01-03-2022 Conf Mtg
COUNCIL CONFERENCE MEETING
January 03, 2022
5:30 PM
Fridley Civic Campus, 7071 University Avenue N.E.
AGENDA
1.Presentation of the Final Report and Recommendations of the Park System Improvement Plan
Refinement Task Force
The City of Fridley will not discriminate against or harass anyone in the admission or access to, or treatment, or
employment in its services, program, or activities because of race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, disability,
age, marital status, sexual orientation or status with regard to public assistance. Upon request, accommodation will
Hearing impaired persons who need any interpreter or other persons with disabilities who require auxiliary aids
should contact Roberta Collins at (763) 572-3500. (TTD/763-572-3534).
2
Jufn!2/
AGENDA REPORT
Meeting Date:January 3, 2022 Meeting Type:City CouncilConference Meeting
Submitted By:Mike Maher
Title: Director, Community Services
Presentation of the Final Report and Recommendations of the Park System Improvement Plan
Refinement Task Force
Background
Attached is the Final Report and Recommendations of the Park System Improvement Plan, which will
meeting. The presentation will detail the project history,methodology, project plans, resident
involvement and recommendations of the Council-appointed Refinement Task Force.
Financial Impact
The City plans to invest about $30 million in the park system over a 10-year period. The Refinement
Task Force has taken over $50 million in possible park improvement projects and has a recommended
implementation plan to prioritize projects fitting into the identified $30 million budget.
Discussion
Mike Maher, Community Services Director and Candace Amberg, Senior Landscape Architect for WSB
and Associates, will present the process used to develop the recommendations of the Park System
Improvement PlanRefinement Task Force and provide clarity in answering any questions from the
Fridley City Council.
Focus on Fridley Strategic Alignment
X Vibrant Neighborhoods &Places X Community Identity &Relationship Building
X Financial Stability & CommercialProsperityPublic Safety & Environmental Stewardship
Organizational Excellence
Attachments and Other Resources
Exhibit A: Final Report and Recommendations of the Refinement Task Force of the Park System
Improvement Plan
Vision Statement
We believe Fridley will be a safe, vibrant, friendly and stable home for families and businesses.
3
Jufn!2/
Exhibit A
Final Report and Recommendations
of the
Refinement Task Force
for the
Park System Improvement Plan
January 3, 2022
January 3, 2022
1
4
Jufn!2/
Exhibit A
Park System Improvement Plan Refinement Task Force Members
The City Council appointed the following residents serve on a resident Task Force to provide a set
of recommendations regarding refinement of Task Force
members included:
Peter Borman
Kim Ferraro
Dan Gourde
E.B. Graham
Mike Heintz
Jordan Hurst
Malcolm Mitchell
Liz Novotny
Jeremy Powers
Ken Schultz
Maija Sedzielarz
Jim Stangler
Dan Whalen
Traci Wuchter
Staff Liaisons:
Mike Maher Community Services Director
Jeff Jensen Director of Operations for Streets, Parks, and Facilities
Melissa Moore City Clerk
A special thank you to Candace Amberg from WSB Engineering for leading the consulting efforts
to develop park concept plans and draft implementation plans based on Task Force input.
Department of Community Services
7071 University Avenue Northeast
Fridley, MN 55432
FridleyMN.gov
2
5
Jufn!2/
Exhibit A
Introduction and Background
In 2019, the City of Fridley (City) began a comprehensive park system planning effort known as
1,000 comments from residents and other stakeholders, the City developed the Draft Park System
Improvement Plan (Plan). Generally, the Plan envisioned a park system responsive to the shifts in
both the demographics and recreation trends of the Fridley community. It also proposed to
address significant deferred maintenance and make an approximately $50.8 million investment in
park system.
Upon review of Plan and following additional feedback from the Fridley community at the Annual
Town Hall Meeting, the City Council (Council) resolved to implement it at a cost not to exceed $30
million or a 10-year timeline (Resolution No. 2021-51). These parameters recognized the financial
limits of the City and the desire of the community to realize affordable park system improvement
as soon as possible. However, even at this reduced cost, the Council also recognized the need to
use debt (i.e., borrow money) to accomplish the Plan.
On June 28, 2021, the Council appointed two advisory committees to provide additional
community input regarding Plan implementation. The Refinement Task Force (Task Force) group
would work to moderate the Plan and its costs, while the Public Finance Advisory Committee
would recommend the appropriate financing method(s) for the Plan. Both groups operated within
the parameters set by the Council. This report outlines the efforts and recommendations of the
Refinement Task Force.
