35,310 -1.5% -9.9% Free Weights (Dumbells) over 15 lbs N/A 30,767 31,409 2.1% N/A Ellip cal Mo on Trainer 27,319 28,025 27,981 -0.2% 2.4% Free Weights (Barbells)27,194 25,623 25,381 -0.9% -6.7% Yoga 20,998 25,262 25,289 0.1% 20.4% Calisthenics/Bodyweight Exercise N/A 22,390 22,146 -1.1% N/A Choreographed Exercise N/A 21,455 21,487 0.1% N/A Aerobics (High Impact)14,567 19,746 20,464 3.6% 40.5% Stair Climbing Machine 13,269 13,216 13,234 0.1% -0.3% Cross-Training Style Workout N/A 11,265 11,710 4.0% N/A Sta onary Cycling (Group)7,854 8,449 8,677 2.7% 10.5% Pilates Training 8,404 8,504 8,594 1.1% 2.3% Trail Running 4,985 7,531 8,139 8.1% 63.3% Cardio Cross Trainer N/A 7,484 7,982 6.7% N/A Boot Camp Style Cross-Training N/A 6,774 6,722 -0.8% N/A Cardio Kickboxing 6,287 6,747 6,708 -0.6% 6.7% Mar al Arts 6,002 5,364 5,507 2.7% -8.2% Boxing for Fitness 4,788 5,113 5,419 6.0% 13.2% Tai Chi 3,193 3,446 3,651 5.9% 14.3% Barre N/A 3,200 3,583 12.0% N/A Triathlon (Tradi onal/Road)1,593 2,203 2,498 13.4% 56.8% Triathlon (Non-Tradi onal/O Road)798 1,411 1,744 23.6%118.5% Na onal Par cipatory Trends - General Fitness Ac vity Par cipa on Levels % Change NOTE: Par cipa on figures are in 000's for the U.S. popula on ages 6 and over Legend:Large Increase (greater than 25%) Moderate Increase (0% to 25%) Moderate Decrease (0% to -25%) Large Decrease (less than -25%) 2010 2014 2015 14-15 10-15 Swimming (Fitness) N/A 25,304 26,319 4.0% N/A Aqua c Exercise 8,947 9,122 9,226 1.1% 3.1% Swimming (Compe on) N/A 2,710 2,892 6.7% N/A Na onal Par cipatory Trends - Aqua cs Ac vity Par cipa on Levels % Change NOTE: Par cipa on figures are in 000's for the U.S. popula on ages 6 and over Large Increase (greater than 25%) Moderate Increase (0% to 25%) Moderate Decrease (0% to -25%) Large Decrease (less than -25%) 2010 2014 2015 14-15 10-15 Fitness Walking 112,082 112,583 109,829 -2.4% -2.0% Treadmill 52,275 50,241 50,398 0.3% -3.6% Running/Jogging 46,650 51,127 48,496 -5.1% 4.0% Free Weights (Hand Weights) under 15 lbs N/A 41,670 42,799 2.7% N/A Stretching 35,720 35,624 35,776 0.4% 0.2% Sta onary Cycling (Recumbent/Upright) 36,036 35,693 35,553 -0.4% -1.3% Weight/Resistant Machines 39,185 35,841 35,310 -1.5% -9.9% Free Weights (Dumbells) over 15 lbs N/A 30,767 31,409 2.1% N/A Ellip cal Mo on Trainer 27,319 28,025 27,981 -0.2% 2.4% Free Weights (Barbells)27,194 25,623 25,381 -0.9% -6.7% Yoga 20,998 25,262 25,289 0.1% 20.4% Calisthenics/Bodyweight Exercise N/A 22,390 22,146 -1.1% N/A Choreographed Exercise N/A 21,455 21,487 0.1% N/A Aerobics (High Impact)14,567 19,746 20,464 3.6% 40.5% Stair Climbing Machine 13,269 13,216 13,234 0.1% -0.3% Cross-Training Style Workout N/A 11,265 11,710 4.0% N/A Sta onary Cycling (Group)7,854 8,449 8,677 2.7% 10.5% Pilates Training 8,404 8,504 8,594 1.1% 2.3% Trail Running 4,985 7,531 8,139 8.1% 63.3% Cardio Cross Trainer N/A 7,484 7,982 6.7% N/A Boot Camp Style Cross-Training N/A 6,774 6,722 -0.8% N/A Cardio Kickboxing 6,287 6,747 6,708 -0.6% 6.7% Mar al Arts 6,002 5,364 5,507 2.7% -8.2% Boxing for Fitness 4,788 5,113 5,419 6.0% 13.2% Tai Chi 3,193 3,446 3,651 5.9% 14.3% Barre N/A 3,200 3,583 12.0% N/A Triathlon (Tradi onal/Road)1,593 2,203 2,498 13.4% 56.8% Triathlon (Non-Tradi onal/O Road)798 1,411 1,744 23.6%118.5% Na onal Par cipatory Trends - General Fitness Ac vity Par cipa on Levels % Change NOTE: Par cipa on figures are in 000's for the U.S. popula on ages 6 and over Legend:Large Increase (greater than 25%) Moderate Increase (0% to 25%) Moderate Decrease (0% to -25%) Large Decrease (less than -25%) 2010 2014 2015 14-15 10-15 Swimming (Fitness) N/A 25,304 26,319 4.0% N/A Aqua c Exercise 8,947 9,122 9,226 1.1% 3.1% Swimming (Compe on) N/A 2,710 2,892 6.7% N/A Na onal Par cipatory Trends - Aqua cs Ac vity Par cipa on Levels % Change NOTE: Par cipa on figures are in 000's for the U.S. popula on ages 6 and over Large Increase (greater than 25%) Moderate Increase (0% to 25%) Moderate Decrease (0% to -25%) Large Decrease (less than -25%) 2010 2014 2015 14-15 10-15 Bicycling (Road)39,730 39,725 38,280 -3.6% -3.6% Fishing (Freshwater)39,911 37,821 37,682 -0.4% -5.6% Hiking (Day) 32,534 36,222 37,232 2.8% 14.4% Camping (< 1/4 Mile of Vehicle/Home)32,667 28,660 27,742 -3.2% -15.1% Wildlife Viewing (>1/4 Mile of Home/Vehicle)21,158 21,110 20,718 -1.9% -2.1% Camping (Recrea onal Vehicle)16,651 14,633 14,699 0.5% -11.7% Birdwatching (>1/4 mile of Vehicle/Home)13,317 13,179 13,093 -0.7% -1.7% Fishing (Saltwater)12,056 11,817 11,975 1.3% -0.7% Backpacking Overnight 7,998 10,101 10,100 0.0% 26.3% Archery 6,323 8,435 8,378 -0.7% 32.5% Bicycling (Mountain)7,152 8,044 8,316 3.4% 16.3% Skateboarding 7,080 6,582 6,436 -2.2% -9.1% Fishing (Fly)5,523 5,842 6,089 4.2% 10.2% Roller Ska ng, In-Line 8,128 6,061 6,024 -0.6% -25.9% Climbing (Sport/Indoor/Boulder)4,542 4,536 4,684 3.3% 3.1% Adventure Racing 1,214 2,368 2,864 20.9%135.9% Bicycling (BMX) 2,090 2,350 2,690 14.5% 28.7% Climbing (Tradi onal/Ice/Mountaineering)2,017 2,457 2,571 4.6% 27.5% Na onal Par cipatory Trends - Outdoor / Adventure Recrea on Ac vity Par cipa on Levels % Change NOTE: Par cipa on figures are in 000's for the U.S. popula on ages 6 and over Large Increase (greater than 25%) Moderate Increase (0% to 25%) Moderate Decrease (0% to -25%) Large Decrease (less than -25%) 2010 2014 2015 14-15 10-15 Canoeing 10,306 10,044 10,236 1.9% -0.7% Kayaking (Recrea onal)6,339 8,855 9,499 7.3% 49.9% Snorkeling 9,332 8,752 8,874 1.4% -4.9% Jet Skiing 7,739 6,355 6,263 -1.4% -19.1% Sailing 4,106 3,924 4,099 4.5% -0.2% Water Skiing 4,849 4,007 3,948 -1.5% -18.6% Ra ing 4,389 3,781 3,883 2.7% -11.5% Scuba Diving 2,938 3,145 3,274 4.1% 11.4% Wakeboarding 3,611 3,125 3,226 3.2% -10.7% Kayaking (Sea/Touring)1,958 2,912 3,079 5.7% 57.3% Stand-Up Paddling 1,050 2,751 3,020 9.8%187.6% Surfing 2,585 2,721 2,701 -0.7% 4.5% Kayaking (White Water)1,606 2,351 2,518 7.1% 56.8% Boardsailing/Windsurfing 1,373 1,562 1,766 13.1% 28.6% Na onal Par cipatory Trends - Water Sports / Ac vi es Ac vity Par cipa on Levels % Change NOTE: Par cipa on figures are in 000's for the U.S. popula on ages 6 and over Large Increase (greater than 25%) Moderate Increase (0% to 25%) Moderate Decrease (0% to -25%) Large Decrease (less than -25%) 2010 2014 2015 14-15 10-15 Bicycling (Road)39,730 39,725 38,280 -3.6% -3.6% Fishing (Freshwater)39,911 37,821 37,682 -0.4% -5.6% Hiking (Day) 32,534 36,222 37,232 2.8% 14.4% Camping (< 1/4 Mile of Vehicle/Home)32,667 28,660 27,742 -3.2% -15.1% Wildlife Viewing (>1/4 Mile of Home/Vehicle)21,158 21,110 20,718 -1.9% -2.1% Camping (Recrea onal Vehicle)16,651 14,633 14,699 0.5% -11.7% Birdwatching (>1/4 mile of Vehicle/Home)13,317 13,179 13,093 -0.7% -1.7% Fishing (Saltwater)12,056 11,817 11,975 1.3% -0.7% Backpacking Overnight 7,998 10,101 10,100 0.0% 26.3% Archery 6,323 8,435 8,378 -0.7% 32.5% Bicycling (Mountain)7,152 8,044 8,316 3.4% 16.3% Skateboarding 7,080 6,582 6,436 -2.2% -9.1% Fishing (Fly)5,523 5,842 6,089 4.2% 10.2% Roller Ska ng, In-Line 8,128 6,061 6,024 -0.6% -25.9% Climbing (Sport/Indoor/Boulder)4,542 4,536 4,684 3.3% 3.1% Adventure Racing 1,214 2,368 2,864 20.9%135.9% Bicycling (BMX) 2,090 2,350 2,690 14.5% 28.7% Climbing (Tradi onal/Ice/Mountaineering)2,017 2,457 2,571 4.6% 27.5% Na onal Par cipatory Trends - Outdoor / Adventure Recrea on Ac vity Par cipa on Levels % Change NOTE: Par cipa on figures are in 000's for the U.S. popula on ages 6 and over Large Increase (greater than 25%) Moderate Increase (0% to 25%) Moderate Decrease (0% to -25%) Large Decrease (less than -25%) 2010 2014 2015 14-15 10-15 Canoeing 10,306 10,044 10,236 1.9% -0.7% Kayaking (Recrea onal)6,339 8,855 9,499 7.3% 49.9% Snorkeling 9,332 8,752 8,874 1.4% -4.9% Jet Skiing 7,739 6,355 6,263 -1.4% -19.1% Sailing 4,106 3,924 4,099 4.5% -0.2% Water Skiing 4,849 4,007 3,948 -1.5% -18.6% Ra ing 4,389 3,781 3,883 2.7% -11.5% Scuba Diving 2,938 3,145 3,274 4.1% 11.4% Wakeboarding 3,611 3,125 3,226 3.2% -10.7% Kayaking (Sea/Touring)1,958 2,912 3,079 5.7% 57.3% Stand-Up Paddling 1,050 2,751 3,020 9.8%187.6% Surfing 2,585 2,721 2,701 -0.7% 4.5% Kayaking (White Water)1,606 2,351 2,518 7.1% 56.8% Boardsailing/Windsurfing 1,373 1,562 1,766 13.1% 28.6% Na onal Par cipatory Trends - Water Sports / Ac vi es Ac vity Par cipa on Levels % Change NOTE: Par cipa on figures are in 000's for the U.S. popula on ages 6 and over Large Increase (greater than 25%) Moderate Increase (0% to 25%) Moderate Decrease (0% to -25%) Large Decrease (less than -25%) General Fitness Outdoor/ Adventure Recreation Aquatics 78 CITY OF LITTLE CANADA - PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN35 Environment/Sustainability Increasing awareness and concern about climate change and water and air pollution has led to a desire for the integration of sustainable practices. This translates into strategies such as converting ornamental turf areas to native grasses, prairie or community gardens, adding rain gardens, increasing urban tree canopy, and including physical and digital green infrastructure / rain water management interpretive displays. Longer growing seasons and shortened winters are leading some organizations to explore refrigerated outdoor ice and snow- making. “Small and Simple” “Small and Simple” is a trending idea being explored by organizations in response to quickly changing demands for new and novel programming and aging residents, and includes activities that require smaller spaces and less skill, cost, equipment, and time. A community can more easily accommodate things like shortened seasons (from 12-16 weeks to 4-8 weeks), smaller groups, and low-implementation cost activities like mini-soccer, ultimate Frisbee, pickleball, kickball, and body-weight exercises (push-ups, planks, lunges, etc). Demographics Threaded throughout these trends are underlying changes in demographics. The population of the US and Little Canada is increasingly diverse and aging. Plans need to take an approach to providing facilities and services that consider the needs of an increasingly multi-cultural and aging citizenry. 79 “OUR MISSION IS TO PROMOTE COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT, WELLNESS AND PRIDE BY PROVIDING EXCEPTIONAL PUBLIC RECREATION SERVICES AND FACILITIES.” LITTLE CANADA PARKS & RECREATION MISSION STATEMENT: Chapter 4: The Plan Vision for Little Canada Parks & Recreation...........................37 Parks..........................................................................................38 Facilities.....................................................................................42 Trails...........................................................................................44 Programming.............................................................................47 Operations and Maintenance.................................................48 Activity Delivery Guidelines.....................................................51 Recommendations for Specific Parks......................................53 This chapter sets forth the recommended course of action for the system over the next 20 years. It is built upon the findings from the needs assessment phase of the planning process and the City’s mission and vision for the system. 80 The following pages contain four components of the plan; mission and vision statements, goals, policies, and recommendations. The vision statements were revisited and updated as part of the system master plan update in 2017, and will serve as a guide for the next 20 years. They underpin the goals for the system and establish and communicate a clear purpose for the City and its residents. Goals are broad statements that describe a desired outcome and are often long-term. Policies describe the general way in which programs and activities are conducted to achieve a goal, and reflect underlying values or principles. Policies can be place-specific. VISION LITTLE CANADA’S PARK SYSTEM... 1. Helps to form the character of the community- it is a park system that is essential to the quality of life of its residents. 2. Provides a comprehensive system of trails, bikeways and walkways that connect the community within, as well as, to the adjacent region. 3. Serves the diverse needs of all residents of the community for both active and passive recreation. 4. Preserves and strengthens the historic, cultural, and natural resources of the community. 5. Is sustainable –it is a park system that supports an ecologically, socially and economically healthy community. 6. Supports the principles of active living and recognizes that parks, recreation, and trails are key components of an active and healthy lifestyle. Recommendations include actions or practices that support policy statements and may identify the “who, what, when, where, and how” of achieving a goal or policy. Within this document goals, policies, and recommendations are organized like this: 1. Goal 1.1Policy 1.1.1Recommendation Goals, policies, and recommendations have been organized into 5 categories; Parks, Facilities, Trails, Programming, and Operations and Maintenance. CITY OF LITTLE CANADA - PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN37 81 ACTIVITY DELIVERY GUIDELINES Activity Delivery Guidelines help establish equitable access and distribution of parks and facilities across the City. The map below shows Little Canada organized into halves and quadrants as a way to discuss distribution of parks and facilities throughout the recommendations section of this plan. See page 50 for a larger version of this map and a table that establishes the delivery guidelines for Little Canada. Gervais Lake Beach is a Ramsey County Park in Little Canada Photo by James Netz Parks 1. Provide a system of high-quality parks that meets the community’s evolving needs and is an integral part of people’s active and healthy lives 1.1Ensure access to a balanced variety of parks and ammenities within Little Canada 1.1.1Update park classifications to more easily understand and evaluate the system as a whole, including: »Gervais Lake Beach from Beach to County Park »Gervais Mill Park from Community Park to Natural Area »Firebarns Skate Park/Old Fire Hall from Neighborhood Park to Special Use Park »Veteran’s Memorial Park from Neighborhood Park to Special Use Park »Little Canada Elementary School from Community Park to School Park »Westwinds & Thunder Bay Park from Neighborhood Park to Linear Park 1.1.2Ensure each quadrant of the City has a picnic shelter »Search for an opportunity to add a picnic shelter in the NW quadrant if population becomes more dense or as demand warrants 1.1.3Ensure each quadrant of the City has an open play field and playground for informal play »Search for opportunities to add an open play field in the NW and SE quadrants if demand arises 1.1.4Strengthen Pioneer Park as Little Canada’s Community Recreation Park »Add a historical theme to Pioneer Park that tells the story of Little Canada »Undertake a design development process to make phased improvements at Pioneer Park 1.1.5Strengthen Spooner Park as Little Canada’s Community Gathering Park 1.1.6Collaborate with Little Canada Elementary School to reconfigure existing ballfields for more functionality WESTERN HALF EASTERN HALF NW QUADRANT SW QUADRANT NE QUADRANT SE QUADRANT CHAPTER 4 38 82 1.2Ensure access to public green space within a 10 minute walk (1/2 mile) from residents’ homes 1.2.1Connect the neighborhood North of 694 to the Water Works Right-of-Way with the addition of a pedestrian bridge over 694 1.3Continue to work with partner agencies to ensure future access to parks and facilities 1.3.1Continue to recognize that school sites function as neighborhood parks when they include a playground and facilities that are routinely accessible to residents, and continue to nurture the relationships with St. John’s School and the Roseville Area School District to provide residents access to indoor gym space and other facilities 1.3.2Continue to work with Saint Paul Regional Water Services to: »Ensure access to the Water Works Right-of-Way, Firebarns Skate Park and the Firefighters Historical Trail »Facilitate future trail connections over I35E, 694, and Highway 36 that may use its right-of-way 1.3.3Continue to work with Ramsey County to provide local access to existing and future parks and facilities 1.3.4Continue to work with Xcel Energy to maximize the use of its right-of-ways where appropriate, including Thunderbay & Westwinds Park 2. Provide parks that are welcoming and supportive of people of diverse age, race, ethnicity, ability, gender, and economic status 2.1Engage the community around park design and maintenance 2.1.1Create and implement a process for gathering public and/ or neighborhood input on park design when updating or developing parks 2.1.2Encourage groups to take an active role in managing park maintenance and enhancements, supporting the creation of friends groups or adopt-a-park programs for specific parks Mini parks or pocket parks can provide access to green space or specific facilities where land availability is limited The facilities at Little Canada Elementary, including the Gaga ball court, are available for public use outside of school hours CITY OF LITTLE CANADA - PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN39 83 2.2Improve comfort, safety, and accessibility within parks 2.2.1Provide picnic tables, seating, shade, bike racks, and trash receptacles at each park 2.2.2Provide portable restrooms (and screening of restrooms) as park use and demand warrants in parks that do not have permanent restrooms 2.2.3Continue to provide parks that are universally accessible, including buildings, walkways, play features, picnic facilities, and curb ramps 3. Use parks to facilitate and enhance social interaction 