Under the Council guidance, on a schedule determined by the City Manager and agreed to by
the Task Force, the group met a total of five times, convening monthly between August and
December of 2021. The Task Force reviewed and provided input on updated park concept plans
as well as options for implementation of thirty million dollars of park improvement over a 10-year
period. As a result, this analysis and their discussions, the Task Force formed the recommendations
found in the following section.
Recommendations
Implementation Plan
The City of Fridley contracted the firm WSB Engineering (WSB) to work with staff as a partner on
the development of the Park System Improvement Plan. WSB began their process by visiting each
ed Park Service Area Analysis (Attachment 1). The City
was divided into geographical park service areas which were categorized by having adequate,
minimal, or poor levels of service in the Fridley park system. Further, parks were prioritized as
being high priority or medium priority based on their impact to underserved areas of Fridley.
3
6
Jufn!2/
Exhibit A
The Task Force was informed of the park service area study and how it would be used to inform
all Plan.
The Task Force was presented with draft concept plans
refined in early 2021 through a robust community engagement process.
Moore Lake Park, Community Park and Commons Park had been designated as community parks
areas.
In many cases, proposed park refinements were clear and consistent with recommendations from
previous community meetings, online comments, and surveys. In some cases, public feedback was
not consistent, and the Task Force provided important input, which was used to develop a set of
final, preferred concept plans (Attachment 2).
Once preferred park concept plans had been agreed upon, the Task Force evaluated two
alternative options for implementing the park improvements in ten years for a cost not to
-
(Attachment 3). Each
approach categorized park improvements into three categories; high priority (1-5 years),
medium priority (5-10 years) and deferred (10+ years).
The key difference between the two plans is that pproach # 1
Community Park in favor of funding for an increased number of neighborhood parks serving the
calls for completion of all three community category parks; Moore Lake, Community and
Commons Parks, yet left many neighborhood parks in the deferred category.
balanced and eq
th
# passed by all 11 of the Task Force members in attendance at the December 9, 2021
meeting. Minutes for of the Refinement Task Force meetings are included as (Attachment 4).
Conclusion
The Task Force remained engaged in the Park System Improvement Plan refinement process
throughout the course of their work with excellent attendance at meetings, insightful questions
and comments and numerous members spending time between meetings visiting parks and
studying park plans.
The group approached the refinements with the objective of developing greater equity and
accessibility within
refinements to park plans that had been made through previous public input.
4
7
Jufn!2/
Exhibit A
Recognizing that not every proposed park improvement was possible, the Task Force carefully
studied each park improvement concept plan to provide guidance on refinements to improve
each park and scale the overall park improvements into the budget framework directed by
Council. Additionally, the Task Force reviewed two alternative implementation strategies and the
th
eleven task force members present at the December 9 meeting, unanimously endorsed the
5
8
Jufn!2/
Committee Charter
Park System Improvement Plan Refinement Advisory Committee
Mission
The resident advisement committee will serve as representatives of the Fridley community to
provide feedback and advisement to city staff, the Parks and Recreation Commission and Fridley
City Council on the park system improvement plan.
Framework
The Park System Improvement Plan Refinement Advisory Committee (Committee) will
consist of members of the Parks and Recreation Commission who elect to participate as
well as community members appointed by the Fridley City Council.
The Committee will have between 9 and 15 active members and new members may be
appointed by the Fridley City Council.
Active membership may be revoked at the discretion of the Community Services Director
if a member does not attend two consecutive meetings without being excused.
The Community Services Director will serve as the primary staff liaison to the Committee
and will serve as the primary facilitator of Committee meetings.
The Committee will begin meeting during the summer of 2021 and will meet monthly for
up to one year or until the City Council has determined that the plan has been refined to
meet the needs of the community within the identified budget.
Committee Meetings
Meetings will be open to attend by the public and meeting locations, dates and times
will be posted on the City of Fridley website at least five days prior to each meeting.
Meeting minutes will be recorded and posted to the City of Fridley website.
Committee meetings will be held the second Thursday of each month at the Fridley Civic
Campus at 7 pm.
Committee members may be asked to attend and participate in additional stakeholder
meetings, resident meetings,or park events.
Committee Role
The Committee will primarily focus on refinement of park improvement concept plans
and building consensus on the priority of park improvements to fit into the budget.
The Committee serves in an advisory capacity to city staff and does not provide formal
approval of park plans or budgets.
Committee recommendations will be used to inform and influence decision making by
city staff, the Parks and Recreation Commission and City Council.
9
Jufn!2/
Exhibit A
To promote public participation and input on the Park System Improvement Plan from
the broader Fridley community.
Additional Information and Attachments
Attachment 1 Park Service Area Analysis Maps
Attachment 2 Preferred Park Concept Plans
Attachment 3 Draft Implementation Strategy Approach # 1 and Approach # 2
Attachment 4 Park System Improvement Plan Refinement Task Force Meeting Minutes
7
:
Jufn!2/
21
Jufn!2/
22
Jufn!2/
OFX!TIFMUFS!)7.9!UBCMFT*
JNQSPWF!FYJTUJOH!QBSLJOH!
)81!TUBMMT*
FYQBOE!FYJTUJOH!WPMMFZCBMM!),2*!
DPOWFSU!FYJTUJOH!UFOOJT!
DPVSU!UP!QJDLMFCBMM!)7*
TMPQF!QPMMJOBUPS!QMBOUJOH
FYJTUJOH!TPDDFS!FYJTUJOH!TPDDFS!
GMFYJCMF!MBXO!0!
GJFMEGJFME
GJFME!TQBDF
FYJTUJOH!
GPPUCBMM!GJFME
FYJTUJOH!
TPDDFS!
GJFME
JODMVTJWF!
FYJTUJOH!TIFMUFS!.!
QMBZHSPVOE
NBLF!JNQSPWFNFOUT
X0DIBMMFOHF!
BEWFOUVSF
HBHB!CBMM
PQUJPOBM;!GJFME!
JNQSPWFNFOUT
IBNNPDLJOH
FYJTUJOH!
CBTLFUCBMM
GMFYJCMF!MBXO!0!
GJFME!TQBDF
TPDDFS!GJFME!V22
PQUJPOBM0GVUVSF;!SFNPWF!
FYJTUJOH!UFOOJT!BOE!DSFBUF!
OFX!QBSLJOH!MPU!):9!TUBMMT*
)3*!OFX!TIFMUFST!
SF.HSBEFE!
)5!UBCMFT!FBDI*
TMFEEJOH!IJMM
TQMBTI!PQUJPOBM0GVUVSF;!SFNPWF!
QBE
FYJTUJOH!SJOL!BOE!DPOTUSVDU!
7TH STREET
)5*!OFX!UFOOJT!DPVSUT
FYJTUJOH!CBTFCBMM!
PQUJPOBM0GVUVSF;!JNQSPWF!
GJFME!JNQSPWFNFOUT
FYJTUJOH!QBSLJOH!MPU!)3:!TUBMMT*
.!:1!CBTFMJOF
.!411.!431.!451!
GSJEMFZ!NJEEMF!
FYJTUJOH!
TDIPPM!USBDL
DJTUFSO
HFOFSBM!IPDLFZ!
SJOL!SFNBJOT
FYJTUJOH!XBUFS!UPXFS
XBUFS!USFBUNFOU
QBSL!QBWJMJPO;
.!SFTUSPPNT
.!NFFUJOH!SPPN0!
!!XBSNJOH!SPPN
.!PVUEPPS!QMB\[BT!X0
TFBUJOH!BOE!!GJSF!QJUT
OFX!TIFMUFS
OFX!QBWFE!NVMUJ.QVSQPTF!IPDLFZ!
)7.9!UBCMFT*
61ST AVENUE
SJOL!X0CBTLFUCBMM!HPBMT
PQUJPOBM0GVUVSF;!SFGSJHFSBUFE!
DPOOFDU!USBJM!UP!
Dpodfqut
SJOL<!DPWFSFE!TUSVDUVSF
DSPTTXBML
Qbsl!
PQFO!MBXO!0!XJOUFS!
FYQBOEFE!QBSLJOH!MPU!X0
TLBUJOH!BSFB
ESPQ.PGG!)234!TUBMMT*
!
Tjuft\]127:38`Gsjemfz!
z
u
j
o
v
n
n
p
!
D
C
T
X
\]
t
u
q
f
d
o
p
D
1211311
Gsjemfz!Qbsl!Dpodfqut!.!Dpnnpot!Qbsl
Tdbmf!jo!Gffu
Gsjemfz-!Njooftpub!
L;\]127:38.111\]Hsbqijdt\]Qbsl!Efdfncfs!:-!3132}!XTC!Qspkfdu!ovncfs;!127:38.111
23
Jufn!2/
OP!GFODF!PO!UIFTF!
GPVM!MJOFT
JOGPSNBM!MBXO!0!
GPPUCBMM!'!TPDDFS!
GJFME!PWFSMBZ
FYJTUJOH!QBSLJOH
GVMM!TJ\[F!TPDDFS!!
GJFME
FYJTUJOH!TPGUCBMM!
JNQSPWF!FYJTUJOH!
UNIVERSITY AVE NE
GJFME!.!HFOFSBM!TPGUCBMM!GJFME!