3.1Acquire vacant or tax-forfeit parcels of land to provide key social space in the community 3.1.1 Search for parcels in the central commercial area of Little Canada to develop a ‘town square’ 3.2Provide places or features for gathering within parks 3.2.1Add more tables, seating, and picnic facilities within the system 3.2.2Continue to support neighborhood gatherings in parks, such as Night to Unite 4. Reinforce community character, history, and sense of place with parks 4.1Beautify the City with attractive, meaningful, and durable park elements 4.1.1Work with local artists to integrate public art in the parks 4.1.2Explore the possibility of creating or supporting a public art task force group or other public art initiatives 4.1.3Integrate gardens (formal and/or natural) in each park 4.2Ensure no net loss of parkland within Little Canada 4.3Create a variety of user experiences within the park system 4.3.1Collaborate with residents and organizations to incorporate meaningful features such as pollinator gardens, rain gardens, or public art to help express community character and strengthen the park identity 4.3.2Continue to design parks that have unique features or improvements that give each park a distinct identity Distinctive seating options can provide gathering opportunities and help define the character of a place Public art can take many forms, ranging from abstract and sculptural to highly functional CHAPTER 4 40 84 5. Protect, preserve, and enhance natural areas within the City’s park system to provide residents with opportunities to connect with nature 5.1Provide at least one contiguous acre of woods, prairie, or wetland within each half of the City 5.1.1Create additional natural areas if opportunities arise or demand warrants 5.2Strengthen Gervais Mill Park as the community’s primary natural area park 5.2.1Limit development in Gervais Mill to improvements that support passive recreation or improve water quality and habitat while meeting wetland restrictions 5.2.2Provide access for people of all abilities by maintaining a soft-surface ADA accessible trail in Gervais Mill 5.2.3Expand access to Gervais Mill by connecting residents to it via trails, sidewalks, and bikeways, such as a sidewalk on Noel Drive 5.3Develop and implement natural resource management plans that ensure natural areas are ecologically healthy, diverse and sustainable 5.3.1Develop and implement a forest management plan for wooded areas at Spooner Park, Gervais Mill Park, and Nadeau Wildlife Area 5.3.2Create maps that identify and protect high-value ecological areas or areas that have the potential to be of higher ecological value 5.4Collaborate and maintain partnerships that plan for and fund ecological restoration and management of natural areas in Little Canada 6. Maximize the benefits of Linear Parks 6.1Continue to use linear parks to make connections and provide natural areas 6.1.1Strengthen the ecological services provided by linear parks by naturalizing their landscapes and increasing biodiversity, habitat and provide educational/interpretive information about these benefits NATURE DEFICIT DISORDER In his 2009 national best-selling book Last Child in the Woods, Richard Louv coined the phrase nature-deficit disorder to describe the impacts of a growing disconnection between children and the outdoors. Research increasingly shows the benefits of time spent in the natural world include increased creativity and mental capacity and reduced obesity, anxiety, and depression rates in kids. In addition to concrete and bituminous, properly constructed soft-surface trails can meet the ‘firm and stable’ requirement of accessible trail design CITY OF LITTLE CANADA - PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN41 85 6.2Expand user activities and experiences available within linear parks 6.2.1 Incorporate park furnishings, exercise equipment, facilities for fitness/exercise, and nature viewing within linear parks 6.3Look for other opportunities to make connections and provide green space with linear parks 6.3.1Expand the Water Works Right-of-Way to connect over I35E, 694, and potentially Highway 36 as part of the Trout Brook Regional Trail. Facilities 1. Provide a system of high-quality facilities that meet the community’s evolving needs and is an integral part of people’s active and healthy lives 1.1Continute to Provide at least 2-3 recreational activity facilities (court, diamond field, rectangle field) within each half of the City 1.2Develop Pioneer Park as Little Canada’s Community Recreation Park 1.2.1Continue to provide a high-quality game field for soccer »Explore opportunities to increase the usability of the game field with artificial turf 1.2.2Provide flexible practice field space for soccer, lacrosse, football, etc 1.2.3Replace the current playground with an accessible playground that represents Little Canada through a unique theme 1.2.4Maintain the pinwheel of ballfields to continue to attract regional tournaments to Little Canada 1.2.5Conduct a feasibility study of the renovation or replacement of the current pavilion building to better meet current and future needs 1.2.6Add an interactive fountain/water feature/mister 1.3Undertake improvements at Spooner Park to strengthen accessibility and enhance the user experience 1.3.1Upgrade the playground at Spooner Park 1.3.2Improve universal access throughout the park 1.3.3Expand and improve facilities for picnicking and social gathering 1.3.4Update the sand volleyball court Examples of interactive fountains/misters/ water features ADD PHOTO OF MISTI N G B O UL DER S? CHAPTER 4 42 86 1.4Maintain and expand Special Use facilities within Little Canada 1.4.1Explore the addition of a 9-hole disc golf course within the City 1.4.2Identify a location and funding for a permanent, dedicated dog park 1.4.3Develop a sledding hill within the City, potentially at Spooner Park 1.4.4Maintain and enhance (as needed) the Skate Park at Firebarns 1.4.5Identify a location and funding for a community garden within the City 1.4.6Continue to provide at least one winter recreation opportunity in each half of the City 1.5Maintain and develop flexible, high-quality facilities that can be adapted to meet the changing needs of the community well into the future 1.5.1Maintain the Old Fire Hall to continue use as a City facility/ flexible community space 1.5.2Explore the development of a multi-purpose park building that can be used as an educational/programming facility that contributes to strenghtening the community’s visual character 2. Provide facilities that support people of diverse age, race, ethnicity, ability, gender, and economic status 2.1Build or retrofit facilities to meet universal accessibility standards 2.2Expand outreach and engagement to a broad range of user groups to better understand and serve their recreational needs 2.2.1Engage minority, low-income, elderly, and immigrant groups on an annual basis to understand if and how the system could better meet their needs 2.2.2Continue to work with current user groups to understand their evolving needs and inform future decision making 2.3Work with clubs, associations, volunteers, and other groups to better understand and serve their recreational needs 2.3.1Maintain the database of existing organizations that serve Little Canada residents, such as the Little Canada Recreation Association, and reach out annually to these groups to assess needs and opportunities Multi-purpose buildings are designed to host a variety of uses and groups CITY OF LITTLE CANADA - PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN43 87 Trails 1. Provide city-wide access, mobility, and connectivity through active transportation (walking and biking) 1.1Work to fill gaps through easements or land purchases »When the timing is right, acquire an easement in the area north of Allen Avenue to make a connection to Thunder Bay/Westwinds Park via power line right-of-way east of Edgerton Street 1.2Provide a well-maintained, safe, and connected trail system 1.2.1Provide a grade-separated trail crossing over I-35E, connecting the Water Works Right-of-Way and Firefighters Historical Trail to establish a cross-city connection 1.2.2Provide a grade-separated trail crossing over I-694, extending the Water Works trail to Sucker Lake Road 1.2.3Provide a grade-separated trail crossing over Highway 36 as part of the larger Trout Brook Regional Trail 1.2.4Provide a sidewalk or off-road trail on Edgerton Street and Labore Road 1.3Provide safe and convenient walking and biking connections between homes, parks, schools, businesses and other community destinations 1.3.1Pursue Safe Routes to School funding to add sidewalks and/or trails on; »Eli Road west of Little Canada Elementary School »Demont Ave West near Roseville Middle School 1.3.2Fill gaps on Rice Street 1.3.3Continue to monitor Keller Parkway for the need to create a safer route for pedestrian and bicycles »If the need arises, work with Ramsey County to explore combinations of elevated/cantilevered trail segments, striping, and one-way traffic roads 1.3.4Link neighborhoods to the system with sidewalks and trails 1.3.5Support the connection of bikeways, trails, and sidewalks to the public transportation system 1.3.6Improve on-street bicycle and pedestrian facilities where trails and/or sidewalks are difficult to implement »Implement striping for on-street bike lanes where appropriate »Additional signage for on-street bike routes/lanes and right-of-way paths/sidewalks »Continue to sweep on-street facilities for bicycles and pedestrians more frequently to reduce the accumulation of gravel and debris Elements of a city-wide active transportation network CHAPTER 4 44 88 1.4Continue to integrate trails and sidewalks into the planning and design process for private development and public improvement projects 1.4.1Include active transportation facilities where sensible in street reconstruction and public infrastructure projects 1.4.2Review the system for gaps and priority segments as part of the annual capital improvement planning process 1.4.3Collaborate with Public Works and other City departments, meeting on a semi-annual basis at minimum 1.4.4Take steps to begin the planning process for priority projects to position them for grant funding opportunities as they arise 1.5Continue to engage federal, state, county, and adjacent municipalities to expand and enhance active transportation facilities 1.5.1Develop the Water Works Right-of-Way south of Little Canada Road with a paved trail, working with the Saint Paul Regional Water Service 1.5.2Collaborate with Ramsey County and surrounding communities to establish regional trail connections »Connect to the Gateway State Trail via Keller Parkway and Arcade Street »Connect to Trout Brook Regional Trail, making a grade- separated crossing over Highway 36 2. Use trails to make social connections as well as physical connections 2.1Continue to provide walking trails in at least one park within each half of the City 2.2Provide places or features for gathering and seating along trails 3. Make walking and biking easier and safer 3.1Provide bike racks at all parks 3.2Identify and monitor high frequency active transportation destinations and routes and modify maintenance practices, signage, etc., as needed 3.3Increase public awareness of the trail system 3.3.1Make the system more visible with attractive wayfinding and signage 3.3.2Provide digital and physical trail maps to the public A portion of the Water Works Right-of-Way is already paved Wayfinding, signage, and maps help residents and visitors navigate the system CITY OF LITTLE CANADA - PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN45 89 GERVAIS LAKE KELLER LAKE ROUND LAKE ROSEVILLE MAPLEWOOD VADNAIS HEIGHTS SHOREVIEW 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000500Feet LITTLE CANADA PARK/OPEN SPACE PARK OUTSIDE LITTLE CANADA RESIDENTIAL AREAS OFFROAD TRAIL SIDEWALK TRAILSONROAD TRAIL (PAVED SHOULDER) NATURAL SURFACE TRAIL GATEWAY STATE TRAIL PROPOSED SIDEWALK PROPOSED OFFROAD TRAILEDGERTON STDESOTO STCENTERVILLE RDMCMENEMY STI35EJACKSON STRICE STARCADE STCO RD B2E CO RD D CO RD B2E CO RD BE DEMONT AVE S OWASSO BLVD KELLER PKWYLABORE R D LITTLE C A N A D A R D HWY 3 6 HWY 36 E CO RD C CO RD C E 694 VIKI N G D R SIDEWALK ON EDGERTON KELLER PARKWAY CONNECTION TO GATEWAY TRAIL PEDESTRIAN/ BIKE BRIDGE OVER 694 TROUT BROOK TRAIL ALTERNATIVES PEDESTRIAN/BIKE BRIDGE OVER HWY 36 PEDESTRIAN/ BIKE BRIDGE OVER I35E FIGURE 4.1 TRAILS AND SIDEWALKS PRIORITY MAP CHAPTER 4 46 90 Programming 1. Provide a system of high-quality programs that meet the community’s evolving needs and is an integral part of people’s active and healthy lives 1.1Ensure athletic opportunities/team sports are available for all age groups 1.1.1Monitor and match interest and offerings of athletics for all age groups »Develop a polling system to determine needs/desires of community members for athletics/sports »Develop a formalized method for communicating with partner organizations to determine overlaps or needs for offerings 1.2Ensure access to non-traditional recreation opportunities within and adjacent to the City 1.2.1Provide special programming events/opportunities that encourage the exploration of new forms of recreation 1.3Adapt programming to busy lifestyles and make individual and family participation easy 1.3.1Provide programming at different times of the year, week, and day 2. Inspire life-long learning, creativity and community service 2.1Initiate, sponsor, and support city-wide volunteer programs, events, and activities 2.2Provide physical, artistic, environmental, and social programming designed for all age groups 2.2.1Develop a wellness class that focuses on nutrition (gardening, cooking, etc.) 2.3Partner with other agencies, or groups to provide physical, artistic, environmental, or social activity opportunities 2.3.1Work with Ramsey/Washington Metro Watershed District to provide an environmental education event or program 2.3.2Collaborate with Roseville Area Schools Community Education to host more programs in Little Canada 2.3.3Work with schools, cultural groups, and other organizations to host events in the parks 2.3.4Work with local food vendors/food trucks to bring refreshments and food into the parks Existing programs in Little Canada engage diverse groups of residents CITY OF LITTLE CANADA - PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN47 91 3. Provide programming designed for people of diverse age, race, ethnicity, ability, gender, and economic status 3.1Develop programming partnerships with diverse, unique groups and organizations to provide opportunities that may otherwise be unavailable through the City of Little Canada. 3.2Initiate and support concerts, festivals, cultural, and arts events that are designed for the entire community 3.3Identify and reduce financial barriers to participation in recreation programs 3.3.1Continue to provide grants and scholarships for programs and events for low-income residents 3.3.2Provide programming at different locations throughout the City to reduce the impact of transportation barriers 3.3.3Continue to collaborate with the Little Canada Recreation Association to provide grants, subsidies, and scholarships for programs and events for low- income residents 3.4Participate in and promote programs that underwrite or reduce resident cost for recreation equipment 3.5Ensure recreation opportunities are available to persons with disabilities Operations & Maintenance 1. Protect, preserve, and enhance natural resources, features, and environments within the City by implementing sustainable practices 1.1 Implement practices that meet or exceed established standards for ecological design of landscapes and buildings 1.1.1Maximize infiltration of stormwater by following low- impact development principles 1.1.2Include flowering plants such as white clover and creeping thyme into lawn mixes to increase drought tolerance, biodiversity and visual interest, and reduce mowing, fertilizing, and watering 1.1.3Use solar, wind, geothermal, and other sustainable technologies where and when feasible for lighting, heating, and cooling Canadian Days celebratory programming occurs in Spooner Park every summer and is a collaboration between the City and the Canadian Days Volunteer Committee CHAPTER 4 48 92 1.2Maximize opportunities to reforest the City 1.2.1Plant additional trees in existing parks to increase shade, define spaces and park boundaries, and provide ecological benefits and habitat 1.3Protect water quality with vegetation management strategies 1.3.1Avoid over-application of chemicals that can leach into ground and surface waters 1.3.2Utilize integrated pest management strategies to control nuisance plants, weeds, insects, rodents, etc. when possible 1.3.3Implement a turf conversion program to transition underutilized turf areas to forest or other native cover 2. Ensure consistent and meaningful communication between the City and the Public 2.1Be the go-to source for current information regarding parks and recreation in Little Canada 2.1.1Develop and implement a city-wide wayfinding system for parks and trails that makes it easy to find parks and trails 2.1.2Maintain and expand presence on social media, including Facebook and Instagram 2.1.3Add a community sign that is easily updated at a highly visible intersection to promote community events that are open to the public 2.2Encourage and solicit feedback from residents 2.2.1Provide a digital version of the customer satisfaction survey to provide an easier method for residents to convey needs, suggestions, etc. The addition of flowering plants to open lawn areas adds visual interest and is more sustainable Turf conversion programs begin with