JNQSPWFNFOUTXJUI!86!CBTFMJOFT
TRAIL ROUTE
TUPSNXBUFS!
USFBUNFOU
OFX!TIFMUFS!
FYJTUJOH!DPODFTTJPOT
)5.7!UBCMFT*
CBUUJOH!DBHFT
TDVMQUVSF!QMB\[B
OFX!QMBZHSPVOE!X0DPWFSJOHT!
BOE!PSOBNFOUBM!GFODF!XJUI!
BEKBDFOU!TFBUJOH!QMB\[B
QSPNFOBEF!XBML
DPOOFDU!UP!
NPEJGZ0FYQBOE!QBSLJOH!
GSJEMFZ!DJWJD!
FYJTUJOH!QBSLJOH
MPU!)337!TUBMMT!UPUBM*
DBNQVT
FYJTUJOH!TPGUCBMM!ESPQ.PGG
GJFME!.!HFOFSBM!
JNQSPWFNFOUT
PQUJPOBM!USBJMIFBE
HBHB!CBMM
V22!TPDDFS!GJFME
.!LJPTL
.!CJLF!GJY.JU!TUBUJPO
.!CJLF!SBDL
)3*!OFX!TIFMUFST!
.!KVH!GJMMFS
)5!UBCMFT!FBDI
TUPSNXBUFS!
USFBUNFOU
PWFSIFBE!
QFEFTUSJBO!CSJEHF
CBTLFUCBMM!DPVSU
TIBEFE!TFBUJOH
PQUJPOBM!DIBMMFOHF0!
FYFSDJTF!FWFOUT!PS!
TLBUF!QBSL
Dpodfqut
Qbsl!
!
Tjuft\]127:38`Gsjemfz!
z
u
j
o
v
n
n
p
!
D
C
T
X
\]
t
u
q
f
d
o
p
D
1231
71
Gsjemfz!Qbsl!Dpodfqut!.!Dpnnvojuz!Qbsl
Tdbmf!jo!Gffu
Gsjemfz-!Njooftpub!
L;\]127:38.111\]Hsbqijdt\]Qbsl!Efdfncfs!:-!3132}!XTC!Qspkfdu!ovncfs;!127:38.111
24
Jufn!2/
QPUFOUJBM!GVUVSF!
XBUFS!USFBUNFOU!0!
TUPSBHF
OBUVSF!QMBZ!BSFB
OFX!TIFMUFS!
)7.9!UBCMFT*
MBXO!0!QJDOJD
E
V
A
QPUFOUJBM!GVUVSF!
L
QBSLJOH!FYQBOTJPO
A
R
T
N
E
C
IBNNPDL!HSPWF
SFQMBDF!EPDLT
FYJTUJOH!
WPMMFZCBMM!
DPVSUT
GMFYJCMF!MBXO!0!!
OFX!TIFMUFS!)5!UBCMFT*
GJFME!TQBDF
CBTLFUCBMM!DPVSU
OFX!QMBZHSPVOE!X0
TIBEFE!TFBUJOH!BSFBT
ESPQ!PGG!BSFB
OFX!TIFMUFS!)5!UBCMFT*
QJDOJD!BSFB
GVUVSF!PQUJPO!)BT!GFBTJCMF*;!
OFX!CFBDI!QBWJMJPO
.!SFTUSPPNT
.!NFFUJOH!SPPN
.!WFOEJOH0DPODFTTJPOT
.!FYUFSJPS!TFBUJOH!QMB\[B
.!CPBSEXBML!X0TFBUJOH
51.61!QFSTPO!TIFMUFS
SFTIBQFE!CFBDI
LBZBL0QBEEMF!SFOUBM!'!
TUPSBHF!BSFB
OFX!SPVOEBCPVU!X0BDDFTT!
JO!BOE!PVU!PG!QBSL
CPBSEJOH!EPDL
XBUFS!USFBUNFOU
GARDENA AVE
SFDPOTUSVDUFE!QBSLJOH!MPU!
)97!UP!:5!TUBMMT*
Dpodfqut
Qbsl!
FYJTUJOH!TIFMUFS
SDXE!XBUFS!RVBMJUZ!QSPKFDU
!
Tjuft\]127:38`Gsjemfz!
z
u
j
o
v
n
n
p
!
D
C
T
X
\]
t
u
q
f
d
o
p
D
1231
71
Gsjemfz!Qbsl!Dpodfqut!.!Nppsf!Mblf!Qbsl!
Tdbmf!jo!Gffu
Gsjemfz-!Njooftpub!