an evaluation of mowed park areas, such as steep hills or areas around water bodies, that might be good candidates for turf grass alternatives CITY OF LITTLE CANADA - PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN49 93 3. Operate a financially sound parks, trails, and open space system 3.1Continue to provide for regular operations and maintenance of the existing parks, trails, and open space system through the annual budget 3.2Work with all levels of government to secure funding for park and trail facility development, maintenance, and operations 3.3Continue to develop and maintain a five year capital improvement plan 3.4Engage local businesses, corporations, organizations, and individuals in partnerships to provide added support of the system 4. Improve operational efficiencies and capabilities 4.1Keep maintenance in mind when designing parks and facilities 4.2Maintain formalized maintenance policies and schedules 4.3Develop an asset management system to track condition, maintenance, and repair schedules 4.4Continue an informal peer group with parks and recreation staff from neighboring communities, meeting on a regular basis to share experiences and ideas CHAPTER 4 50 94 NW QUADRANT SW QUADRANT WESTERN HALF EASTERN HALF NE QUADRANT SE QUADRANT Activity Delivery Guidelines Activity delivery guidelines provide direction regarding access and distribution of facilities in an effort to provide equitable and convenient access. These guidelines define expectations for the general location of a particular facility and are based on recommendations from the National Park and Recreation Association but updated to be specific to Little Canada. For example, a skate park is a specialized facility that serves the entire community with one location, while children’s play equipment and open field play space should be accessible within each quadrant of the city. See Table 4.1 on page 52. CITY OF LITTLE CANADA - PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN51 95 TABLE 4.1 ACTIVITY DELIVERY GUIDELINES FACILITY CURRENT STATUS PROVIDE IN EACH QUADRANT OF THE COMMUNITY Playground  Open Field  Picnic Shelter  PROVIDE IN EACH HALF OF THE COMMUNITY Tennis/Pickleball  Natural Area (1 acre+) Basketball (half or full court) Diamond Field (baseball, softball) Rectangular Field (soccer, football, lacrosse) PROVIDE IN THE COMMUNITY Community Garden  Indoor Gym Space  Large Picnic Rental Pavilion/Building  Hockey/Pleasure Skating  Horseshoes  Sand Volleyball  Off-leash Dog Area  Skate Park  Outdoor Aquatics (pool, splash pad, or beach) Disc Golf  Natural Area (10 acre+) Cross-country Skiing  Sledding  Indoor Multi-Purpose Facility  PROVIDE WITH NEARBY PARTNERS & FACILITIES Community Center  Indoor Performance Space  Indoor Aquatics  Archery  Golf    MET UNMET CHAPTER 4 52 96 Recommendations for Specific Parks Pioneer & Spooner Park Concept Plans As Little Canada’s primary community parks, Pioneer and Spooner Park provide the backbone of the City’s park system. Additional attention was paid to exploring opportunities for enhancements of these two parks during the development of this plan. The following pages illustrate concept plans for each park that were developed with input from the public and the Parks & Recreation Commission. A more detailed and comprehensive design development process should be undertaken to bring these enhancements to reality. CITY OF LITTLE CANADA - PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN53 97 KEY FEATURES AND NOTES • NEW PLAY AREAS FEATURING PIONEER/VOYAGEUR THEMED ADVENTURE EQUIPMENT DESIGNED FOR ALL AGE GROUPS AND ABILITIES • NATURE PLAY AREA • KEEP EXISTING PINWHEEL OF BALLFIELDS TO HOST REGIONAL TOURNAMENTS • NATURALIZED AREAS INCLUDING PRAIRIES AND URBAN WOODS • MULTI-SEASON SHELTER FOR NATURE OBSERVATION, NATURALIZED WOODED AREA OPEN LAWN AREA FOR PROGRAMMING NATURALIZED PRAIRIE RELOCATE AND REPLACE BATTING CAGE & STORAGE NEW PICNIC SHELTERS CHANNELIZE EXISTING POND TO CREATE STREAM-LIKE WATER FEATURE ADD 18 SPACES TO EXISTING PARKING FOR A TOTAL OF 45 SPACES MULTI-USE PRACTICE FIELD FLEX SPACE FOR INFORMAL VOLLEYBALL PICNIC SHELTER / GARDEN SHED DOG PARK POTENTIAL ACQUISITION OF PARCEL COMMUNITY GARDEN 40 ADDITIONAL PARKING SPACES FOR A TOTAL OF 190 SMALL COMMUNITY ROOM • CONCESSIONS • RESTROOMS • EQUIPMENT STORAGE EXTEND EXISTING FENCE TO ACCOMMODATE MULTI-USE PRACTICE FIELD IN OUTFIELD IMPROVE EXISTING GAME FIELD FOR SOCCER AND EXPLORE ARTIFICIAL TURF OPTION NATURE PLAY AREA INTERACTIVE FOUNTAIN/WATER PLAY FEATURE INTEGRATED WITH PAVING PATTERN NEW PLAYGROUND WITH RUBBERIZED SURFACING, ACCESSIBLE EQUIPMENT AND CUSTOM PIONEER/ VOYAGEUR THEMED FEATURES EXISTING PICNIC SHELTER GATEWAY ELEMENT MULTI-SEASON SHELTER• PICNICKING • NATURE VIEWING • ICE SKATING EXPAND EXISTING POND FIGURE 4.2 PIONEER PARK ENHANCEMENT CONCEPT 0 50’ 100’ 150’ LEGEND IMPROVEMENTS MADE WITHIN 0-5 YEARS IMPROVEMENTS MADE WITHIN 10-5 YEARS EXISTING FEATURES PICNICKING, WINTER SKATING, PROGRAMMING • EXPANSION OF PONDING AREA TO IMPROVE DRAINAGE AND PROVIDE A WATER FEATURE • POTENTIAL ACQUISITION OF SW PARCEL FOR FUTURE COMMUNITY GARDEN AND DOG PARK WITH SHELTER/ STORAGE • LARGELY UTILIZES EXISTING PATHS • ADDITIONAL PICNIC SHELTERS • ADD BIKE RACKS • EXPLORE EXPANSION OF PROGRAMMING WITHIN THE PARK TO INCLUDE LACROSSE, ULTIMATE FRISBEE, PASSIVE RECREATION OPPORTUNITIES, ADOPT-A-PARK PROGRAM • EXPLORE THE ADDITION OF A BMX/PUMP TRACK 98 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 99 KEY FEATURES & NOTES • NEW ACCESSIVE PLAYGROUND • NEW EXPANDED LOWER PICNIC SHELTER • ADDITIONAL PARKING • NATURAL STAIRCASE TO GERVAIS CREEK • UPDATES TO BANDSHELL AND ACCESSIBLE PATH TO AMPHITHEATER AND BANDSHELL • UPDATE FURNISHINGS, INCLUDING LIGHTING, BENCHES AND TRASH RECEPTACLES • ADDITIONAL PLANTING BEDS AND RAIN GARDENS TO PROVIDE VISUAL INTEREST AND FILTER STORMWATER NEW SIDEWALK CONNECTION NEW PARK SIGN 20-24 ADDITIONAL PARKING SPACES GATEWAY ELEMENT WITH SIGNAGE/ WAYFINDING IN MULTIPLE LANGUAGES UPDATE PLAYGROUND WITH ACCESSIBLE FEATURES ACCESSIBLE TRAIL CONNECTION MAINTAIN OPEN SPACE FOR CANADIAN DAYS PROGRAMMING RAINGARDEN TO FILTER STORMWATER RUNOFF STONE STEPS TO CREEK PERGOLA/SHELTER UPDATE SAND VOLLEYBALL COURT PLANTINGS/ RAINGARDENS TO IMPROVE AESTHETICS AND SUSTAINABILITY OF PARKING LOT UPDATE EXISTING BAND SHELL AND PROVIDE ACCESSIBLE PATH TO BUILDING ACCESSIBLE PATH TO BANDSHELL/ AMPHITHEATER RELOCATE AND SCREEN SERVICE AREA NEW, LARGER PICNIC SHELTER FIGURE 4.3 SPOONER PARK ENHANCEMENT CONCEPT LEGEND IMPROVEMENTS MADE WITHIN 0-5 YEARS IMPROVEMENTS MADE WITHIN 10-5 YEARS EXISTING FEATURES • KEEP OPEN SPACE FOR CANADIAN DAYS PROGRAMMING • IMPLEMENT A QUASI-ARBORETUM BY IDENTIFYING SPECIMEN TREES • ADD WAYFINDING TO DIRECT VISITORS THROUGHOUT THE PARK. • EXPLORE THE ADDITION OF A BRIDGE OVER GERVAIS CREEK TO CONNECT TO FIREFIGHTERS HISTORICAL TRAIL • UPDATE THE SAND VOLLEYBALL COURT 0’ 50’ 100’ 150’ 100 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 101 Chapter 5: Implementation Funding Recommendations.......59 Funding Sources.........................60 Priorities.......................................61 The Park System Plan provides the City of Little Canada with a framework for the orderly development and maintenance of the park system. Implementation of the Plan requires thoughtful consideration of priorities, policies, phasing, financing, maintenance, and operation. The following discussion and recommendations for implementation provide a foundation for proceeding with the Park System Plan. 102 CITY OF LITTLE CANADA - PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN59 Funding Recommendations To implement the vision and recommendations set forth in this plan the City will need to apply additional investments towards parks and recreation. The following recommendations outline strategies to fund additional investments. 1. Fund the goals set forth in the Park System Plan 1.1Identify and communicate funding needs on a regular basis 1.1.1Digitize the asset management program to ensure continuity of information and ease of reporting 1.1.2Understand and consider ongoing, operational, and life- cycle costs when making capital investment decisions 1.1.3Develop cost recovery guidelines for programs, rentals, and other services that help inform future decisions about offerings 1.2Seek additional and diverse funding sources 1.2.1Explore state bonding opportunities to support larger, regional infrastructure improvements such as pedestrian crossings over I35E 1.2.2Continue the strategic pursuit of grants 1.2.3Consider potential sponsorship opportunities, including local, regional, and corporate sponsors 1.2.4Explore potential funding opportunities that may arise from collaborations with public health, public art, programming and sustainability initiatives 1.2.5Continue to nurture relationships with schools, nonprofits, athletic associations, etc 1.2.6Explore the expansion of Parks and Recreation’s share of the general fund if needed 1.2.7Consider a local bond referendum to pay for larger capital improvements if needed 1.3Optimize the use of volunteers to supplement the system 103 CHAPTER 5 60 Potential grant sources include: »Minnesota DNR »Minnesota DOT »Clean Water, Land and Legacy Amendment »Various Foundations and Non-profits Funding Sources General Funds General funds are the main source of funding for regular operations and maintenance and amenities. General funds should be used to maintain the system. Dedicated Tax Levy A dedicated tax levy can be achieved through a city referendum, with funds going specifically towards parks and recreation capital projects or operations and maintenance. Bonding Funding for new facilities or repairs/updates can also come from General Obligation Bonds and Revenue Bonds. General Park Bond Issue Usually approved through a voter referendum, a general park bond issue can raise money with a permanent or temporary tax increase dedicated towards parks and trails improvements and maintenance. State Aid State aid funds can be secured for pedestrian and bicycle improvements on state aid streets. This can be more easily accessed during street construction and re-construction projects. Utility/Franchise Fee Franchise fees are additional fees that can be added to the monthly bill that customers/residents receive from a public utility such as natural gas, electricity, or cable. Such fees are implemented by a City ordinance, and must be approved by City Council. The City of Little Canada currently uses a utiltiy franchise fee to fund the street replacement program. Donations Private donations can be another way to supplement parks and recreation budgets, and can come in the form of money, labor, and materials from a variety of sources. Programs such as “adopt-a-park” are very common form of donation. Grants Grants are another way to support parks and recreation, and the City should continue to pursue grants that make sense for the needs and capabilities of Little Canada. 104 CITY OF LITTLE CANADA - PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN61 Priorities The following actions have been highlighted from the overall system recommendations in Chapter 4 as priorities based on input from the public, the Parks and Recreation Commission, City Council, and staff, and should be used to help determine immediate actions, short-term actions (1-3 years), medium-term actions (4-6 years), and ongoing actions. Implementation decisions should consider effort/cost and impact, and may change over time as community needs, technology, and other factors change. TABLE 5.1 PRIORITY ACTIONS ACTION DESCRIPTION RESPONSIBILITY PRIORITY EFFORT/ COST IMPACT TIMEFRAME PARKS Develop a management strategy for linear parks within Xcel Easement Respond to changes in vegetation management in linear parks within the Xcel Energy easements. Parks & Recreation Medium High Short FACILITIES Improve signage and wayfinding Add additional wayfinging and signage elements throughout the City, including directional signs and maps at community parks. Create and distribute a paper map of parks and trails for visitors and residents. Parks & Recreation, Public Works Medium High Short Implement improvements at Pioneer Park Undertake a design development process to make phased improvements at Pioneer Park Parks & Recreation, Engineering, Public Works High High Short Develop feasibility studies and/or preliminary designs and cost estimates for artificial turf game field in order to continue to provide a high-quality game field for soccer Parks & Recreation Medium High Short Undertake a feasibility study for renovation/replacement of the pavilion building to better meet current and future needs Parks & Recreation High High Short Add an interactive fountain/water feature/mister Parks & Recreation Medium High Medium Add a historical theme to Pioneer Park that tells the story of Little Canada Parks & Recreation Medium Medium Medium Replace the current playground with an accessible playground that represents Little Canada through a unique theme Parks & Recreation High High Short Study the adjacent property at 2886 Centerville Road for acquisition Parks & Recreation, Public Works Low High Short 105 CHAPTER 5 62 ACTION DESCRIPTION RESPONSIBILITY PRIORITY EFFORT/ COST IMPACT TIMEFRAME FACILITIES Implement improvements at Spooner Park Replace the current playground Parks & Recreation, Engineering, Public Works High High Immediate Create additional parking with new lot in NE corner of park Parks & Recreation, Engineering, Public Works High Medium Short Update the sand volleyball court Parks & Recreation Low Medium Immediate Improve universal access throughout the park Parks & Recreation, Engineering High High Short TRAILS Initiate planning on priority projects to prepare for collaboration with other agencies and secure funding Determine infrastructure and right-of-way needs; develop schematic designs and cost estimates for pedestrian connections over 694. Parks & Recreation, Engineering, Public Works Medium High Short Determine infrastructure and right-of-way needs; develop schematic designs and cost estimates for pedestrian connections over I35E. Parks & Recreation, Engineering, Medium High Short Determine infrastructure and right-of-way needs for the Trout Brook Trail/connection over Highway 36 Parks & Recreation, Engineering, Medium High Short Work to acquire the necessary land/ easements West of Payne Avenue to continue the Power Line Trail to Edgerton Parks & Recreation, Engineering, High High Ongoing Construct prioritized projects to minimize gaps in the system Fill walkway gaps on Rice Street Parks & Recreation, Engineering, Public Works Medium High Short Pavement Management Continue to assess and maintain paved trails, including park trails and off-street trails Parks & Recreation, Engineering, Public Works Medium High Ongoing PROGRAMMING Monitor and match interests and offerings of programs Develop and implement a statistically valid community survey focusing on programming needs Parks & Recreation High High Short FUNDING Maintain/ expand funding for maintenance and equipment replacement Set the foundation for the pursuit of additional funding, whether from state bond funds, grants, donations, the general funds, or a referendum if needed. Parks & Recreation Medium High Ongoing TABLE 5.1 PRIORITY ACTIONS CONTINUED 106 107 Appendix A: Individual Park Inventories and Recommendations Firebarns Skate Park & Old Fire Hall.......65 Firefighters Historical Trail.........................67 Gervais Lake Beach..................................69 Gervais Mill Park.......................................71 Little Canada Elementary School.............73 Nadeau Wildlife Area..............................75 Pioneer Park...............................................77 Rondeau Park............................................81 Roseville Area Middle School..................83 Spooner Park.............................................85 Thunder Bay & Westwinds Park...............89 Veteran’s Memorial Park...........................93 Water Works Right-of-Way......................95 108 CITY OF LITTLE CANADA - PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN65 Firebarns Skate Park & Old Fire Hall SKATE PARK HOCKEY RINK ADDRESS 440 Little Canada Road East PARK SIZE 1 acres PARK CLASSIFICATION Community Park OVERVIEW Fire Barns Skate Park is home to Little Canada’s skate park and the Old Fire Hall building. The park also features hockey and pleasure skating rinks, and a warming house built in 2015. The lower level of the Old Fire Hall is available to Little Canada residents and businesses for rent, and offers a meeting space with full kitchen. FACILITIES/EQUIPMENT • Skate Park • Lighted Hockey Rink(1) • Pleasure Skating Rink (1) TRAIL CONNECTIONS Existing sidewalk on Little Canada Road NATURAL RESOURCES Fire Barns Skate Park resides partially on an undeveloped area owned by the City of Saint Paul for its water utility. An informal/ unmaintained path connects the park to the south utilizing the water utility property. ISSUES/OPPORTUNITIES 1. The Old Fire Hall is a good community resource, and has the potential to be an even more integral component of the City’s Parks and Recreation system. Recent recommendations for updates to the building include exterior improvements, which will be made in the near future. 2. Expansion/upgrades to the skate park including lighting to support use until 9pm and a new grinding rail. 3. Interpretation of the history of the site. 4. High incidences of vandalism; more programming or additional uses could activate the park and create more ‘eyes on the park’. 5. Continued cooperation with St. Paul Regional Water to maintain park use and formalize trail connections. 6. Consider acquisition of adjacent property if it becomes available.OLD FIRE HALL r 109 APPENDIX A 66 0 Firebarns Skate Park & Old Fire Hall EXISTING SIDEWALK SKATE PARK HOCKEY RINK PLEASURE SKATING WARMING HOUSE OLD FIRE HALL 0 FEET62.5 125 250 375 500015030045060075 Feet ° LITTLE CANADA RD E MCMENEMY STEXISTING OFF-ROAD PAVED TRAIL EXISTING OFF-ROAD UNPAVED TRAIL 110 CITY OF LITTLE CANADA - PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN67 Firefighters Historical Trail ADDRESS 325 Little Canada Road East PARK SIZE 8 acres PARK CLASSIFICATION Linear Park OVERVIEW Firefighters Historical Trail utilizes a segment of the Water Works Right-of Way, providing a scenic connection from Centerville Road to Spooner Park and Little Canada Road at McMenemy Street. FACILITIES/EQUIPMENT • Paved trail • Benches • Interpretive panels TRAIL CONNECTIONS Sidewalks on Centerville Road and Little Canada Road, Spooner Trail to Gervais Mill NATURAL RESOURCES The trail is flanked by grasslands/forest openings that provide great opportunities for wildlife viewing and native habitat. It is bordered on the north by Gervais Creek, and is wooded on both sides. ISSUES/OPPORTUNITIES 1. Make connection to Water Works ROW on the west side of Interstate 35E to create a continuous off-road trail with trailheads. 2. Restore grasslands to high-quality meadow. 3. Create access point to Gervais Creek with stairs. 4. Work with The Ramsey County Watershed District to keep creek clear of debris and address water quality issues. ENTRANCE BRIDGE TRAIL GRASSLANDS INTERPRETATION r 111 APPENDIX A 68 Firefighters Historical Trail LIT T L E C A N A D A R D E TO W A T E R W O R K S T R I A L & EDG E R T O N S T R E E T TO GERVAIS MILL 250 50 100 150 200FEET015030045060075 Feet °0CETERVILLE RDSPOONER PARK FIRE STATION FIRE DEPARTMENT PARKING SAINT JOHNS CHURCH/SCHOOL EXISTING OFF-ROAD PAVED TRAIL EXISTING SIDEWALK FIREFIGHTERS HISTORICAL TRAIL 112 CITY OF LITTLE CANADA - PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN69 Gervais Lake Beach BEACH WALKING TRAIL PARKING SIGNRESTROOM BUILDING ADDRESS 2420 Edgerton Street PARK SIZE 4 acres PARK CLASSIFICATION County Park OVERVIEW Gervais Lake Beach is part of the Ramsey County park system, and is owned and operated by the County Parks Department. It features access to Gervais Lake and picnic facilities. facilities/equipment • Swimming Beach • Fishing Pier • Onsite Parking • Picnic Area (picnic tables) • Playground TRAIL CONNECTIONS Paved shoulders along Edgerton Street NATURAL RESOURCES The park has a sand beach on Gervais Lake, wetland/ stormwater treatment areas, and stands of mature oak trees. Boating access is available from Spoon Lake. ISSUES/OPPORTUNITIES 1. While the City cannot directly make improvements to Gervais Lake Beach, it can and should continue to collaborate with Ramsey County to facilitate a partnership that is mutually beneficial for both the County and the City. 2. The City should work with Ramsey County to explore the addition of; »a seasonal lifeguard; »winter access to Gervais Lake for ice fishing; »hydrology classes/seminars. 3. Partner with local businesses for program opportunities, such as canoe/kayak lessons, wind surfing, etc. 4. Future trail connection to Water Works Right-of-Way via Sunset Court/Sextant Ave E. • Restrooms/Changing Area • Drinking fountain • Paved Trails r 113 APPENDIX A 70 Gervais Lake Beach 0 150 300 450 60075 Feet °EXISTING PAVED SHOULDER EXISTING OFF-ROAD PAVED TRAIL PROPOSED OFF-ROAD PAVED TRAIL EXISTING SIDEWALK BEACH RESTROOM BUILDING FISHING PIER PLAYGROUND PICNIC AREA COUNTY RD B2 EEDGERTON STSUNRISE AVESUNRISE DRSUNSET CT TO WATER WORKS RIGHT-OF-WAY TRAIL PARKING 114 CITY OF LITTLE CANADA - PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN71 Gervais Mill Park FISHING PIER INTERPRETIVE SIGNAGE BRIDGE NATURAL SURFACE TRAIL ADDRESS Between Edgerton Street and Noel Drive, 1/2 block north of Little Canada Road PARK SIZE 18 acres PARK CLASSIFICATION Community Park/Natural Area OVERVIEW: Gervais Mill Park is a nature-based park featuring paved and unpaved trails, historic interpretation and constructed ponds designed to protect water quality in Gervais Creek and ultimately Gervais Lake and beyond to Spoon, Keller, and Phalen Lakes. FACILITIES/EQUIPMENT • Historic marker and interpretation • Overlook • Fishing Piers (2) • Pedstrian Bridges (3) TRAIL CONNECTIONS Off-road paved trail connection to Spooner Park, and on-street connection to Gervais Beach via existing paved shoulder NATURAL RESOURCES The constructed ponds are the main feature of the park, and were designed in collaboration with the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District. The DNR occasionally stocks the ponds with Bluegill after winter kills (the ponds maximum depth is 12’), and sunfish, bass, and bullhead are also present. The ponds are infested with Eurasion watermilfoil. Native plants abound in the park, and attract wildlife that provide opportunities for viewing. • Benches (4) • Interpretive Signage (2) • Trails - paved and unpaved • On-site parking ISSUES/OPPORTUNITIES 1. Additional trash receptacles. 2. Improve existing trails in low/wet areas with boardwalks or elevation. 3. Nature-based programming such as landscape painting, birding, pollinator education, etc. 4. Add a traffic-calming measure to slow vehicles on Noel Drive. 5. Trail connection to Little Canada Road along Noel Drive. 6. Small picnic shelter. r 7. Continue to work with the Watershed District to control invasive species. 8. Interpretive Center on Edgerton side of park. 115 APPENDIX A 72 Gervais Mill Park EXISTING PAVED SHOULDER EXISTING OFF-ROAD PAVED TRAIL EXISTING OFF-ROAD UNPAVED TRAIL015030045060075 Feet °500 100 200 300 400 FEET 0 POND POND FISHING PIER FISHING PIER PEDESTRAIN BRIDGE PEDESTRAIN BRIDGE PARKING LOT SCENIC OVERLOOK/ FLOWER GARDEN POND PARKING PEDESTRAIN BRIDGE N O E L D R EDGERTON STNOEL DREXISTING OFF-ROAD PAVED TRAIL 0 116 CITY OF LITTLE CANADA - PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN73 Little Canada Elementary School GAGA BALL COURT (PHOTO ISD623.ORG) FIELD SPACE (PHOTO ISD623.ORG) ADDRESS 400 Eli Road PARK SIZE 15 acres owned by Roseville Area School District #623 PARK CLASSIFICATION School Site OVERVIEW Little Canada Elementary School site is adjacent to Spooner Park, and visitors may not distinguish some of the school facilities from City facilities. Like Spooner, it is well connected by Firefighters Historical Trail. FACILITIES/EQUIPMENT •Baseball Fields (4) •Soccer/Football Fields (1) •Playground (2) •Basketball Courts (2) •Court games (gaga ball, foursquare, hopscotch, etc) •Internal paved trails •Parking area (1) •School Gymnasium (2) TRAIL CONNECTIONS Sidewalk on Centerville Road connecting to Pioneer Park, sidewalk on Eli Road (from Little Canada Elementary School east to Desoto Street). Off-road trails including Firefighters Historical Trail, Spooner Park Trail and others. NATURAL RESOURCES A small wooded area along the south/southeastern portion of the school provides access to natural areas and a nice vegetative buffer. ISSUES/OPPORTUNITIES 1.Continue to maintain a strong relationship with the School District, ensuring a partnership that is mutually beneficial for the District and Little Canada. r 117 APPENDIX A 74 Little Canada Elementary School LITTLE C A N A D A R D E AMPHITHEATRE BOCCE BALL COURT VOLLEYBALL PLAYGROUND PICNIC SHELTER PARKING GILBERTSON FIELD MAINT. BLDG PICNIC SHELTER BASEBALL/MULTI-USE FIELDS SPOONER PARK PARKING COURTS PLAYGROUNDS CENTERVILLE RDELI RD FIR E F I G H T E R S H I S T O R I C A L T R A I L LITTLE CANADA FIRE DEPARTMENT DESOTO STEXISTING OFF-ROAD PAVED TRAIL EXISTING SIDEWALK015030045060075 Feet ° PARKING TENNIS/ PICKLEBALL COURTS GYMNASIUM GAGA BALL PIT HORSESHOE PIT 118 CITY OF LITTLE CANADA - PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN75 Nadeau Wildlife Area PLAYGROUND WETLAND ADDRESS Lake Street, north of Demont Avenue at Jackson Street PARK SIZE 4.96 acres PARK CLASSIFICATION Neighborhood Park OVERVIEW Naduea Wildlife Area features a wetland area, open lawn, a playground (new in 2013), and rain garden. FACILITIES/EQUIPMENT •Playground •Benches (5) •Picnic table TRAIL CONNECTIONS Off-road paved trail along Jackson Street connecting to Roseville Middle School, striped crossing at Jackson Street and Lake Street. NATURAL RESOURCES The wetlands of the Nadeau Wildlife Area help filter and improve water quality of nearby Savage Lake. They can be viewed by adventurous park visitors who don’t mind undeveloped, rustic footpaths, as The Nadeau Wildlife Area does not have any formal, maintained trails. ISSUES/OPPORTUNITIES 1.Improve areas of poor/patchy turf. 2.Update existing benches, which are in fair condition. 3.Loop existing informal trails for improved access to wetland area. 4.Volunteer trash removal/clean-up events in natural areas. 5.Provide access to wetland area from Demont Avenue. 6.Add wayfinding/signage for park on Demont Avenue. 7.Add wetland dock or boardwalk. NATURE TRAIL r 119 APPENDIX A 76 Nadeau Wildlife Area 0 POND POND LAKE ST DEMONT AVEJACKSON STJACKSON STLAKE SHORE AVEPLAYGROUND EXISTING PAVED SHOULDER EXISTING OFF-ROAD PAVED TRAIL EXISTING SIDEWALK 300 60 200 300 400 FEET015030045060075 Feet ° 120 CITY OF LITTLE CANADA - PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN77 Pioneer Park SOCCER FIELD SOFTBALL FIELD ADDRESS 2950 Centerville Road PARK SIZE 33 acres PARK CLASSIFICATION Community Athletic Park OVERVIEW Pioneer Park is Little Canada’s main athletic complex, serving the community and beyond, as the site of regional tournaments. Concessions are privately operated, open during gametimes. FACILITIES/EQUIPMENT TRAIL CONNECTIONS Paved neighborhood connectors to Frattalone Lane to the north and to Montreal Courts housing to the south, sidewalks on Centerville Road and Desoto Street. NATURAL RESOURCES Pioneer Park is almost entirely developed, with the exception of 3/4 of an acre in the northeast corner of the park, and a naturalized stormwater ponding area east of the softball diamond. The vegetation in this area is managed with controlled burns. ISSUES/OPPORTUNITIES 1.Heavy use of ash trees, which are susceptible to emerald ash borer. 2.Sand volleyball court is underutilized; explore relocation or removal. 3.Playground is in fair condition; consider replacement within 3-5 years. •Lighted Softball Fields (4) •Batting Cage •Lighted Full Basketball Court (1) •Concessions/ Maintenance Building •Onsite Parking (2) •Playground •Practice Field (1) •Picnic Shelter (reservable, capacity of 25) •Soccer Field (1) •Lighted Tennis/Pickleball Courts (2 dual-striped) •Paved trails (.6 mile loop) STORMWATER POND r 121 APPENDIX A 78 0 Pioneer Park EXISTING PAVED SHOULDER EXISTING SIDEWALK PROPOSED OFF-ROAD PAVED TRAIL EXISTING OFF-ROAD PAVED TRAIL SOCCER FIELD SOFTBALL FIELD SOFTBALL FIELD SOFTBALL FIELD SOFTBALL FIELD PAVILION PRACTICE FIELD POND TENNIS/PICKLEBALL & BASKETBALL COURTS VOLLEYBALL PARKING OVERFLOW PARKING PARKING 300 60 200 300 400 FEET015030045060075 Feet °DESOTO STDESOTO STDESOTO STLABORE RD CONNECT TO FUTURE EDGERTON STREET TUNNEL/ THUNDERBAY/WESTWINDS PARK CONNECTION TO FIREFIGHTERS HISTORICAL TRAIL AND FUTURE PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE OVER 135ECENTERVILLE RDCENTERVILLE RDCENTERVILLE RDALLEN AVE PICNIC SHELTER PLAYGROUND UTILITY SHED BATTING CAGE 122 CITY OF LITTLE CANADA - PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN79 Pioneer Park UPPER LEVEL OF THE PAVILION BUILDING PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE AND POND 4.Turf conversion to naturalized areas would provide visual interest, reduced maintenance, and less chemical input. 5.Current space above the concession building is not utilized; not ADA accessible or temperature controlled. Undertake an architectural evaluation of the building to determine wether to update or replace it. 6.Current capacity of picnic shelter does not meet demand, but is limited by parking and lack of bathroom ammenity. Consider adding a second picnic shelter or upgrading existing. 7.Pioneer Park has the potential to be a place that helps create a park that is distinctively Little Canada. Develop features that reinforce Pioneer as Little Canada’s destination community park. 8.Acquire property to the south for additional program space, improving access to the Public Works facility. 9.Relocate and replace existing batting cages. 10.Acquire farmland north of Allen Avenue to make connection to Thunder Bay/Westwinds Park via powerline right-of-way east of Edgerton Street. 11.Increase programming within the park to include: »Lacrosse; »Ultimate frisbee; »Passive recreation opportunities; »Adopt-a-park program. 12.Explore the addition of a BMX/Pump track. 13.Add bike racks. *Refer to the Pioneer Park Enhancement Plan in Chapter 4 for more detail 123 APPENDIX A 80 Pioneer Park 124 CITY OF LITTLE CANADA - PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN81 Rondeau Park BRIDGETRAIL POND RAINGARDENPLAYGROUND BASKETBALL COURT ADDRESS Jackson Street north of Little Canada Road PARK SIZE 3 acres PARK CLASSIFICATION Neighborhood Park OVERVIEW Rondeau Park is a recent addition to the park system and was added at about the same time as the adjacent townhome development. FACILITIES/EQUIPMENT •Basketball (Half Court) •Benches (6) •Drinking Fountain TRAIL CONNECTIONS Existing sidewalk on Jackson Street connects to Water Works Right of Way to the north and sidewalk on Little Canada Road to the south. NATURAL RESOURCES While the majority of the park is open lawn, there are many mature trees on the north side of the park, a naturalized stormwater pond, and a raingarden and swale vegetated with native plants. ISSUES/OPPORTUNITIES 1.Continue to plant trees and shrubs within the park to create habitat and visual interest. 2.Volunteer park clean-up events to remove trash and litter around the pond. 3.The playground is in good condition; continue to maintain and update in asset management system. 4.Consider the addition of picnic facilities, including a small picnic shelter, picnic tables, and a barbeque grill. 5.Plant edibles such as different varieties of raspberries, mulberries, apples, etc. 6.Work with nearby housing complex to implement occasional programming in the park to instill a sense of pride and ownership in the park, such as fruit harvesting or clean-up events. 7.Add park wayfinding/signage on Little Canada Road. •Playground •Paved loop trail and connection to nearby housing. •Pet waste receptacle r 125 APPENDIX A 82 0 Rondeau Park BASKETBALL HALF-COURT SWALE JACKSON STBRYAN ST LABORE AVE PAVED TRAIL RAINGARDEN SIDEWALK EXISTING OFF-ROAD PAVED 200 40 80 120 160 FEET015030045060075 Feet ° PLAYGROUND 126 CITY OF LITTLE CANADA - PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN83 Roseville Area Middle School ENTRY SIGN SEASONAL OFF-LEASH DOG AREA ADDRESS 15 County Road B East PARK SIZE 32 acres PARK CLASSIFICATION School Site OVERVIEW Roseville Area Middle School provides the location for a City-operated hockey rink/seasonal off-leash dog area, pleasure skating rink, and warming house, and the school gymnasium and field space is available for City recreation programs. FACILITIES/EQUIPMENT •1Baseball/2 Softball •Football/Soccer/Lacrosse Stadium and Track •Hockey Rink/Pleasure Skating Rink/Warming House (operated by the City of Little Canada) •Dog excercise area (inside hockey rink during warm months) •Practice Fields •Tennis Courts •School Gymnasium TRAIL CONNECTIONS Sidewalk on County Road B2 East to the south, paved shoulders on Demont Avenue to the north, and off-road paved trail on Jackson Street to the northeast ISSUES/OPPORTUNITIES 1.Continue to operate the hockey and pleasure skating rinks and warming house. 2.Continue to collaborate with the school district to provide programming. 3.Create an off-road paved trail on the south side of Demont Avenue. 4.Potential future connection to Trout Brook Regional Trail. r 127 APPENDIX A 84 Roseville Area Middle School MAP FOOTBALL FIELD SOCCER FIELD ATHLETIC FIELDS PARKING SOCCER FIELD TENNIS COURTS PARKING W DEMONT AVE JACKSON STCOUNTY RD B2 E 750 150 300 450 600FEET015030045060075 Feet °0PARK STEXISTING PAVED SHOULDER EXISTING OFF-ROAD PAVED TRAIL EXISTING SIDEWALK ICE RINK/OFF-LEASH DOG AREA PLEASURE RINK 128 CITY OF LITTLE CANADA - PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN85 Spooner Park PLAY AREA BRIDGE VOLLEYBALL COURT AMPHITHEATER ADDRESS 350 Eli Road PARK SIZE 22 acres PARK CLASSIFICATION Community Park OVERVIEW Spooner Park is Little Canada’s most beloved park. It is the site of the City’s annual celebration, Canadian Days. It provides picnicking and gathering opportunities at a variety of scales and an array of athletic facilities. It is well connected by Firefighters Historical Trail and other off-street trails, sidewalks, and paved shoulders. Spooner Park also offers great views of Gervais Creek. FACILITIES/EQUIPMENT •Baseball Field, not lighted (1) •Lighted Tennis/Pickleball Courts (2) •Picnic Shelter with Restrooms (1) •Picnic Shelter – Open (1) •Amphitheater with Band Shell (1) •Playground (1) •Horseshoe Courts (2) •Bocce Ball Courts (2) •Volleyball Courts (1) •Maintenance Building (1) •Internal paved trails •Parking areas (3) TRAIL CONNECTIONS Sidewalk on Centerville Road, sidewalk on Eli Road (from Little Canada Elementary School east to Desoto Street). Paved off-road Firefighters Historical Trail and Spooner Park Trail to the south, connecting to Gervais Mill Park and Little Canada Road. r 129 APPENDIX A 86 Spooner Park AMPHITHEATRE BOCCE BALL COURT VOLLEYBALL PLAYGROUND PICNIC SHELTER PARKING GILBERTSON FIELD MAINT. BLDG PICNIC SHELTER ATHLETIC FIELDS LITTLE CANADA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PARKING COURTS GYMNASIUM GAGA BALL PIT PLAY AREA CENTERVILLE RDELI RD LITTLE CANADA FIRE DEPARTMENT TENNIS COURTS DESOTO STEXISTING OFF-ROAD PAVED TRAIL EXISTING SIDEWALK PARKING FIR E F I G H T E R S H I S T O R I C A L T R A I L 0 150 300 450 60075 Feet ° HORSESHOE PIT LITTLE C A N A D A R D E 130 CITY OF LITTLE CANADA - PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN87 Spooner Park PICNIC SHELTER TRAIL TENNIS/PICKLEBALL COURT NATURAL RESOURCES Spooner Park has great tree canopy coverage, and nearly half the park is wooded or covered by tree canopy. A variety of tree species can be found within the park. The park also provides beautiful views of Gervais Creek. ISSUES/OPPORTUNITIES 1.The lower picnic shelter area is getting loved to death - update it to enhance the shelter and meet demand. 