L;\]127:38.111\]Hsbqijdt\]Qbsl!Efdfncfs!:-!3132}!XTC!Qspkfdu!ovncfs;!127:38.111
25
Jufn!2/
MBOETDBQF
TDSFFOJOH
JNQSPWFE!QMBZHSPVOE
TFBUJOH!BSFB
USBJM!DPOOFDUJPO
SFQMBDF!DPVSU!
BT!OFDFTTBSZ
DPOWFSU!UVSG!UP!
UPMFSBOU!NJY
FYJTUJOH!SBJO!HBSEFO;!F
POHPJOH!NBOBHFNFOUPU
Gsjemfz!Qbsl!Tztufn!}!Dpodfqu
26
Gsjemfz-!Njooftpub!
L;\]127:38.111\]Hsbqijdt\]127:38!Qbsl!Dpodfqut`Qsfgfssfe
Kbovbsz-!3132!}!XTC!Qspkfdu!ovncfs;!127:38.111
Jufn!2/
JOGP0
TJHOBHF
USBJM!MPPQ!DPOOFDUJPO
JOGP0
TJHOBHF
MBOETDBQF
TDSFFOJOH
QPMMJOBUPS
SFQMBDF!
DPVSUT!BT!
MPX!NBJOUFOBODF!
OFDFTTBSZ
UVSG0TLBUJOH
TFBUJOH!BSFB
JOGP0
TJHOBHF
OFX!QJDOJD!TIFMUFS!
PQUJPOBM;!QFSNBOFOU!
SFTUSPPNT
MBOETDBQF
TDSFFOJOH
JNQSPWFE!QMBZHSPVOE
Gsjemfz!Qbsl!Tztufn!}!Dpodfqu
27
Gsjemfz-!Njooftpub!
L;\]127:38.111\]Hsbqijdt\]127:38!Qbsl!Dpodfqut`Qsfgfssfe
Kbovbsz-!3132!}!XTC!Qspkfdu!ovncfs;!127:38.111
Jufn!2/
TUPSN!
USFBUNFOU0!
SFUBJOJOH!XBMM
SBJO!HBSEFO
TFBUJOH!BSFB
OP!QBSLJOH!TJHO
JOGP0TJHOBHF
JNQSPWFE!QMBZHSPVOE
SFQMBDF!DPVSU!
BT!OFDFTTBSZ
TNBMM!TIFMUFS
USBJM!DPOOFDUJPO!
CZ!PUIFST
Gsjemfz!Qbsl!Tztufn!}!Dpodfqu
28
Gsjemfz-!Njooftpub!
L;\]127:38.111\]Hsbqijdt\]127:38!Qbsl!Dpodfqut`Qsfgfssfe
Kbovbsz-!3132!}!XTC!Qspkfdu!ovncfs;!127:38.111
Jufn!2/
SFQMBDF!DPVSUT!
BT!OFDFTTBSZ
JNQSPWFE!QMBZHSPVOE
SFQMBDF!TIFMUFS!
BT!OFDFTTBSZ
MPX!NBJOUFOBODF!
MBXO
USBJM!DPOOFDUJPO!
UP!DPVSU-!TIFMUFS!'!
FYJTUJOH!SBJO!
USBJM!PO!TPVUI
HBSEFO;!POHPJOH!
NBOBHFNFOU
CBMMGJFME!SFNBJOT
JOGP0TJHOBHF
Gsjemfz!Qbsl!Tztufn!}!Dpodfqu
2
29
Gsjemfz-!Njooftpub!
L;\]127:38.111\]Hsbqijdt\]127:38!Qbsl!Dpodfqut`Qsfgfssfe
Kbovbsz-!3132!}!XTC!Qspkfdu!ovncfs;!127:38.111
Jufn!2/
IBMG!DPVSU!
CBTLFUCBMM
PQUJPOBM!
SBJO!HBSEFO
JNQSPWFE!QMBZHSPVOE
PSOBNFOUBM!HBSEFO!
X0!IJTUPSJDBM!TJHOBHF!!
TNBMM!TIFMUFS
MBOETDBQF!
TDSFFOJOH
Gsjemfz!Qbsl!Tztufn!}!Dpodfqu
2:
Gsjemfz-!Njooftpub!
L;\]127:38.111\]Hsbqijdt\]127:38!Qbsl!Dpodfqut`Qsfgfssfe
Kbovbsz-!3132!}!XTC!Qspkfdu!ovncfs;!127:38.111
Jufn!2/
MBOETDBQF!
TDSFFOJOH
DPOOFDUJPO!UP!
SFHJPOBM!USBJM!
X0TJHO
QBSBMMFM!QBSLJOH!
MPX!
NBJOUFOBODF!