2.Implement a quasi arboretum by identifying specimen trees. 3.Update the garbage cans and older benches to reflect the status of the park. 4.Create natural staircase down to Gervais Creek to give visitors a connection to the creek, providing interpretation about area hydrology and the water cycle. 5.Add raingardens/bioretention cells around inlets and other low spots to filter stormwater and reduce erosion as water moves towards the creek. 6.Continue to maintain high level of maintenance and upkeep within the park. 7.Update the existing bandshell and amphitheater. 8.Add bike racks at park entrances and other locations throughout the park to encourage multi-modal transportation to the park. 9.Add wayfinding to direct visitors throughout the park. 10.Add bridge over Gervais Creek to connect to Firefighters Historical Trail. 11.Update the sand volleyball court. 12.Replace current playground. 13.Expand parking area near the upper shelter. *Refer to the Spooner Park Enhancement Plan in Chapter 4 for more detail 131 APPENDIX A 88 Spooner Park 132 CITY OF LITTLE CANADA - PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN89 Thunder Bay Park & Westwinds Park ADDRESS Payne Avenue to County Road D, within the electrical transmission line easement south of County Road D PARK SIZE 17 acres PARK CLASSIFICATION Linear Park OVERVIEW Thunder Bay and Westwinds Parks combine to create a trail loop dotted with naturalized stormwater ponds, open lawn areas, seating opportunities, and a playground. FACILITIES/EQUIPMENT •Playground •Informal Playfield •Paved Trails •Benches •Picnic Table •Half-court basketball TRAIL CONNECTIONS Neighborhood connections NATURAL RESOURCES Thunder Bay/Westwinds Park is a mix of naturalized, developed, and lawn areas. The pond edges are vegetated with native plants and provide nice water quality buffers. No overstory trees are allowed to grow due to the overhead transmission lines. ISSUES/OPPORTUNITIES 1.Continue to work with neighboring property owners to provide visual and physical boundaries between public and private space. 2.Work with Xcel Energy to understand its vegetation management objectives and establish pollinator habitat/ prairie areas. 3.Provide a pier to provide visitors with an opportunity to observe ponds up close. 4.Opportunity to provide unique seating/benches along trail to encourage rest/gathering. 5.Parking/trailhead facilities. PLAYGROUND BRIDGE TRAIL POND r 133 APPENDIX A 90 Thunder Bay Park & Westwinds Park INFORMAL PLAY FIELD PONDPOND CONNECTION TO MAPLEWOOD PARKS AND TRAILS 200 40 80 120 160 FEET015030045060075 Feet ° PLAY AREA HALF COURT BASKETBALL ARCADE STLABORE RDLABORE R D GERVAIS LAKE EXISTING PAVED SHOULDER EXISTING BOARDWALK EXISTING OFF-ROAD PAVED TRAIL COUNTY RD D 134 CITY OF LITTLE CANADA - PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN91 Thunder Bay Park & Westwinds Park NEIGHBORHOOD CONNECTOR TRAIL 6.Work with local artists to install large-scale sculptural pieces that would complement the vast open scale of the right of way. 7.Gateway elements/signage at park intersections with roadways. 8.Fitness loop. PLAYGROUND TRAIL AND LANDSCAPING 135 APPENDIX A 92 Thunder Bay Park & Westwinds Park 136 CITY OF LITTLE CANADA - PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN93 Veterans Memorial Park MEMORIAL BRIDGE OVERLOOK PERGOLAMEMORIAL ADDRESS Little Canada Road at Market Place PARK SIZE 2 acres PARK CLASSIFICATION Community Park OVERVIEW Veterans Memorial Park, formerly Round Lake Park, features a memorial to veterans of foriegn wars and war dogs. The site also houses the historic stone pump house and a Round Lake overlook. FACILITIES/EQUIPMENT •War memorials •Historic Pump House •Benches and seating •Little Canada Road Streetscape •Pergola •Walking paths TRAIL CONNECTIONS Sidewalk on Little Canada Road NATURAL RESOURCES The Park has views to Round Lake and several mature oak trees. ISSUES/OPPORTUNITIES 1.As they become available, acquire the two remaining properties from the park to the railroad right-of-way. 2.Convert underutilized turf areas to pollinator gardens/ prairie/native plantings to provide visual interest and provide habitat for birds and insects. 3.Continue paved trail to create a continuous loop. 4.Develop a master plan for this park. r 137 APPENDIX A 94 0 Veterans Memorial Park MARKET PL DRLITTLE CANA D A R D W 250 50 100 150 200FEET015030045060075 Feet °0 EXISTING SIDEWALK EXISTING OFF-ROAD PAVED TRAIL CITY-OWNED PARCEL OVERLOOK VETERANS MEMORIAL PARKING PERGOLA HISTORIC STONE PUMP HOUSE WAR DOG MEMORIAL LITTLE CANA D A R D W ADJACENT LAND OWENERSHIP 138 CITY OF LITTLE CANADA - PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN95 Water Works Right-of-Way TRAIL ENTRANCE BRIDGEPEDESTRIAN CROSSING ADDRESS Runs North/South from Country Drive to Little Canada Road, and Little Canada Road to Sextant Ave East PARK SIZE 26 acres PARK CLASSIFICATION Linear Park OVERVIEW The Saint Paul Regional Water Services (SPRWS) owns a corridor of land that runs the entire length of the City of Little Canada. SPRWS provides an easement to Little Canada that allows paved trails and public access through much of the corridor. Currently, 1.3 miles of the 1.7 mile-long corridor has paved trails on it, while the rest of the corridor is used informally with unpaved trails. FACILITIES/EQUIPMENT •Paved Trails TRAIL CONNECTIONS Connects to the Firefighter’s Historical Trail, sidewalk on Jackson Street, unpaved trail at Blacktern Pond, paved off- road trail on Country Drive, and sidewalks on Centerville Road NATURAL RESOURCES With its wooded edges and grasslands, The Water Works Right-of-Way provides a wildlife habitat corridor that is typically 225 feet in width. ISSUES/OPPORTUNITIES 1.Continue the trail south of the Old Fire Hall. 2.Work with The Saint Paul Regional Water Services to manage invasive species throughout the corridor, such as buckthorn, burdock, and other spreading exotic plants, and replace with pollinator habitat. 3.Restore vegetation to native plant communities. 4.Continue efforts to formalize the trail along the entire length of the right of way to make a connection from Shoreview and Vadnais Heights to Maplewood. 5.Create entry experience or add signage at right-of-way access points. 6.Extend the trail to make connections over I35E and 694. ROW WITH DEVELOPED TRAIL ROW WITHOUT DEVELOPED TRAIL r 139 APPENDIX A 96 Water Works Right-of-Way 0 .125 .25 MILES 0 150 300 450 60075 Feet °JACKSON STPIONEER PARK SPOONER PARK BLACKTERN POND RICE STLITTLE C A N A D A R D ROSEVILLE AREA MIDDLE SCHOOL VETERANS MEMORIAL PARK GERVAIS MILL PARK GERVAIS BEACH RONDEAU PARK NADEAU PARK I-35 E I-694 W EXISTING OFF-ROAD PAVED TRAIL PROPOSED OFF-ROAD PAVED TRAIL EXISTING PAVED SHOULDER 140 CITY OF LITTLE CANADA - PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN97 little canada parks & recreation community survey summary To get public input on Little Canada’s park and recreation system, an online survey was publicized and available to the public from July 27th to September 5th, 2017. 201 responses were gathered. Within the past 12 months, hoW often have you used little canada parks? 15% Once or twice15% Once or twice 13% 3-6 times13% 3-6 times 65% More than 6 times65% More than 6 times 7% Haven't visited in the past year 7% Haven't visited in the past year Value Percent Responses Once ortwice 15.4%24 3-6 times 12.8%20 More than 6 times 64.7%101 Haven'tvisited in the pastyear 7.1%11 Totals: 156 2.Howdo yourate the qualityof operationand maintenance of the Little Canadaparks and/orfacilities? 2 Appendix B: Community Survey 141 APPENDIX B 98 Within the past 12 months, hoW often have you used little canada trails? 9% Once or Twice9% Once or Twice 17% 3-6 times17% 3-6 times 57% More than 6 times57% More than 6 times 16% Haven't visited within the last year 16% Haven't visited within the last year Value Percent Responses Once orTwice 9.0%14 3-6 times 17.4%27 More than 6 times 57.4%89 Haven'tvisited within the lastyear 16.1%25 Totals: 155 5.What trail initiatives should Little Canadahave as apriority? Check all that apply: 7 Poor Fair Good Unknown/Not Applicable Responses Condition ofBuildings Count Row % 0 0.0% 25 16.2% 112 72.7% 17 11.0% 154 NaturalAreas Stewardship Count Row % 1 0.6% 25 16.2% 108 70.1% 20 13.0% 154 Mowing/Tree Trimming Count Row % 3 1.9% 20 13.0% 122 79.2% 9 5.8% 154 Parking Count Row % 5 3.2% 30 19.5% 107 69.5% 12 7.8% 154 RestroomCleanliness Count Row % 10 6.5% 34 22.2% 46 30.1% 63 41.2% 153 Signage and Information Count Row % 2 1.3% 59 38.6% 81 52.9% 11 7.2% 153 Green Infrastructure (Trails, trees, etc.) Count Row % 5 3.3% 33 21.6% 102 66.7% 13 8.5% 153 Trash Removal Count Row % 7 4.5% 30 19.5% 94 61.0% 23 14.9% 154 Security Count Row % 15 9.7% 40 26.0% 54 35.1% 45 29.2% 154 Totals TotalResponses 176 3 Poor Fair Good Unknown/Not Applicable Responses Condition ofBuildings Count Row % 0 0.0% 25 16.2% 112 72.7% 17 11.0% 154 NaturalAreas Stewardship Count Row % 1 0.6% 25 16.2% 108 70.1% 20 13.0% 154 Mowing/Tree Trimming Count Row % 3 1.9% 20 13.0% 122 79.2% 9 5.8% 154 Parking Count Row % 5 3.2% 30 19.5% 107 69.5% 12 7.8% 154 RestroomCleanliness Count Row % 10 6.5% 34 22.2% 46 30.1% 63 41.2% 153 Signage and Information Count Row % 2 1.3% 59 38.6% 81 52.9% 11 7.2% 153 Green Infrastructure (Trails, trees, etc.) Count Row % 5 3.3% 33 21.6% 102 66.7% 13 8.5% 153 Trash Removal Count Row % 7 4.5% 30 19.5% 94 61.0% 23 14.9% 154 Security Count Row % 15 9.7% 40 26.0% 54 35.1% 45 29.2% 154 Totals TotalResponses 176 3 Poor Fair Good Unknown/Not Applicable Responses Condition ofBuildings Count Row % 0 0.0% 25 16.2% 112 72.7% 17 11.0% 154 NaturalAreas Stewardship Count Row % 1 0.6% 25 16.2% 108 70.1% 20 13.0% 154 Mowing/Tree Trimming Count Row % 3 1.9% 20 13.0% 122 79.2% 9 5.8% 154 Parking Count Row % 5 3.2% 30 19.5% 107 69.5% 12 7.8% 154 RestroomCleanliness Count Row % 10 6.5% 34 22.2% 46 30.1% 63 41.2% 153 Signage and Information Count Row % 2 1.3% 59 38.6% 81 52.9% 11 7.2% 153 Green Infrastructure (Trails, trees, etc.) Count Row % 5 3.3% 33 21.6% 102 66.7% 13 8.5% 153 Trash Removal Count Row % 7 4.5% 30 19.5% 94 61.0% 23 14.9% 154 Security Count Row % 15 9.7% 40 26.0% 54 35.1% 45 29.2% 154 Totals TotalResponses 176 3 Poor Fair Good Unknown/Not Applicable Responses Condition ofBuildings Count Row % 0 0.0% 25 16.2% 112 72.7% 17 11.0% 154 NaturalAreas Stewardship Count Row % 1 0.6% 25 16.2% 108 70.1% 20 13.0% 154 Mowing/Tree Trimming Count Row % 3 1.9% 20 13.0% 122 79.2% 9 5.8% 154 Parking Count Row % 5 3.2% 30 19.5% 107 69.5% 12 7.8% 154 RestroomCleanliness Count Row % 10 6.5% 34 22.2% 46 30.1% 63 41.2% 153 Signage and Information Count Row % 2 1.3% 59 38.6% 81 52.9% 11 7.2% 153 Green Infrastructure (Trails, trees, etc.) Count Row % 5 3.3% 33 21.6% 102 66.7% 13 8.5% 153 Trash Removal Count Row % 7 4.5% 30 19.5% 94 61.0% 23 14.9% 154 Security Count Row % 15 9.7% 40 26.0% 54 35.1% 45 29.2% 154 Totals TotalResponses 176 3 Poor Fair Good Unknown/Not Applicable Responses Condition ofBuildings Count Row % 0 0.0% 25 16.2% 112 72.7% 17 11.0% 154 NaturalAreas Stewardship Count Row % 1 0.6% 25 16.2% 108 70.1% 20 13.0% 154 Mowing/Tree Trimming Count Row % 3 1.9% 20 13.0% 122 79.2% 9 5.8% 154 Parking Count Row % 5 3.2% 30 19.5% 107 69.5% 12 7.8% 154 Restroom Cleanliness Count Row % 10 6.5% 34 22.2% 46 30.1% 63 41.2% 153 Signage and Information Count Row % 2 1.3% 59 38.6% 81 52.9% 11 7.2% 153 Green Infrastructure (Trails, trees, etc.) Count Row % 5 3.3% 33 21.6% 102 66.7% 13 8.5% 153 Trash Removal Count Row % 7 4.5% 30 19.5% 94 61.0% 23 14.9% 154 Security Count Row % 15 9.7% 40 26.0% 54 35.1% 45 29.2% 154 Totals TotalResponses 176 3 Poor Fair Good Unknown/Not Applicable Responses Condition ofBuildings Count Row % 0 0.0% 25 16.2% 112 72.7% 17 11.0% 154 NaturalAreas Stewardship Count Row % 1 0.6% 25 16.2% 108 70.1% 20 13.0% 154 Mowing/Tree Trimming Count Row % 3 1.9% 20 13.0% 122 79.2% 9 5.8% 154 Parking Count Row % 5 3.2% 30 19.5% 107 69.5% 12 7.8% 154 RestroomCleanliness Count Row % 10 6.5% 34 22.2% 46 30.1% 63 41.2% 153 Signage and Information Count Row % 2 1.3% 59 38.6% 81 52.9% 11 7.2% 153 Green Infrastructure (Trails, trees, etc.) Count Row % 5 3.3% 33 21.6% 102 66.7% 13 8.5% 153 Trash Removal Count Row % 7 4.5% 30 19.5% 94 61.0% 23 14.9% 154 Security Count Row % 15 9.7% 40 26.0% 54 35.1% 45 29.2% 154 Totals TotalResponses 176 3 Poor Fair Good Unknown/Not Applicable Responses Condition ofBuildings Count Row % 0 0.0% 25 16.2% 112 72.7% 17 11.0% 154 NaturalAreas Stewardship Count Row % 1 0.6% 25 16.2% 108 70.1% 20 13.0% 154 Mowing/Tree Trimming Count Row % 3 1.9% 20 13.0% 122 79.2% 9 5.8% 154 Parking Count Row % 5 3.2% 30 19.5% 107 69.5% 12 7.8% 154 RestroomCleanliness Count Row % 10 6.5% 34 22.2% 46 30.1% 63 41.2% 153 Signage and Information Count Row % 2 1.3% 59 38.6% 81 52.9% 11 7.2% 153 Green Infrastructure (Trails, trees, etc.) Count Row % 5 3.3% 33 21.6% 102 66.7% 13 8.5% 153 Trash Removal Count Row % 7 4.5% 30 19.5% 94 61.0% 23 14.9% 154 Security Count Row % 15 9.7% 40 26.0% 54 35.1% 45 29.2% 154 Totals TotalResponses 176 3 Poor Fair Good Unknown/Not Applicable Responses Condition ofBuildings Count Row % 0 0.0% 25 16.2% 112 72.7% 17 11.0% 154 NaturalAreas Stewardship Count Row % 1 0.6% 25 16.2% 108 70.1% 20 13.0% 154 Mowing/Tree Trimming Count Row % 3 1.9% 20 13.0% 122 79.2% 9 5.8% 154 Parking Count Row % 5 3.2% 30 19.5% 107 69.5% 12 7.8% 154 RestroomCleanliness Count Row % 10 6.5% 34 22.2% 46 30.1% 63 41.2% 153 Signage and Information Count Row % 2 1.3% 59 38.6% 81 52.9% 11 7.2% 153 Green Infrastructure (Trails, trees, etc.) Count Row % 5 3.3% 33 21.6% 102 66.7% 13 8.5% 153 Trash Removal Count Row % 7 4.5% 30 19.5% 94 61.0% 23 14.9% 154 Security Count Row % 15 9.7% 40 26.0% 54 35.1% 45 29.2% 154 Totals TotalResponses 176 3 Poor Fair Good Unknown/Not Applicable Responses Condition ofBuildings Count Row % 0 0.0% 25 16.2% 112 72.7% 17 11.0% 154 NaturalAreas Stewardship Count Row % 1 0.6% 25 16.2% 108 70.1% 20 13.0% 154 Mowing/Tree Trimming Count Row % 3 1.9% 20 13.0% 122 79.2% 9 5.8% 154 Parking Count Row % 5 3.2% 30 19.5% 107 69.5% 12 7.8% 154 RestroomCleanliness Count Row % 10 6.5% 34 22.2% 46 30.1% 63 41.2% 153 Signage and Information Count Row % 2 1.3% 59 38.6% 81 52.9% 11 7.2% 153 Green Infrastructure (Trails, trees, etc.) Count Row % 5 3.3% 33 21.6% 102 66.7% 13 8.5% 153 Trash Removal Count Row % 7 4.5% 30 19.5% 94 61.0% 23 14.9% 154 Security Count Row % 15 9.7% 40 26.0% 54 35.1% 45 29.2% 154 Totals TotalRe sponses 176 3 Poor Fair Good Unknown/Not Applicable Responses Condition ofBuildings Count Row % 0 0.0% 25 16.2% 112 72.7% 17 11.0% 154 NaturalAreas Stewardship Count Row % 1 0.6% 25 16.2% 108 70.1% 20 13.0% 154 Mowing/Tree Trimming Count Row % 3 1.9% 20 13.0% 122 79.2% 9 5.8% 154 Parking Count Row % 5 3.2% 30 19.5% 107 69.5% 12 7.8% 154 RestroomCleanliness Count Row % 10 6.5% 34 22.2% 46 30.1% 63 41.2% 153 Signage and Information Count Row % 2 1.3% 59 38.6% 81 52.9% 11 7.2% 153 Green Infrastructure (Trails, trees, etc.) Count Row % 5 3.3% 33 21.6% 102 66.7% 13 8.5% 153 Trash Removal Count Row % 7 4.5% 30 19.5% 94 61.0% 23 14.9% 154 Security Count Row % 15 9.7% 40 26.0% 54 35.1% 45 29.2% 154 Totals TotalResponses 176 3 Poor Fair Good Unknown/Not Applicable Responses Condition ofBuildings Count Row % 0 0.0% 25 16.2% 112 72.7% 17 11.0% 154 NaturalAreas Stewardship Count Row % 1 0.6% 25 16.2% 108 70.1% 20 13.0% 154 Mowing/Tree Trimming Count Row % 3 1.9% 20 13.0% 122 79.2% 9 5.8% 154 Parking Count Row % 5 3.2% 30 19.5% 107 69.5% 12 7.8% 154 RestroomCleanliness Count Row % 10 6.5% 34 22.2% 46 30.1% 63 41.2% 153 Signage and Information Count Row % 2 1.3% 59 38.6% 81 52.9% 11 7.2% 153 Green Infrastructure (Trails, trees, etc .) Count Row % 5 3.3% 33 21.6% 102 66.7% 13 8.5% 153 Trash Removal Count Row % 7 4.5% 30 19.5% 94 61.0% 23 14.9% 154 Security Count Row % 15 9.7% 40 26.0% 54 35.1% 45 29.2% 154 Totals TotalResponses 176 3 Poor Fair Good Unknown/Not Applicable Responses Condition of Buildings Count Row % 0 0.0% 25 16.2% 112 72.7% 17 11.0% 154 NaturalAreas Stewardship Count Row % 1 0.6% 25 16.2% 108 70.1% 20 13.0% 154 Mowing/Tree Trimming Count Row % 3 1.9% 20 13.0% 122 79.2% 9 5.8% 154 Parking Count Row % 5 3.2% 30 19.5% 107 69.5% 12 7.8% 154 RestroomCleanliness Count Row % 10 6.5% 34 22.2% 46 30.1% 63 41.2% 153 Signage and Information Count Row % 2 1.3% 59 38.6% 81 52.9% 11 7.2% 153 Green Infrastructure (Trails, trees, etc.) Count Row % 5 3.3% 33 21.6% 102 66.7% 13 8.5% 153 Trash Removal Count Row % 7 4.5% 30 19.5% 94 61.0% 23 14.9% 154 Security Count Row % 15 9.7% 40 26.0% 54 35.1% 45 29.2% 154 Totals TotalResponses 176 3 Poor Fair Good Unknown/Not Applicable Responses Condition ofBuildings Count Row % 0 0.0% 25 16.2% 112 72.7% 17 11.0% 154 NaturalAreas Stewardship Count Row % 1 0.6% 25 16.2% 108 70.1% 20 13.0% 154 Mowing/Tree Trimming Count Row % 3 1.9% 20 13.0% 122 79.2% 9 5.8% 154 Parking Count Row % 5 3.2% 30 19.5% 107 69.5% 12 7.8% 154 RestroomCleanliness Count Row % 10 6.5% 34 22.2% 46 30.1% 63 41.2% 153 Signage and Information Count Row % 2 1.3% 59 38.6% 81 52.9% 11 7.2% 153 Green Infrastructure (Trails, trees, etc.) Count Row % 5 3.3% 33 21.6% 102 66.7% 13 8.5% 153 Trash Removal Count Row % 7 4.5% 30 19.5% 94 61.0% 23 14.9% 154 Security Count Row % 15 9.7% 40 26.0% 54 35.1% 45 29.2% 154 Totals TotalResponses 176 3 Poor Fair Good Unknown/Not Applicable Responses Condition ofBuildings Count Row % 0 0.0% 25 16.2% 112 72.7% 17 11.0% 154 Natural Areas Stewardship Count Row % 1 0.6% 25 16.2% 108 70.1% 20 13.0% 154 Mowing/Tree Trimming Count Row % 3 1.9% 20 13.0% 122 79.2% 9 5.8% 154 Parking Count Row % 5 3.2% 30 19.5% 107 69.5% 12 7.8% 154 RestroomCleanliness Count Row % 10 6.5% 34 22.2% 46 30.1% 63 41.2% 153 Signage and Information Count Row % 2 1.3% 59 38.6% 81 52.9% 11 7.2% 153 Green Infrastructure (Trails, trees, etc.) Count Row % 5 3.3% 33 21.6% 102 66.7% 13 8.5% 153 Trash Removal Count Row % 7 4.5% 30 19.5% 94 61.0% 23 14.9% 154 Se curity Count Row % 15 9.7% 40 26.0% 54 35.1% 45 29.2% 154 Totals TotalResponses 176 3 Poor Fair Good Unknown/Not Applicable Responses Condition ofBuildings Count Row % 0 0.0% 25 16.2% 112 72.7% 17 11.0% 154 NaturalAreas Stewardship Count Row % 1 0.6% 25 16.2% 108 70.1% 20 13.0% 154 Mowing/Tree Trimming Count Row % 3 1.9% 20 13.0% 122 79.2% 9 5.8% 154 Parking Count Row % 5 3.2% 30 19.5% 107 69.5% 12 7.8% 154 RestroomCleanliness Count Row % 10 6.5% 34 22.2% 46 30.1% 63 41.2% 153 Signage and Information Count Row % 2 1.3% 59 38.6% 81 52.9% 11 7.2% 153 Green Infrastructure (Trails, trees, etc.) Count Row % 5 3.3% 33 21.6% 102 66.7% 13 8.5% 153 Trash Removal Count Row % 7 4.5% 30 19.5% 94 61.0% 23 14.9% 154 Security Count Row % 15 9.7% 40 26.0% 54 35.1% 45 29.2% 154 Totals TotalResponses 176 3 Poor Fair Good Unknown/Not Applicable Responses Condition ofBuildings Count Row % 0 0.0% 25 16.2% 112 72.7% 17 11.0% 154 NaturalAreas Stewardship Count Row % 1 0.6% 25 16.2% 108 70.1% 20 13.0% 154 Mowing/Tree Trimming Count Row % 3 1.9% 20 13.0% 122 79.2% 9 5.8% 154 Parking Count Row % 5 3.2% 30 19.5% 107 69.5% 12 7.8% 154 RestroomCleanliness Count Row % 10 6.5% 34 22.2% 46 30.1% 63 41.2% 153 Signage and Information Count Row % 2 1.3% 59 38.6% 81 52.9% 11 7.2% 153 Green Infrastructure (Trails, trees, etc.) Count Row % 5 3.3% 33 21.6% 102 66.7% 13 8.5% 153 Trash Removal Count Row % 7 4.5% 30 19.5% 94 61.0% 23 14.9% 154 Security Count Row % 15 9.7% 40 26.0% 54 35.1% 45 29.2% 154 Totals TotalResponses 176 3 Poor Fair Good Unknown/Not Applicable Responses Condition ofBuildings Count Row % 0 0.0% 25 16.2% 112 72.7% 17 11.0% 154 NaturalAreas Stewardship Count Row % 1 0.6% 25 16.2% 108 70.1% 20 13.0% 154 Mowing/Tree Trimming Count Row % 3 1.9% 20 13.0% 122 79.2% 9 5.8% 154 Parking Count Row % 5 3.2% 30 19.5% 107 69.5% 12 7.8% 154 RestroomCleanliness Count Row % 10 6.5% 34 22.2% 46 30.1% 63 41.2% 153 Signage and Information Count Row % 2 1.3% 59 38.6% 81 52.9% 11 7.2% 153 Green Infrastructure (Trails, trees, etc.) Count Row % 5 3.3% 33 21.6% 102 66.7% 13 8.5% 153 Trash Removal Count Row % 7 4.5% 30 19.5% 94 61.0% 23 14.9% 154 Security Count Row % 15 9.7% 40 26.0% 54 35.1% 45 29.2% 154 Totals TotalResponses 176 3 Poor Fair Good Unknown/Not Applicable Responses Condition ofBuildings Count Row % 0 0.0% 25 16.2% 112 72.7% 17 11.0% 154 NaturalAreas Stewardship Count Row % 1 0.6% 25 16.2% 108 70.1% 20 13.0% 154 Mowing/Tree Trimming Count Row % 3 1.9% 20 13.0% 122 79.2% 9 5.8% 154 Parking Count Row % 5 3.2% 30 19.5% 107 69.5% 12 7.8% 154 RestroomCleanliness Count Row % 10 6.5% 34 22.2% 46 30.1% 63 41.2% 153 Signage and Information Count Row % 2 1.3% 59 38.6% 81 52.9% 11 7.2% 153 Green Infrastructure (Trails, trees, etc.) Count Row % 5 3.3% 33 21.6% 102 66.7% 13 8.5% 153 Trash Removal Count Row % 7 4.5% 30 19.5% 94 61.0% 23 14.9% 154 Security Count Row % 15 9.7% 40 26.0% 54 35.1% 45 29.2% 154 Totals TotalResponses 176 3 Poor Fair Good Unknown/Not Applicable Responses Condition ofBuildings Count Row % 0 0.0% 25 16.2% 112 72.7% 17 11.0% 154 NaturalAreas Stewardship Count Row % 1 0.6% 25 16.2% 108 70.1% 20 13.0% 154 Mowing/Tree Trimming Count Row % 3 1.9% 20 13.0% 122 79.2% 9 5.8% 154 Parking Count Row % 5 3.2% 30 19.5% 107 69.5% 12 7.8% 154 RestroomCleanliness Count Row % 10 6.5% 34 22.2% 46 30.1% 63 41.2% 153 Signage and Information Count Row % 2 1.3% 59 38.6% 81 52.9% 11 7.2% 153 Green Infrastructure (Trails, trees, etc.) Count Row % 5 3.3% 33 21.6% 102 66.7% 13 8.5% 153 Trash Removal Count Row % 7 4.5% 30 19.5% 94 61.0% 23 14.9% 154 Security Count Row % 15 9.7% 40 26.0% 54 35.1% 45 29.2% 154 Totals TotalResponses 176 3 hoW do you rate the quality of operation and maintenance of the little canada parks and/or facilities? (most respondents rate the quality of operations and maintenance as good) 142 CITY OF LITTLE CANADA - PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN99PercentConnection to Gateway Trail Connection to Keller/Phalen Regional Park Connection to Snail Lake Regional Park Connection to Lake Vadnais Park and Trails (via new bridge over 694) Pedestrian/Bike Crossing over 35E 0 10 2030405060 Value Percent Responses Connection to Gateway Trail 55.0%77 Connection to Keller/Phalen RegionalPark 42.9%60 Connection to SnailLake RegionalPark 31.4%44 Connection to Lake Vadnais Parkand Trails (via new bridge over694) 52.9%74 Pedestrian/Bike Crossing over 35E 52.9%74 6.Rate the OVERALL QUALITYof recreational opportunities made available to Little Canadaresidents. 8PercentConnection to Gateway Trail Connection to Keller/Phalen Regional Park Connection to Snail Lake Regional Park Connection to Lake Vadnais Park and Trails (via new bridge over 694) Pedestrian/Bike Crossing over 35E 0 10 2030405060 Value Percent Responses Connection to Gateway Trail 55.0%77 Connection to Keller/Phalen RegionalPark 42.9%60 Connection to SnailLake RegionalPark 31.4%44 Connection to Lake Vadnais Parkand Trails (via new bridge over 694) 52.9%74 Pedestrian/Bike Crossing over35E 52.9%74 6.Rate the OVERALL QUALITYof recreational opportunities made available to Little Canadaresidents. 8PercentConnection to Gateway Trail Connection to Keller/Phalen Regional Park Connection to Snail Lake Regional Park Connection to Lake Vadnais Park and Trails (via new bridge over 694) Pedestrian/Bike Crossing over 35E 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Value Percent Responses Connection to Gateway Trail 55.0%77 Connection to Keller/Phalen RegionalPark 42.9%60 Connection to Snail Lake Regional Park 31.4%44 Connection to Lake Vadnais Parkand Trails (via new bridge over694) 52.9%74 Pedestrian/Bike Crossing over35E 52.9%74 6.Rate the OVERALL QUALITYof recreational opportunities made available to Little Canadaresidents. 8PercentConnection to Gateway Trail Connection to Keller/Phalen Regional Park Connection to Snail Lake Regional Park Connection to Lake Vadnais Park and Trails (via new bridge over 694) Pedestrian/Bike Crossing over 35E 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Value Percent Responses Connection to Gateway Trail 55.0%77 Connection to Keller/Phalen Regional Park 42.9%60 Connection to SnailLake RegionalPark 31.4%44 Connection to Lake Vadnais Parkand Trails (via new bridge over694) 52.9%74 Pedestrian/Bike Crossing over35E 52.9%74 6.Rate the OVERALL QUALITYof recreational opportunities made available to Little Canadaresidents. 8PercentConnection to Gateway Trail Connection to Keller/Phalen Regional Park Connection to Snail Lake Regional Park Connection to Lake Vadnais Park and Trails (via new bridge over 694) Pedestrian/Bike Crossing over 35E 0 10 20 30 405060 Value Percent Responses Connection to Gateway Trail 55.0%77 Connection to Keller/Phalen RegionalPark 42.9%60 Connection to SnailLake RegionalPark 31.4%44 Connection to Lake Vadnais Parkand Trails (via new bridge over694) 52.9%74 Pedestrian/Bike Crossing over35E 52.9%74 6.Rate the OVERALL QUALITYof recreational opportunities made available to Little Canadaresidents. 8 What trail initiatives should little canada have as a priority? check all that apply: (most respondents rate connection to gateWay trail, lake vadnais park, and 35e crossing as priorities) rate the overall quality of recreational opportunities made available to little canada residents. 3% Poor3% Poor 29% Fair29% Fair 59% Good59% Good 10% Don't Know10% Don't Know Value Percent Responses Poor 2.6%4 Fair 28.6%44 Good 59.1%91 Don'tKnow 9.7%15 Totals: 154 7.Indicate whichof the following activities,programs orfacilities should be priorities inthe future.Check all that apply: 9 3% Poor3% Poor 29% Fair29% Fair 59% Good59% Good 10% Don't Know10% Don't Know Value Percent Responses Poor 2.6%4 Fair 28.6%44 Good 59.1%91 Don'tKnow 9.7%15 Totals: 154 7.Indicate whichof the following activities,programs orfacilities should be priorities inthe future.Check all that apply: 9 3% Poor3% Poor 29% Fair29% Fair 59% Good59% Good 10% Don't Know10% Don't Know Value Percent Responses Poor 2.6%4 Fair 28.6%44 Good 59.1%91 Don'tKnow 9.7%15 Totals: 154 7.Indicate whichof the following activities,programs orfacilities should be priorities inthe future.Check all that apply: 9 3% Poor3% Poor 29% Fair29% Fair 59% Good59% Good 10% Don't Know10% Don't Know Value Percent Responses Poor 2.6%4 Fair 28.6%44 Good 59.1%91 Don't Know 9.7%15 Totals: 154 7.Indicate whichof the following activities,programs orfacilities should be priorities inthe future.Check all that apply: 9 (most respondents rate the quality of recreational opportunities as good) 143 APPENDIX B 100 indicate Which of the folloWing activities, programs or facilities should be priorities in the future. check all that apply: PercentAdopt-A-Park/PreserveCultural/HistoricalProgramsHealth and Wellness ClassesOutdoor FitnessRunning/JoggingSwimming-Pool (Indoor)Ultimate FrisbeeBicycling-RoadDanceFitness ClassesHiking/WalkingRoller Skating/BladingSkiing-Cross CountryTennisBasketballDay CampFootballPicnickingSenior ProgramsSports TournamentsVolunteer OpportunitiesAdult Education Classes/Community Education ClassesTrail LightingConnection to Regional Trails/ParksPark Shelter RentalsLacrosse0 50 25 75 Value Percent Responses Adopt-A-Park/Preserve 16.9%25 Canoeing/Kayaking 16.9%25 Cultural/HistoricalPrograms 14.2%21 DirtBiking/Jump Courses 4.7%7 Health and Wellness Classes 23.6%35 Ice Arena 14.9%22 OutdoorFitness 16.9%25 Recreation and Exercise Club 13.5%20 Running/Jogging 17.6%26 Soccer 13.5%20 Swimming-Pool (Indoor)27.0%40 Swimming-Pool(Outdoor)22.3%33 10 Ultimate Frisbee 10.1%15 Baseball 17.6%26 Bicycling-Road 27.0%40 Children's SpecialEvents 22.3%33 Dance 8.1%12 Disc Golf 8.1%12 Fitness Classes 18.9%28 Geocaching 12.8%19 Hiking/Walking 55.4%82 Playgrounds 32.4%48 RollerSkating/Blading 6.8%10 School-Based Program 8.8%13 Skiing-Cross Country 12.2%18 Softball 18.2%27 Tennis 12.2%18 Volleyball 10.8%16 Basketball 12.2%18 Camping 6.1%9 Day Camp 10.1%15 Dog Park-OffLeash 29.1%43 Football 4.7%7 Value Percent Responses 11 Ultimate Frisbee 10.1%15 Baseball 17.6%26 Bicycling-Road 27.0%40 Children's SpecialEvents 22.3%33 Dance 8.1%12 Disc Golf 8.1%12 Fitness Classes 18.9%28 Geocaching 12.8%19 Hiking/Walking 55.4%82 Playgrounds 32.4%48 RollerSkating/Blading 6.8%10 School-Based Program 8.8%13 Skiing-Cross Country 12.2%18 Softball 18.2%27 Tennis 12.2%18 Volleyball 10.8%16 Basketball 12.2%18 Camping 6.1%9 Day Camp 10.1%15 Dog Park-OffLeash 29.1%43 Football 4.7%7 Value Percent Responses 11 Ultimate Frisbee 10.1%15 Baseball 17.6%26 Bicycling-Road 27.0%40 Children's SpecialEvents 22.3%33 Dance 8.1%12 Disc Golf 8.1%12 Fitness Classes 18.9%28 Geocaching 12.8%19 Hiking/Walking 55.4%82 Playgrounds 32.4%48 RollerSkating/Blading 6.8%10 School-Based Program 8.8%13 Skiing-Cross Country 12.2%18 Softball 18.2%27 Tennis 12.2%18 Volleyball 10.8%16 Basketball 12.2%18 Camping 6.1%9 Day Camp 10.1%15 Dog Park-Off Leash 29.1%43 Football 4.7%7 Value Percent Responses 11 Nature Programs 22.3%33 Picnicking 25.7%38 Rowing/Kayaking 8.1%12 SeniorPrograms 33.1%49 Sledding 15.5%23 Sports Tournaments 7.4%11 Therapeutic Recreation 9.5%14 VolunteerOpportunities 22.3%33 Splash Pad 22.3%33 AdultEducation Classes/Community Education Classes 29.1%43 Benches/Sitting Area 29.7%44 Trail Lighting 35.8%53 Town Square (Community Gathering Area)Rice/Little Canada Rd. 21.6%32 Connection to RegionalTrails/Parks 47.3%70 Nature Areas 36.5%54 ParkShelterRentals 23.6%35 Hockey 10.8%16 Lacrosse 4.7%7 Other- Write:8.1%12 Value Percent Responses 12 Nature Programs 22.3%33 Picnicking 25.7%38 Rowing/Kayaking 8.1%12 SeniorPrograms 33.1%49 Sledding 15.5%23 Sports Tournaments 7.4%11 Therapeutic Recreation 9.5%14 VolunteerOpportunities 22.3%33 Splash Pad 22.3%33 AdultEducation Classes/Community Education Classes 29.1%43 Benches/Sitting Area 29.7%44 TrailLighting 35.8%53 Town Square (Community Gathering Area)Rice/Little Canada Rd. 21.6%32 Connection to RegionalTrails/Parks 47.3%70 Nature Areas 36.5%54 ParkShelterRentals 23.6%35 Hockey 10.8%16 Lacrosse 4.7%7 Other- Write:8.1%12 Value Percent Responses 12 Nature Programs 22.3%33 Picnicking 25.7%38 Rowing/Kayaking 8.1%12 Senior Programs 33.1%49 Sledding 15.5%23 Sports Tournaments 7.4%11 Therapeutic Recreation 9.5%14 VolunteerOpportunities 22.3%33 Splash Pad 22.3%33 AdultEducation Classes/Community Education Classes 29.1%43 Benches/Sitting Area 29.7%44 TrailLighting 35.8%53 Town Square (Community Gathering Area)Rice/Little Canada Rd. 21.6%32 Connection to RegionalTrails/Parks 47.3%70 Nature Areas 36.5%54 ParkShelterRentals 23.6%35 Hockey 10.8%16 Lacrosse 4.7%7 Other- Write:8.1%12 Value Percent Responses 12 Nature Programs 22.3%33 Picnicking 25.7%38 Rowing/Kayaking 8.1%12 SeniorPrograms 33.1%49 Sledding 15.5%23 Sports Tournaments 7.4%11 Therapeutic Recreation 9.5%14 VolunteerOpportunities 22.3%33 Splash Pad 22.3%33 Adult Education Classes/Community Education Classes 29.1%43 Benches/Sitting Area 29.7%44 TrailLighting 35.8%53 Town Square (Community Gathering Area)Rice/Little Canada Rd. 21.6%32 Connection to RegionalTrails/Parks 47.3%70 Nature Areas 36.5%54 ParkShelterRentals 23.6%35 Hockey 10.8%16 Lacrosse 4.7%7 Other- Write:8.1%12 Value Percent Responses 12 Nature Programs 22.3%33 Picnicking 25.7%38 Rowing/Kayaking 8.1%12 SeniorPrograms 33.1%49 Sledding 15.5%23 Sports Tournaments 7.4%11 Therapeutic Recreation 9.5%14 VolunteerOpportunities 22.3%33 Splash Pad 22.3%33 AdultEducation Classes/Community Education Classes 29.1%43 Benches/Sitting Area 29.7%44 TrailLighting 35.8%53 Town Square (Community Gathering Area)Rice/Little Canada Rd. 21.6%32 Connection to RegionalTrails/Parks 47.3%70 Nature Areas 36.5%54 ParkShelterRentals 23.6%35 Hockey 10.8%16 Lacrosse 4.7%7 Other- Write:8.1%12 Value Percent Responses 12 Nature Programs 22.3%33Picnicking25.7%38Rowing/Kayaking 8.1%12SeniorPrograms33.1%49 Sledding 15.5%23 Sports Tournaments 7.4%11 Therapeutic Recreation 9.5%14 VolunteerOpportunities 22.3%33 Splash Pad 22.3%33 AdultEducation Classes/Community Education Classes 29.1%43 Benches/Sitting Area 29.7%44 TrailLighting 35.8%53 Town Square (Community Gathering Area)Rice/Little Canada Rd. 21.6%32 Connection to RegionalTrails/Parks 47.3%70 Nature Areas 36.5%54 ParkShelterRentals 23.6%35 Hockey 10.8%16 Lacrosse 4.7%7 Other- Write:8.1%12 Value Percent Responses 12 Nature Programs 22.3%33Picnicking25.7%38Rowing/Kayaking 8.1%12SeniorPrograms33.1%49Sledding15.5%23 Sports Tournaments 7.4%11 Therapeutic Recreation 9.5%14 VolunteerOpportunities 22.3%33 Splash Pad 22.3%33 AdultEducation Classes/Community Education Classes 29.1%43 Benches/Sitting Area 29.7%44 TrailLighting 35.8%53 Town Square (Community Gathering Area)Rice/Little Canada Rd. 21.6%32 Connection to Regional Trails/Parks 47.3%70 Nature Areas 36.5%54 ParkShelterRentals 23.6%35 Hockey 10.8%16 Lacrosse 4.7%7 Other- Write:8.1%12 Value Percent Responses 12 Ultimate Frisbee 10.1%15 Baseball 17.6%26 Bicycling-Road 27.0%40 Children's SpecialEvents 22.3%33 Dance 8.1%12 Disc Golf 8.1%12 Fitness Classes 18.9%28 Geocaching 12.8%19 Hiking/Walking 55.4%82 Playgrounds 32.4%48 RollerSkating/Blading 6.8%10 School-Based Program 8.8%13 Skiing-Cross Country 12.2%18 Softball 18.2%27 Tennis 12.2%18 Volleyball 10.8%16 Basketball 12.2%18 Camping 6.1%9 Day Camp 10.1%15 Dog Park-OffLeash 29.1%43 Football 4.7%7 Value Percent Responses 11 (top 12 out of 51) 80% Yes80% Yes 20% No20% No Value Percent Responses Yes 80.4%123 No 19.6%30 Totals: 153 9.Should Little Canadaparks have WiFi (wireless internet access)? 14 if roseville community education courses Were offered at a location Within little canada, Would you be interested? 