MBXO
JNQSPWFE!QMBZHSPVOE
QJDOJD!TIFMUFS!
PQUJPOBM!QFSNBOFOU!
SFTUSPPNT
XBZGJOEJOH!
TJHOBHF0
LJPTL
CBTLFUCBMM!
DPVSU
UFOOJT!
DPVSU
TUPSBHF!TIFE
DPNNVOJUZ!HBSEFOT
TFBUJOH!BSCPST
MPX!
NBJOUFOBODF!
MBXO
DPOOFDUJPO!UP!
SFHJPOBM!USBJM!
X0TJHO
Gsjemfz!Qbsl!Tztufn!}!Dpodfqu
2
31
Gsjemfz-!Njooftpub!
L;\]127:38.111\]Hsbqijdt\]127:38!Qbsl!Dpodfqut`Qsfgfssfe
Kbovbsz-!3132!}!XTC!Qspkfdu!ovncfs;!127:38.111
Jufn!2/
EPDL0LBZBL!
MBVODI!BSFB
LJPTL0TJHOBHF
USBJM
LBZBL0DBOPF!
TUPSBHF
Gsjemfz!Qbsl!Tztufn!}!Dpodfqu
32
Gsjemfz-!Njooftpub!
L;\]127:38.111\]Hsbqijdt\]127:38!Qbsl!Dpodfqut`Qsfgfssfe
Kbovbsz-!3132!}!XTC!Qspkfdu!ovncfs;!127:38.111
Jufn!2/
JOGP0TJHOBHF
PQUJPOBM;
QPMMJOBUPS!
SBJO!HBSEFO
JNQSPWFE!BHHSFHBUF!
SFRVJSFE!GPS!GVMM!
USBJM!NBQ
EPDL!X0
TFBUJOH
Gsjemfz!Qbsl!Tztufn!}!Dpodfqu
33
Gsjemfz-!Njooftpub!
L;\]127:38.111\]Hsbqijdt\]127:38!Qbsl!Dpodfqut`Qsfgfssfe
Kbovbsz-!3132!}!XTC!Qspkfdu!ovncfs;!127:38.111
Jufn!2/
JOGP0TJHOBHF
PQUJPOBM!DPVSU!
SFPSJFOUBUJPO
JNQSPWF!UFOOJT!DPVSUT0
QJDLMFCBMM!PWFSMBZ
FYJTUJOH!TIFMUFS!
JNQSPWFNFOUT
QMB\[B
OFX!QMBZHSPVOE
USBJM!MPPQ
QBSLJOH!
CBTLFUCBMM
MBOETDBQF!
TDSFFOJOH
UFFO0DIBMMFOHF!BSFB
PQUJPOBM
SBJOHBSEFO
PQFO!
MBXO
JOGP0TJHOBHF
Gsjemfz!Qbsl!Tztufn!}!Dpodfqu
2
34
Gsjemfz-!Njooftpub!
L;\]127:38.111\]Hsbqijdt\]127:38!Qbsl!Dpodfqut`Qsfgfssfe
Kbovbsz-!3132!}!XTC!Qspkfdu!ovncfs;!127:38.111
Jufn!2/
GVMM!TJ\[F!
CBTLFUCBMM!
UFFO0
DPVSU
DIBMMFOHF!
BSFB
TFBUJOH!BSFB
Gsjemfz!Qbsl!Tztufn!}!Dpodfqu
35
Gsjemfz-!Njooftpub!
L;\]127:38.111\]Hsbqijdt\]127:38!Qbsl!Dpodfqut`Qsfgfssfe
Kbovbsz-!3132!}!XTC!Qspkfdu!ovncfs;!127:38.111
Jufn!2/
MBOETDBQF!
TDSFFOJOH
PQFO!MBXO
TNBMM!TIFMUFS
JNQSPWF!FYJTUJOH!
QMBZHSPVOE
JOGP0TJHOBHF
Gsjemfz!Qbsl!Tztufn!}!Dpodfqueml}
36
Gsjemfz-!Njooftpub!
L;\]127:38.111\]Hsbqijdt\]127:38!Qbsl!Dpodfqut`Qsfgfssfe
Kbovbsz-!3132!}!XTC!Qspkfdu!ovncfs;!127:38.111
Jufn!2/
MBOETDBQF!TDSFFOJOH
JNQSPWFE!QMBZHSPVOE
TNBMM!TIFMUFS
CBTLFUCBMM!
DPVSU
MPX!
NBJOUFOBODF!
MBXO
PQUJPOBM
SBJO!HBSEFO
Gsjemfz!Qbsl!Tztufn!}!Dpodfqu
37
Gsjemfz-!Njooftpub!