144 CITY OF LITTLE CANADA - PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN101 should little canada parks have Wifi? 60% Yes60% Yes 40% No40% No Value Percent Responses Yes 60.3%91 No 39.7%60 Totals: 151 10.Whichinitiatives should the Cityof Little Canadaprioritize for future implementation? Check all that apply: 15PercentAcquire land for futurepark/nature areadevelopmentMaintain and enhance existing facilitiesDevelop more active recreation opportunities (lacrosse, run club,kayaking, flag football)Develop more passive recreation opportunities (hiking, book club, etc.)Develop more indoor recreation facilities (recreation center, active field complex,etc.)Nature preservation areasNature or historical programmingTrailconnections0 100 Value Percent Responses Acquire land forfuture park/nature area development 28.9%43 Maintain and enhance existing facilities 75.2%112 Develop more active recreation opportunities (lacrosse, run club, kayaking, flag football) 23.5%35 Develop more passive recreation opportunities (hiking, book club, etc.) 26.8%40 Develop more indoorrecreation facilities (recreation center, active field complex, etc.) 24.8%37 Nature preservation areas 43.6%65 Nature or historical programming 20.8%31 Trailconnections 63.8%95 16PercentAcquire land for futurepark/nature areadevelopmentMaintain and enhance existing facilitiesDevelop more active recreation opportunities (lacrosse, run club,kayaking, flag football)Develop more passive recreation opportunities (hiking, book club, etc.)Develop more indoor recreation facilities (recreation center, active field complex,etc.)Nature preservation areasNature or historical programmingTrailconnections0 100 Value Percent Responses Acquire land forfuture park/nature area development 28.9%43 Maintain and enhance existing facilities 75.2%112 Develop more active recreation opportunities (lacrosse, run club, kayaking, flag football) 23.5%35 Develop more passive recreation opportunities (hiking, book club, etc.) 26.8%40 Develop more indoor recreation facilities (recreation center, active field complex, etc.) 24.8%37 Nature preservation areas 43.6%65 Nature orhistoricalprogramming 20.8%31 Trailconnections 63.8%95 16PercentAcquire land for futurepark/nature areadevelopmentMaintain and enhance existing facilitiesDevelop more active recreation opportunities (lacrosse, run club,kayaking, flag football)Develop more passive recreation opportunities (hiking, book club, etc.)Develop more indoor recreation facilities (recreation center, active field complex,etc.)Nature preservation areasNature or historical programmingTrailconnections0 100 Value Percent Responses Acquire land forfuture park/nature area development 28.9%43 Maintain and enhance existing facilities 75.2%112 Develop more active recreation opportunities (lacrosse, run club, kayaking, flag football) 23.5%35 Develop more passive recreation opportunities (hiking, book club, etc.) 26.8%40 Develop more indoorrecreation facilities (recreation center, active field complex, etc.) 24.8%37 Nature preservation areas 43.6%65 Nature orhistoricalprogramming 20.8%31 Trailconnections 63.8%95 16PercentAcquire land for futurepark/nature areadevelopmentMaintain and enhance existing facilitiesDevelop more active recreation opportunities (lacrosse, run club,kayaking, flag football)Develop more passive recreation opportunities (hiking, book club, etc.)Develop more indoor recreation facilities (recreation center, active field complex,etc.)Nature preservation areasNature or historical programmingTrailconnections0 100 Value Percent Responses Acquire land forfuture park/nature area development 28.9%43 Maintain and enhance existing facilities 75.2%112 Develop more active recreation opportunities (lacrosse, run club, kayaking, flag football) 23.5%35 Develop more passive recreation opportunities (hiking, book club, etc.) 26.8%40 Develop more indoorrecreation facilities (recreation center, active field complex, etc.) 24.8%37 Nature preservation areas 43.6%65 Nature orhistoricalprogramming 20.8%31 Trailconnections 63.8%95 16PercentAcquire land for futurepark/nature areadevelopmentMaintain and enhance existing facilitiesDevelop more active recreation opportunities (lacrosse, run club,kayaking, flag football)Develop more passive recreation opportunities (hiking, book club, etc.)Develop more indoor recreation facilities (recreation center, active field complex,etc.)Nature preservation areasNature or historical programmingTrailconnections0 100 Value Percent Responses Acquire land for future park/nature area development 28.9%43 Maintain and enhance existing facilities 75.2%112 Develop more active recreation opportunities (lacrosse, run club, kayaking, flag football) 23.5%35 Develop more passive recreation opportunities (hiking, book club, etc.) 26.8%40 Develop more indoorrecreation facilities (recreation center, active field complex, etc.) 24.8%37 Nature preservation areas 43.6%65 Nature orhistoricalprogramming 20.8%31 Trailconnections 63.8%95 16PercentAcquire land for futurepark/nature areadevelopmentMaintain and enhance existing facilitiesDevelop more active recreation opportunities (lacrosse, run club,kayaking, flag football)Develop more passive recreation opportunities (hiking, book club, etc.)Develop more indoor recreation facilities (recreation center, active field complex,etc.)Nature preservation areasNature or historical programmingTrailconnections0 100 Value Percent Responses Acquire land forfuture park/nature area development 28.9%43 Maintain and enhance existing facilities 75.2%112 Develop more active recreation opportunities (lacrosse, run club, kayaking, flag football) 23.5%35 Develop more passive recreation opportunities (hiking, book club, etc.) 26.8%40 Develop more indoorrecreation facilities (recreation center, active field complex, etc.) 24.8%37 Nature preservation areas 43.6%65 Nature orhistoricalprogramming 20.8%31 Trailconnections 63.8%95 16PercentAcquire land for futurepark/nature areadevelopmentMaintain and enhance existing facilitiesDevelop more active recreation opportunities (lacrosse, run club,kayaking, flag football)Develop more passive recreation opportunities (hiking, book club, etc.)Develop more indoor recreation facilities (recreation center, active field complex,etc.)Nature preservation areasNature or historical programmingTrailconnections0 100 Value Percent Responses Acquire land forfuture park/nature area development 28.9%43 Maintain and enhance existing facilities 75.2%112 Develop more active recreation opportunities (lacrosse, run club, kayaking, flag football) 23.5%35 Develop more passive recreation opportunities (hiking, book club, etc.) 26.8%40 Develop more indoorrecreation facilities (recreation center, active field complex, etc.) 24.8%37 Nature preservation areas 43.6%65 Nature orhistoricalprogramming 20.8%31 Trail connections 63.8%95 16PercentAcquire land for futurepark/nature areadevelopmentMaintain and enhance existing facilitiesDevelop more active recreation opportunities (lacrosse, run club,kayaking, flag football)Develop more passive recreation opportunities (hiking, book club, etc.)Develop more indoor recreation facilities (recreation center, active field complex,etc.)Nature preservation areasNature or historical programmingTrailconnections0 100 Value Percent Responses Acquire land forfuture park/nature area development 28.9%43 Maintain and enhance existing facilities 75.2%112 Develop more active recreation opportunities (lacrosse, run club, kayaking, flag football) 23.5%35 Develop more passive recreation opportunities (hiking, book club, etc.) 26.8%40 Develop more indoorrecreation facilities (recreation center, active field complex, etc.) 24.8%37 Nature preservation areas 43.6%65 Nature orhistoricalprogramming 20.8%31 Trailconnections 63.8%95 16 Which initiatives should the city of little canada prioritize for future implementation? check all that apply: (most respondents think maintaining and enhancing exist- ing features should be the top priority for future implementation) 145 APPENDIX B 102 11.Howdo youobtaininformationabout Little Canadaparks and recreationfacilities? Check all that apply:PercentSocial Media Website Newsletter Word-of-Mouth Channel 16 Other: 0 20 40 60 80 Value Percent Responses SocialMedia 52.3%80 Website 61.4%94 Newsletter 75.8%116 Word-of-Mouth 36.6%56 Channel16 5.2%8 Other:2.6%4 17 hoW do you obtain information about little canada parks and recreation facilities? check all that apply: Poor Fair Good N/A - Don't Use Website Responses Facility overview/amenities Count Row % 3 2.0% 47 31.5% 48 32.2% 51 34.2% 149 Facility hours, locations and/or fees Count Row % 3 2.0% 37 24.8% 62 41.6% 47 31.5% 149 Maps Count Row % 7 4.8% 31 21.2% 49 33.6% 59 40.4% 146 RegisterforPrograms Count Row % 2 1.4% 27 18.6% 35 24.1% 81 55.9% 145 RentalOpportunities (shelters/old fire hall) Count Row % 4 2.8% 19 13.3% 23 16.1% 97 67.8% 143 Search forevents/programs Count Row % 3 2.0% 39 26.4% 58 39.2% 48 32.4% 14 8 Totals TotalResponses 176 13.The current utilizationof paved shoulders on: 19 Poor Fair Good N/A-Don't Use Website Responses Facility overview/amenities Count Row % 3 2.0% 47 31.5% 48 32.2% 51 34.2% 149 Facility hours, locations and/or fees Count Row % 3 2.0% 37 24.8% 62 41.6% 47 31.5% 149 Maps Count Row % 7 4.8% 31 21.2% 49 33.6% 59 40.4% 146 RegisterforPrograms Count Row % 2 1.4% 27 18.6% 35 24.1% 81 55.9% 145 RentalOpportunities (shelters/old fire hall) Count Row % 4 2.8% 19 13.3% 23 16.1% 97 67.8% 143 Search for events/programs Count Row % 3 2.0% 39 26.4% 58 39.2% 48 32.4% 148 Totals TotalResponses 176 13.The current utilizationof paved shoulders on: 19 Poor Fair Good N/A-Don't Use Website Responses Facility overview/amenities Count Row % 3 2.0% 47 31.5% 48 32.2% 51 34.2% 149 Facility hours, locations and/or fees Count Row % 3 2.0% 37 24.8% 62 41.6% 47 31.5% 149 Maps Count Row % 7 4.8% 31 21.2% 49 33.6% 59 40.4% 146 RegisterforPrograms Count Row % 2 1.4% 27 18.6% 35 24.1% 81 55.9% 145 RentalOpportunities (shelters/old fire hall) Count Row % 4 2.8% 19 13.3% 23 16.1% 97 67.8% 143 Search forevents/programs Coun t Row % 3 2.0% 39 26.4% 58 39.2% 48 32.4% 148 Totals TotalResponses 176 13.The current utilizationof paved shoulders on: 19 Poor Fair Good N/A-Don't Use Website Responses Facility overview/amenities Count Row % 3 2.0% 47 31.5% 48 32.2% 51 34.2% 149 Facility hours, locations and/or fees Count Row % 3 2.0% 37 24.8% 62 41.6% 47 31.5% 149 Maps Count Row % 7 4.8% 31 21.2% 49 33.6% 59 40.4% 146 RegisterforPrograms Count Row % 2 1.4% 27 18.6% 35 24.1% 81 55.9% 145 Rental Opportunities (shelters/old fire hall) Count Row % 4 2.8% 19 13.3% 23 16.1% 97 67.8% 143 Search forevents/programs Count Row % 3 2.0% 39 26.4% 58 39.2% 48 32.4% 148 Totals TotalResponses 176 13.The current utilizationof paved shoulders on: 19 Poor Fair Good N/A-Don't Use Website Responses Facility overview/amenities Count Row % 3 2.0% 47 31.5% 48 32.2% 51 34.2% 149 Facility hours, locations and/or fees Count Row % 3 2.0% 37 24.8% 62 41.6% 47 31.5% 149 Maps Count Row % 7 4.8% 31 21.2% 49 33.6% 59 40.4% 146 RegisterforPrograms Count Row % 2 1.4% 27 18.6% 35 24.1% 81 55.9% 145 RentalOpportunities (shelters/old fire hall) Count Row % 4 2.8% 19 13.3% 23 16.1% 97 67.8% 143 Search forevents/programs Count Row % 3 2.0% 39 26.4% 58 39.2% 48 32.4% 148 Totals TotalResponses 176 13.The current utilizationof paved shoulders on: 19 Poor Fair Good N/A-Don't Use Website Responses Facility overview/amenities Count Row % 3 2.0% 47 31.5% 48 32.2% 51 34.2% 149 Facility hours, locations and/or fees Count Row % 3 2.0% 37 24.8% 62 41.6% 47 31.5% 149 Maps Count Row % 7 4.8% 31 21.2% 49 33.6% 59 40.4% 146 Register for Programs Count Row % 2 1.4% 27 18.6% 35 24.1% 81 55.9% 145 RentalOpportunities (shelters/old fire hall) Count Row % 4 2.8% 19 13.3% 23 16.1% 97 67.8% 143 Search forevents/programs Count Row % 3 2.0% 39 26.4% 58 39.2% 48 32.4% 148 Totals TotalResponses 176 13.The current utilizationof paved shoulders on: 19 Poor Fair Good N/A-Don't Use Website Responses Facility overview/amenities Count Row % 3 2.0% 47 31.5% 48 32.2% 51 34.2% 149 Facility hours, locations and/or fees Count Row % 3 2.0% 37 24.8% 62 41.6% 47 31.5% 149 Maps Count Row % 7 4.8% 31 21.2% 49 33.6% 59 40.4% 146 RegisterforPrograms Count Row % 2 1.4% 27 18.6% 35 24.1% 81 55.9% 145 RentalOpportunities (shelters/old fire hall) Count Row % 4 2.8% 19 13.3% 23 16.1% 97 67.8% 143 Search forevents/programs Count Row % 3 2.0% 39 26.4% 58 39.2% 48 32.4% 148 Totals TotalResponses 176 13.The current utilizationof paved shoulders on: 19 Poor Fair Good N/A-Don't Use Website Responses Facility overview/amenities Count Row % 3 2.0% 47 31.5% 48 32.2% 51 34.2% 149 Facility hours, locations and/or fees Count Row % 3 2.0% 37 24.8% 62 41.6% 47 31.5% 149 Maps Count Row % 7 4.8% 31 21.2% 49 33.6% 59 40.4% 146 RegisterforPrograms Count Row % 2 1.4% 27 18.6% 35 24.1% 81 55.9% 145 RentalOpportunities (shelters/old fire hall) Count Row % 4 2.8% 19 13.3% 23 16.1% 97 67.8% 143 Search forevents/programs Count Row % 3 2.0% 39 26.4% 58 39.2% 48 32.4% 148 Totals TotalResponses 176 13.The current utilizationof paved shoulders on: 19 Poor Fair Good N/A-Don't Use Website Responses Facility overview/amenities Count Row % 3 2.0% 47 31.5% 48 32.2% 51 34.2% 149 Facility hours, locations and/or fees Count Row % 3 2.0% 37 24.8% 62 41.6% 47 31.5% 149 Maps Count Row % 7 4.8% 31 21.2% 49 33.6% 59 40.4% 146 RegisterforPrograms Count Row % 2 1.4% 27 18.6% 35 24.1% 81 55.9% 145 RentalOpportunities (shelters/old fire hall) Count Row % 4 2.8% 19 13.3% 23 16.1% 97 67.8% 143 Search forevents/programs Count Row % 3 2.0% 39 26.4% 58 39.2% 48 32.4% 148 Totals TotalResponses 176 13.The current utilizationof paved shoulders on: 19 Poor Fair Good N/A-Don't Use Website Responses Facility overview/amenities Count Row % 3 2.0% 47 31.5% 48 32.2% 51 34.2% 149 Facility hours, locations and/or fees Count Row % 3 2.0% 37 24.8% 62 41.6% 47 31.5% 149 Maps Count Row % 7 4.8% 31 21.2% 49 33.6% 59 40.4% 146 RegisterforPrograms Count Row % 2 1.4% 27 18.6% 35 24.1% 81 55.9% 145 RentalOpportunities (shelters/old fire hall) Count Row % 4 2.8% 19 13.3% 23 16.1% 97 67.8% 143 Search forevents/programs Count Row % 3 2.0% 39 26.4% 58 39.2% 48 32.4% 148 Totals TotalResponses 176 13.The current utilizationof paved shoulders on: 19 Poor Fair Good N/A-Don't Use Website Responses Facility overview/amenities Count Row % 3 2.0% 47 31.5% 48 32.2% 51 34.2% 149 Facility hours, locations and/or fees Count Row % 3 2.0% 37 24.8% 62 41.6% 47 31.5% 149 Maps Count Row % 7 4.8% 31 21.2% 49 33.6% 59 40.4% 146 RegisterforPrograms Count Row % 2 1.4% 27 18.6% 35 24.1% 81 55.9% 145 RentalOpportunities (shelters/old fire hall) Count Row % 4 2.8% 19 13.3% 23 16.1% 97 67.8% 143 Search forevents/programs Count Row % 3 2.0% 39 26.4% 58 39.2% 48 32.4% 148 Totals TotalResponses 176 13.The current utilizationof paved shoulders on: 19 Poor Fair Good N/A-Don't Use Website Responses Facility overview/amenities Count Row % 3 2.0% 47 31.5% 48 32.2% 51 34.2% 149 Facility hours, locations and/or fees Count Row % 3 2.0% 37 24.8% 62 41.6% 47 31.5% 149 Maps Count Row % 7 4.8% 31 21.2% 49 33.6% 59 40.4% 146 RegisterforPrograms Count Row % 2 1.4% 27 18.6% 35 24.1% 81 55.9% 145 RentalOpportunities (shelters/old fire hall) Count Row % 4 2.8% 19 13.3% 23 16.1% 97 67.8% 143 Search forevents/programs Count Row % 3 2.0% 39 26.4% 58 39.2% 48 32.4% 148 Totals TotalResponses 176 13.The current utilizationof paved shoulders on: 19 Poor Fair Good N/A-Don't Use Website Responses Facility overview/amenities Count Row % 3 2.0% 47 31.5% 48 32.2% 51 34.2% 149 Facility hours, locations and/or fees Count Row % 3 2.0% 37 24.8% 62 41.6% 47 31.5% 149 Maps Count Row % 7 4.8% 31 21.2% 49 33.6% 59 40.4% 146 RegisterforPrograms Count Row % 2 1.4% 27 18.6% 35 24.1% 81 55.9% 145 RentalOpportunities (shelters/old fire hall) Count Row % 4 2.8% 19 13.3% 23 16.1% 97 67.8% 143 Search forevents/programs Count Row % 3 2.0% 39 26.4% 58 39.2% 48 32.4% 148 Totals TotalResponses 176 13.The current utilizationof paved shoulders on: 19 if you have used the city’s Website for any of the folloWing, rate your experi- ence. (many respondants do not utilize the Website as anticipated) 146 CITY OF LITTLE CANADA - PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN103 the current utilization of paved shoulders on: is Acceptable is Unacceptable Responses Edgerton StreetforPedestrians Count Row % 66 48.9% 69 51.1% 135 Edgerton StreetforBicyclists Count Row % 80 59.7% 54 40.3% 134 Labore Road forPedestrians Count Row % 68 52.3% 62 47.7% 130 Labore Road forBicyclists Count Row % 81 62.3% 49 37.7% 130 KellerParkway forPedestrians Count Row % 59 46.5% 68 53.5% 127 KellerParkway forBicyclists Count Row % 71 55.9% 56 44.1% 127 Arcade StreetforPedestrians Count Row % 79 65.8% 41 34.2% 120 Aracde StreetforBicyclists Count Row % 88 75.2% 29 24.8% 117 McMenemy StreetforPedestrians Count Row % 85 74.6% 29 25.4% 114 McMenemy StreetforBicyclists Count Row % 93 82.3% 20 17.7% 113 Totals TotalResponses 176 20 is Acceptable is Unacceptable Responses Edgerton Street for Pedestrians Count Row % 66 48.9% 69 51.1% 135 Edgerton StreetforBicyclists Count Row % 80 59.7% 54 40.3% 134 Labore Road forPedestrians Count Row % 68 52.3% 62 47.7% 130 Labore Road forBicyclists Count Row % 81 62.3% 49 37.7% 130 KellerParkway forPedestrians Count Row % 59 46.5% 68 53.5% 127 KellerParkway forBicyclists Count Row % 71 55.9% 56 44.1% 127 Arcade StreetforPedestrians Count Row % 79 65.8% 41 34.2% 120 Aracde StreetforBicyclists Count Row % 88 75.2% 29 24.8% 117 McMenemy StreetforPedestrians Count Row % 85 74.6% 29 25.4% 114 McMenemy StreetforBicyclists Count Row % 93 82.3% 20 17.7% 113 Totals TotalResponses 176 20 is Acceptable is Unacceptable Responses Edgerton StreetforPedestrians Count Row % 66 48.9% 69 51.1% 135 Edgerton StreetforBicyclists Count Row % 80 59.7% 54 40.3% 134 Labore Road forPedestrians Count Row % 68 52.3% 62 47.7% 130 Labore Road forBicyclists Count Row % 81 62.3% 49 37.7% 130 KellerParkway forPedestrians Count Row % 59 46.5% 68 53.5% 127 KellerParkway forBicyclists Count Row % 71 55.9% 56 44.1% 127 Arcade StreetforPedestrians Count Row % 79 65.8% 41 34.2% 120 Aracde StreetforBicyclists Count Row % 88 75.2% 29 24.8% 117 McMenemy StreetforPedestrians Count Row % 85 74.6% 29 25.4% 114 McMenemy StreetforBicyclists Count Row % 93 82.3% 20 17.7% 113 Totals TotalResponses 176 20 is Acceptable is Unacceptable Responses Edgerton StreetforPedestrians Count Row % 66 48.9% 69 51.1% 135 Edgerton Street for Bicyclists Count Row % 80 59.7% 54 40.3% 134 Labore Road forPedestrians Count Row % 68 52.3% 62 47.7% 130 Labore Road forBicyclists Count Row % 81 62.3% 49 37.7% 130 KellerParkway forPedestrians Count Row % 59 46.5% 68 53.5% 127 KellerParkway forBicyclists Count Row % 71 55.9% 56 44.1% 127 Arcade StreetforPedestrians Count Row % 79 65.8% 41 34.2% 120 Aracde StreetforBicyclists Count Row % 88 