L;\]127:38.111\]Hsbqijdt\]127:38!Qbsl!Dpodfqut`Qsfgfssfe
Kbovbsz-!3132!}!XTC!Qspkfdu!ovncfs;!127:38.111
Jufn!2/
QMBOOFE!USBJM
LJPTLSBJO!HBSEFO
CJLF!SBDL
OFX!QMBZHSPVOE
PQFO
MBXO
TNBMM!TIFMUFS
USBJM!MPPQ
GFODF
FYJTUJOH!FBTFNFOU
TFBUJOH!BSFBT
EPDL!X0
TFBUJOH
OPUFT;
OBUVSBMJ\[F!TIPSFMJOF
Gsjemfz!Qbsl!Tztufn!}!Dpodfqu
38
Gsjemfz-!Njooftpub!
L;\]127:38.111\]Hsbqijdt\]127:38!Qbsl!Dpodfqut`Qsfgfssfe
Kbovbsz-!3132!}!XTC!Qspkfdu!ovncfs;!127:38.111
Jufn!2/
PQUJPOBM!USBJM!
BDDFTT!UP!
HBSEFOB!BWF!
FOUSBODF!TJHO
XBZGJOEJOH
FOUSBODF!TJHO
FYJTUJOH!QBSLJOH
TUBCJMJ\[FE!
BHHSFHBUF!USBJMT
XBZGJOEJOH
PQUJPOBM!MBOE!
BRVJTJUJPO!UP!
SFDPOGJHVSF!QBSLJOH!
BOE!TNBMM!OBUVSF!
DFOUFS!CVJMEJOH!X0
SFTUSPPNT
OPUFT;
POHPJOH!OBUVSBM!SFTPVSDF!NBOBHFNFOU
Gsjemfz!Qbsl!Tztufn!}!Dpodfqu
39
Gsjemfz-!Njooftpub!
L;\]127:38.111\]Hsbqijdt\]127:38!Qbsl!Dpodfqut`Qsfgfssfe
Kbovbsz-!3132!}!XTC!Qspkfdu!ovncfs;!127:38.111
Jufn!2/
MBOETDBQF
TDSFFOJOH
JNQSPWFE!QMBZHSPVOE
FOIBODFE!
SBJO!HBSEFO
MPX!
NBJOUFOBODF!
MBXO
TNBMM!TIFMUFS
JNQSPWF!DPVSU!
BT!OFDFTTBSZ<
PQUJPOBM;!
FYQBOE!DPVSU
Gsjemfz!Qbsl!Tztufn!}!Dpodfqu
3:
Gsjemfz-!Njooftpub!
L;\]127:38.111\]Hsbqijdt\]127:38!Qbsl!Dpodfqut`Qsfgfssfe
Kbovbsz-!3132!}!XTC!Qspkfdu!ovncfs;!127:38.111
Jufn!2/
MBOETDBQF!
TDSFFOJOH
CBTLFUCBMM!
X0MPX!IPPQ
IPQTDPUDI!PWFS!
DPVSU
DIBMMFOHF0!
VOJRVF!FWFOUT
USBJM
HBUFXBZ!GFBUVSF
HBUFXBZ!GFBUVSF
TNBMM!TIFMUFS!PS!
TQFDJBMUZ!TIBEF
Gsjemfz!Qbsl!Tztufn!}!Dpodfqu
41
Gsjemfz-!Njooftpub!
L;\]127:38.111\]Hsbqijdt\]127:38!Qbsl!Dpodfqut`Qsfgfssfe
Kbovbsz-!3132!}!XTC!Qspkfdu!ovncfs;!127:38.111
Jufn!2/
USBJM!DPOOFDUJPO
USFF!TDSFFOJOH
PSOBNFOUBM!GFODF
QJDOJD!BSFB
TFBUJOH!
JNQSPWFE!QMBZHSPVOE
BSFB
Gsjemfz!Qbsl!Tztufn!}!Dpodfqu
42
Gsjemfz-!Njooftpub!
L;\]127:38.111\]Hsbqijdt\]127:38!Qbsl!Dpodfqut`Qsfgfssfe
Kbovbsz-!3132!}!XTC!Qspkfdu!ovncfs;!127:38.111
Jufn!2/
USBJM!
DPOOFDUJPO
QMBZHSPVOE
Gsjemfz!Qbsl!Tztufn!}!Dpodfqu
43
Gsjemfz-!Njooftpub!
L;\]127:38.111\]Hsbqijdt\]127:38!Qbsl!Dpodfqut`Qsfgfssfe
Kbovbsz-!3132!}!XTC!Qspkfdu!ovncfs;!127:38.111
Jufn!2/
PQUJPOBM!