75.2% 29 24.8% 117 McMenemy StreetforPedestrians Count Row % 8 5 74.6% 29 25.4% 114 McMenemy StreetforBicyclists Count Row % 93 82.3% 20 17.7% 113 Totals TotalResponses 176 20 is Acceptable is Unacceptable Responses Edgerton StreetforPedestrians Count Row % 66 48.9% 69 51.1% 135 Edgerton StreetforBicyclists Count Row % 80 59.7% 54 40.3% 134 Labore Road forPedestrians Count Row % 68 52.3% 62 47.7% 130 Labore Road forBicyclists Count Row % 81 62.3% 49 37.7% 130 KellerParkway forPedestrians Count Row % 59 46.5% 68 53.5% 127 KellerParkway forBicyclists Count Row % 71 55.9% 56 44.1% 127 Arcade StreetforPedestrians Count Row % 79 65.8% 41 34.2% 120 Aracde StreetforBicyclists Count Row % 88 75.2% 29 24.8% 117 McMenemy StreetforPedestrians Count Row % 85 74.6% 29 25.4% 114 McMenemy StreetforBicyclists Count Row % 93 82.3% 20 17.7% 113 Totals TotalResponses 176 20 is Acceptable is Unacceptable ResponsesEdgerton StreetforPedestriansCountRow %6648.9%6951.1%135Edgerton StreetforBicyclists Count Row % 80 59.7% 54 40.3% 134 Labore Road forPedestrians Count Row % 68 52.3% 62 47.7% 130 Labore Road forBicyclists Count Row % 81 62.3% 49 37.7% 130 KellerParkway forPedestrians Count Row % 59 46.5% 68 53.5% 127 KellerParkway forBicyclists Count Row % 71 55.9% 56 44.1% 127 Arcade StreetforPedestrian s Count Row % 79 65.8% 41 34.2% 120 Aracde StreetforBicyclists Count Row % 88 75.2% 29 24.8% 117 McMenemy StreetforPedestrians Count Row % 85 74.6% 29 25.4% 114 McMenemy Street for Bicyclists Count Row % 93 82.3% 20 17.7% 113 Totals TotalResponses 176 20 is Acceptable is Unacceptable ResponsesEdgerton StreetforPedestriansCountRow %6648.9%6951.1%135Edgerton StreetforBicyclistsCountRow %8059.7%5440.3%134 Labore Road forPedestrians Count Row % 68 52.3% 62 47.7% 130 Labore Road forBicyclists Count Row % 81 62.3% 49 37.7% 130 KellerParkway forPedestrians Count Row % 59 46.5% 68 53.5% 127 KellerParkway forBicyclists Count Row % 71 55.9% 56 44.1% 127 Arcade StreetforPedestrian s Count Row % 79 65.8% 41 34.2% 120 Aracde StreetforBicyclists Count Row % 88 75.2% 29 24.8% 117 McMenemy StreetforPedestrians Count Row % 85 74.6% 29 25.4% 114 McMenemy StreetforBicyclists Count Row % 93 82.3% 20 17.7% 113 Totals TotalResponses 176 20 is Acceptable is Unacceptable ResponsesEdgerton StreetforPedestriansCountRow %6648.9%6951.1%135Edgerton StreetforBicyclists Count Row % 80 59.7% 54 40.3% 134 Labore Road forPedestrians Count Row % 68 52.3% 62 47.7% 130 Labore Road forBicyclists Count Row % 81 62.3% 49 37.7% 130 KellerParkway forPedestrians Count Row % 59 46.5% 68 53.5% 127 KellerParkway forBicyclists Count Row % 71 55.9% 56 44.1% 127 Arcade StreetforPedestrian s Count Row % 79 65.8% 41 34.2% 120 Aracde StreetforBicyclists Count Row % 88 75.2% 29 24.8% 117 McMenemy Street for Pedestrians Count Row % 85 74.6% 29 25.4% 114 McMenemy StreetforBicyclists Count Row % 93 82.3% 20 17.7% 113 Totals TotalResponses 176 20 is Acceptable is Unacceptable ResponsesEdgerton StreetforPedestriansCountRow %6648.9%6951.1%135Edgerton StreetforBicyclistsCountRow %8059.7%5440.3%134 Labore Road forPedestrians Count Row % 68 52.3% 62 47.7% 130 Labore Road forBicyclists Count Row % 81 62.3% 49 37.7% 130 KellerParkway forPedestrians Count Row % 59 46.5% 68 53.5% 127 KellerParkway forBicyclists Count Row % 71 55.9% 56 44.1% 127 Arcade StreetforPedestrian s Count Row % 79 65.8% 41 34.2% 120 Aracde StreetforBicyclists Count Row % 88 75.2% 29 24.8% 117 McMenemy StreetforPedestrians Count Row % 85 74.6% 29 25.4% 114 McMenemy StreetforBicyclists Count Row % 93 82.3% 20 17.7% 113 Totals TotalResponses 176 20 is Acceptable is Unacceptable Responses Edgerton StreetforPedestrians Count Row % 66 48.9% 69 51.1% 135 Edgerton StreetforBicyclists Count Row % 80 59.7% 54 40.3% 134 Labore Road forPedestrians Count Row % 68 52.3% 62 47.7% 130 Labore Road forBicyclists Count Row % 81 62.3% 49 37.7% 130 KellerParkway forPedestrians Count Row % 59 46.5% 68 53.5% 127 KellerParkway forBicyclists Count Row % 71 55.9% 56 44.1% 127 Arcade StreetforPedestrian s Count Row % 79 65.8% 41 34.2% 120 Aracde Street for Bicyclists Count Row % 88 75.2% 29 24.8% 117 McMenemy StreetforPedestrians Count Row % 85 74.6% 29 25.4% 114 McMenemy StreetforBicyclists Count Row % 93 82.3% 20 17.7% 113 Totals TotalResponses 176 20 is Acceptable is Unacceptable ResponsesEdgerton StreetforPedestrians Count Row % 66 48.9% 69 51.1% 135 Edgerton StreetforBicyclists Count Row % 80 59.7% 54 40.3% 134 Labore Road forPedestrians Count Row % 68 52.3% 62 47.7% 130 Labore Road forBicyclists Count Row % 81 62.3% 49 37.7% 130 KellerParkway forPedestrians Count Row % 59 46.5% 68 53.5% 127 KellerParkway forBicyclists Count Row % 71 55.9% 56 44.1% 127 Arcade StreetforPedestrian s Count Row % 79 65.8% 41 34.2% 120 Aracde StreetforBicyclists Count Row % 88 75.2% 29 24.8% 117 McMenemy StreetforPedestrians Count Row % 85 74.6% 29 25.4% 114 McMenemy StreetforBicyclists Count Row % 93 82.3% 20 17.7% 113 Totals TotalResponses 176 20 is Acceptable is Unacceptable Responses Edgerton StreetforPedestrians Count Row % 66 48.9% 69 51.1% 135 Edgerton StreetforBicyclists Count Row % 80 59.7% 54 40.3% 134 Labore Road forPedestrians Count Row % 68 52.3% 62 47.7% 130 Labore Road forBicyclists Count Row % 81 62.3% 49 37.7% 130 KellerParkway forPedestrians Count Row % 59 46.5% 68 53.5% 127 KellerParkway forBicyclists Count Row % 71 55.9% 56 44.1% 127 Arcade Street for Pedestrians Count Row % 79 65.8% 41 34.2% 120 Aracde StreetforBicyclists Count Row % 88 75.2% 29 24.8% 117 McMenemy StreetforPedestrians Count Row % 85 74.6% 29 25.4% 114 McMenemy StreetforBicyclists Count Row % 93 82.3% 20 17.7% 113 Totals TotalResponses 176 20 is Acceptable is Unacceptable Responses Edgerton StreetforPedestrians Count Row % 66 48.9% 69 51.1% 135 Edgerton StreetforBicyclists Count Row % 80 59.7% 54 40.3% 134 Labore Road forPedestrians Count Row % 68 52.3% 62 47.7% 130 Labore Road forBicyclists Count Row % 81 62.3% 49 37.7% 130 KellerParkway forPedestrians Count Row % 59 46.5% 68 53.5% 127 KellerParkway forBicyclists Count Row % 71 55.9% 56 44.1% 127 Arcade StreetforPedestrian s Count Row % 79 65.8% 41 34.2% 120 Aracde StreetforBicyclists Count Row % 88 75.2% 29 24.8% 117 McMenemy StreetforPedestrians Count Row % 85 74.6% 29 25.4% 114 McMenemy StreetforBicyclists Count Row % 93 82.3% 20 17.7% 113 Totals TotalResponses 176 20 is Acceptable is Unacceptable Responses Edgerton StreetforPedestrians Count Row % 66 48.9% 69 51.1% 135 Edgerton StreetforBicyclists Count Row % 80 59.7% 54 40.3% 134 Labore Road forPedestrians Count Row % 68 52.3% 62 47.7% 130 Labore Road forBicyclists Count Row % 81 62.3% 49 37.7% 130 KellerParkway forPedestrians Count Row % 59 46.5% 68 53.5% 127 Keller Parkway for Bicyclists Count Row % 71 55.9% 56 44.1% 127 Arcade StreetforPedestrians Count Row % 79 65.8% 41 34.2% 120 Aracde StreetforBicyclists Count Row % 88 75.2% 29 24.8% 117 McMenemy StreetforPedestrians Count Row % 85 74.6% 29 25.4% 114 McMenemy StreetforBicyclists Count Row % 93 82.3% 20 17.7% 113 Totals TotalResponses 176 20 is Acceptable is Unacceptable ResponsesEdgerton StreetforPedestriansCountRow % 6648.9%6951.1%135 Edgerton StreetforBicyclists Count Row % 80 59.7% 54 40.3% 134 Labore Road forPedestrians Count Row % 68 52.3% 62 47.7% 130 Labore Road forBicyclists Count Row % 81 62.3% 49 37.7% 130 KellerParkway forPedestrians Count Row % 59 46.5% 68 53.5% 127 KellerParkway forBicyclists Count Row % 71 55.9% 56 44.1% 127 Arcade StreetforPedestrians Count Row % 79 65.8% 41 34.2% 120 Aracde StreetforBicyclists Count Row % 88 75.2% 29 24.8% 117 McMenemy StreetforPedestrians Count Row % 85 74.6% 29 25.4% 114 McMenemy StreetforBicyclists Count Row % 93 82.3% 20 17.7% 113 Totals TotalResponses 176 20 is Acceptable is Unacceptable ResponsesEdgerton StreetforPedestriansCountRow % 6648.9%6951.1%135 Edgerton StreetforBicyclists Count Row % 80 59.7% 54 40.3% 134 Labore Road forPedestrians Count Row % 68 52.3% 62 47.7% 130 Labore Road forBicyclists Count Row % 81 62.3% 49 37.7% 130 Keller Parkway for Pedestrians Count Row % 59 46.5% 68 53.5% 127 KellerParkway forBicyclists Count Row % 71 55.9% 56 44.1% 127 Arcade StreetforPedestrians Count Row % 79 65.8% 41 34.2% 120 Aracde StreetforBicyclists Count Row % 88 75.2% 29 24.8% 117 McMenemy StreetforPedestrians Count Row % 85 74.6% 29 25.4% 114 McMenemy StreetforBicyclists Count Row % 93 82.3% 20 17.7% 113 Totals TotalResponses 176 20 is Acceptable is Unacceptable ResponsesEdgerton StreetforPedestriansCountRow %6648.9%6951.1%135Edgerton StreetforBicyclists Count Row % 80 59.7% 54 40.3% 134 Labore Road forPedestrians Count Row % 68 52.3% 62 47.7% 130 Labore Road forBicyclists Count Row % 81 62.3% 49 37.7% 130 KellerParkway forPedestrians Count Row % 59 46.5% 68 53.5% 127 KellerParkway forBicyclists Count Row % 71 55.9% 56 44.1% 127 Arcade StreetforPedestrians Count Row % 79 65.8% 41 34.2% 120 Aracde StreetforBicyclists Count Row % 88 75.2% 29 24.8% 117 McMenemy StreetforPedestrians Count Row % 85 74.6% 29 25.4% 114 McMenemy StreetforBicyclists Count Row % 93 82.3% 20 17.7% 113 Totals TotalResponses 176 20 is Acceptable is Unacceptable Responses Edgerton StreetforPedestrians Count Row % 66 48.9% 69 51.1% 135 Edgerton StreetforBicyclists Count Row % 80 59.7% 54 40.3% 134 Labore Road forPedestrians Count Row % 68 52.3% 62 47.7% 130 Labore Road for Bicyclists Count Row % 81 62.3% 49 37.7% 130 KellerParkway forPedestrians Count Row % 59 46.5% 68 53.5% 127 KellerParkway forBicyclists Count Row % 71 55.9% 56 44.1% 127 Arcade StreetforPedestrians Count Row % 79 65.8% 41 34.2% 120 Aracde StreetforBicyclists Count Row % 88 75.2% 29 24.8% 117 McMenemy StreetforPedestrians Count Row % 85 74.6% 29 25.4% 114 McMenemy StreetforBicyclists Count Row % 93 82.3% 20 17.7% 113 Totals TotalResponses 176 20 is Acceptable is Unacceptable Responses Edgerton StreetforPedestrians Count Row % 66 48.9% 69 51.1% 135 Edgerton StreetforBicyclists Count Row % 80 59.7% 54 40.3% 134 Labore Road forPedestrians Count Row % 68 52.3% 62 47.7% 130 Labore Road forBicyclists Count Row % 81 62.3% 49 37.7% 130 KellerParkway forPedestrians Count Row % 59 46.5% 68 53.5% 127 KellerParkway forBicyclists Count Row % 71 55.9% 56 44.1% 127 Arcade StreetforPedestrians Count Row % 79 65.8% 41 34.2% 120 Aracde StreetforBicyclists Count Row % 88 75.2% 29 24.8% 117 McMenemy StreetforPedestrians Count Row % 85 74.6% 29 25.4% 114 McMenemy StreetforBicyclists Count Row % 93 82.3% 20 17.7% 113 Totals TotalResponses 176 20 is Acceptable is Unacceptable Responses Edgerton StreetforPedestrians Count Row % 66 48.9% 69 51.1% 135 Edgerton StreetforBicyclists Count Row % 80 59.7% 54 40.3% 134 Labore Road for Pedestrians Count Row % 68 52.3% 62 47.7% 130 Labore Road forBicyclists Count Row % 81 62.3% 49 37.7% 130 KellerParkway forPedestrians Count Row % 59 46.5% 68 53.5% 127 KellerParkway forBicyclists Count Row % 71 55.9% 56 44.1% 127 Arcade StreetforPedestrians Count Row % 79 65.8% 41 34.2% 120 Aracde StreetforBicyclists Count Row % 88 75.2% 29 24.8% 117 McMenemy StreetforPedestrians Count Row % 85 74.6% 29 25.4% 114 McMenemy StreetforBicyclists Count Row % 93 82.3% 20 17.7% 113 Totals TotalResponses 176 20 is Acceptable is Unacceptable Responses Edgerton StreetforPedestrians Count Row % 66 48.9% 69 51.1% 135 Edgerton StreetforBicyclists Count Row % 80 59.7% 54 40.3% 134 Labore Road forPedestrians Count Row % 68 52.3% 62 47.7% 130 Labore Road forBicyclists Count Row % 81 62.3% 49 37.7% 130 KellerParkway forPedestrians Count Row % 59 46.5% 68 53.5% 127 KellerParkway forBicyclists Count Row % 71 55.9% 56 44.1% 127 Arcade StreetforPedestrians Count Row % 79 65.8% 41 34.2% 120 Aracde StreetforBicyclists Count Row % 88 75.2% 29 24.8% 117 McMenemy StreetforPedestrians Count Row % 85 74.6% 29 25.4% 114 McMenemy StreetforBicyclists Count Row % 93 82.3% 20 17.7% 113 Totals TotalResponses 176 20 does little canada currently have safe and convenient Walking routes through- out the city? 14.Does Little Canadacurrentlyhave safe and convenient walking routes throughout the City? 45% Yes45% Yes 55% No55% No Value Percent Responses Yes 45.1%65 No 54.9%79 Totals: 144 15.Does Little Canadacurrentlyhave safe and convenient biking routes throughout the City? 21 147 APPENDIX B 104 does little canada currently have safe and convenient biking routes through- out the city? 45% Yes45% Yes 55% No55% No Value Percent Responses Yes 44.8%64 No 55.2%79 Totals: 143 16.Little Canadashould create adestinationor"wow" park that will showoff ourcommunityand drawpeople to ourcity. 22 45% Yes45% Yes 55% No55% No Value Percent Responses Yes 44.6%66 No 55.4%82 Totals: 148 17.If yousupport the ideaof adestinationor"wow" park,what amenities orfeatures would youlike to see? 23 little canada should create a destination or “WoW” park that Will shoW off our community and draW people to our city. 148 CITY OF LITTLE CANADA - PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN105 if you support the idea of a destination or “WoW” park, What amenities or features Would you like to see? comment pool/splash pad: 17 responses i do not support: 12 responses picnic shelter: 11 responses playground: 8 responses natural areas: 7responses trails: 5 responses 18.Compared to othercommunities,Little Canada’s playgrounds are: 8% Better8% Better 59% Same59% Same 12% Worse12% Worse 21% Don't Know21% Don't Know Value Percent Responses Better 7.9%12 Same 59.2%90 Worse 11.8%18 Don'tKnow 21.1%32 Totals: 152 19.What is the greatest opportunityforthe Little Canadapark system? 28 compared to other communities, little canada’s playgrounds are: 149 APPENDIX B 106 What is the greatest opportunity for the little canada park system? comment activities/programming: 17 responses trails: 15 responses maintaining current system: 7 responses upgraded play features: 5 responses safety: 3 responses What is the biggest challenge facing the little canada park system? comment space/land: 14 responses funding: 13 responses safety (pedestrian and in general): 10 responses do you have any specific comment or suggestion for the little canada park system? comment keep up the great Work: 9 responses improve trails: 7 responses additional rental space/shelter/paviilion: 4 responses 150 DATE: June 13, 2023 TO: Parks and Recreation Commission FROM: Meredith Lawrence, Parks and Recreation Manager SUBJECT: Park and Recreation Strategic Planning Update BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Included is the planning calendar that staff is utilizing to ensure progress. Each month staff will provide an update on the strategic planning calendar. RECOMMENDATION: Informational Only. 9b.151 ACTION ITEM STRATEGIC INITIATIVE RESPONSIBILITY TIMELINE Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec UPDATE Receive Educa�on on Poten�al Funding Sources (Referendum, Charitable Gambling, Franchise Fees, Sponsorships) Sustainable Funding Source for Parks and Recrea�on City Administrator/ Parks and Recrea�on Manager The City Council (and two commissioners atended) met in June to learn the poten�al funding op�ons moving forward for the City for items including Parks and Recrea�on. Finalize Sponsorship, Dona�on, Naming Rights, Legacy Program Policy Sustainable Funding Source for Parks and Recrea�on Parks and Recrea�on Manager Staff will work on this policy based on direc�on at the June council work session on financial funding op�ons. Work with businesses (Village and Plaza) for Event Engagement A Leading Community with Invested Partners Parks and Recrea�on Manager/Recrea�on Program Coordinator The Cupid’s Valen�ne Crawl event was held in February, 2023. The Concert in the Park Series will take place this Spring, Summer and early Fall. Work with the City of West Saint Paul to determine if a joint facility is feasible. A Leading Community with Invested Partners City Administrator/ Parks and Recrea�on Manager The City of West Saint Paul has signed a contract with Mend Consul�ng for their Parks System Master Plan. Included in their plan is a feasibility study for a community center. Results are an�cipated by Fall, 2023. Host Joint Work Session with Natural Resource Commission Greater Connec�on to the Natural Environment Parks and Recrea�on Manager A joint work session was held on March 22. Create Trail CIP Program Greater Connec�on to the Natural Environment Public Works Director Host Bike Clinic/Fix It Clinic with a Local Bike Shop A Safe, Connected, Walkable and Bikeable Community Recrea�on Program Coordinator/ Parks and Recrea�on Manager The City’s Recrea�on Program Coordinator and Recycling Coordinator are collabora�ng on this event. More details to come. Update Trail Maps to Be More Accessible A Safe, Connected, Walkable and Bikeable Community Parks and Recrea�on Manager/Senior Engineering Technician Increase Senior Programming Vibrant and Diverse Community Programming Recrea�on Program Coordinator First ever Coffee, Cards and Cribbage series was hosted in January and February, 2023. The Summer Adult Walking group started on May 26, 2023. Develop a Pre-K Program Vibrant and Diverse Community Programming Recrea�on Program Coordinator Staff Comple�on of a 15 Year CIP Ac�ve Recrea�onal Facili�es for All Parks and Recrea�on Manager Staff has completed a CIP Dra�, which was reviewed at a work session in May. Look at Op�ons to Expand Teen Programming Opportuni�es Indoors Ac�ve Recrea�onal Facili�es for All Parks and Recrea�on Manager Add QR Codes on Signage within Parks Effec�ve Two-Way Communica�on with an Informed Community Parks and Recrea�on Manager Approval of this new ini�a�ve will be discussed at the June PRC mee�ng. Con�nue Community Engagement Mee�ngs Effec�ve Two-Way Communica�on with an Informed Community Parks and Recrea�on Commissioners This ini�a�ve is up to the Commission on next steps. 9b1.152