USBJM!MPPQ
GJUOFTT!
DIBMMFOHF!
FYQBOEFE!QMBZHSPVOE
HBUFXBZ
TIFMUFS!
USBJM!MPPQ
MPX!NBJOUFOBODF!
MBXO
CBMMGJFME!
JNQSPWFNFOUT
SBJO!HBSEFO
SFMPDBUFE!IBMG!
DPVSU!CBTLFUCBMM
SFDPOTUSVDUFE!
UFOOJT!DPVSU
Gsjemfz!Qbsl!Tztufn!}!Dpodfqu
2
44
Gsjemfz-!Njooftpub!
L;\]127:38.111\]Hsbqijdt\]127:38!Qbsl!Dpodfqut`Qsfgfssfe
Kbovbsz-!3132!}!XTC!Qspkfdu!ovncfs;!127:38.111
Jufn!2/
USBJM!MPPQ
FEJCMF!HBSEFOT0
PSDIBSE
DIBMMFOHF!QJFDFT
MBOETDBQF!
TDSFFOJOH
PQUJPO
NPEJGJFE!QBSLJOH!
QBSL!CVJMEJOH!XJUI!
OFX!QMBZHSPVOE
BOE!XBSNJOH!IPVTF0
NFFUJOH!SPPN
SBJO!HBSEFO0TUPSN!
TFBUJOH!QMB\[B!X0!
USFBUNFOU
TIBEF!VNCSFMMBT
Gsjemfz!Qbsl!Tztufn!}!Dpodfqu
45
Gsjemfz-!Njooftpub!
L;\]127:38.111\]Hsbqijdt\]127:38!Qbsl!Dpodfqut`Qsfgfssfe
Kbovbsz-!3132!}!XTC!Qspkfdu!ovncfs;!127:38.111
Jufn!2/
XBZGJOEJOH!TJHO
DJSDVJU!FYFSDJTF
EPDL
TNBMM!TIFMUFS
XBZGJOEJOH!TJHO
QPOE!
JNQSPWFNFOUT
MPX!
NBJOUFOBODF!
MBXO
USBJM!DPOOFDUJPO
BHHSFHBUF!
USBJM!MPPQ
USBJM!MPPQ
JOGP0
TJHOBHF
IBMG!PS!GVMM!DPVSU
CBTLFUCBMM
OFX!QMBZHSPVOE
OPUFT;
NBJOUBJO!DSPTT!DPVOUSZ!TLJ!USBJMT
JNQSPWF!FYJTUJOH!USBJMT
Gsjemfz!Qbsl!Tztufn!}!Dpodfqu
46
Gsjemfz-!Njooftpub!
L;\]127:38.111\]Hsbqijdt\]127:38!Qbsl!Dpodfqut`Qsfgfssfe
Kbovbsz-!3132!}!XTC!Qspkfdu!ovncfs;!127:38.111
Jufn!2/
JNQSPWF!IBMG!
DPVSU!'!DPOOFDU!
XJUI!XBML
JOGP0TJHOBHF
USBJM!DPOOFDUJPO!UP!
FYJTUJOH!SFHJPOBM!
USBJM
JNQSPWFE!GFODF
JNQSPWFE!QMBZHSPVOE
Gsjemfz!Qbsl!Tztufn!}!Dpodfqu
3
47
Gsjemfz-!Njooftpub!
L;\]127:38.111\]Hsbqijdt\]127:38!Qbsl!Dpodfqut`Qsfgfssfe
Kbovbsz-!3132!}!XTC!Qspkfdu!ovncfs;!127:38.111
Jufn!2/
MBOETDBQF
TDSFFOJOH
OFX!QMBZHSPVOE
PSOBNFOUBM!
GFODF
USBJM
TNBMM!TIFMUFS
UFOOJT!DPVSU!
X0QJDLMFCBMM!
PQFO!MBXO
MJOFT
IBMG!DPVSU!
CBTLFUCBMM
Gsjemfz!Qbsl!Tztufn!}!Dpodfqu
48
Gsjemfz-!Njooftpub!
L;\]127:38.111\]Hsbqijdt\]127:38!Qbsl!Dpodfqut`Qsfgfssfe
Kbovbsz-!3132!}!XTC!Qspkfdu!ovncfs;!127:38.111
Jufn!2/
Gsjemfz!Qbsl!Tztufn!}!Dpodfqu
49
Gsjemfz-!Njooftpub!
L;\]127:38.111\]Hsbqijdt\]127:38!Qbsl!Dpodfqut`Qsfgfssfe
Kbovbsz-!3132!}!XTC!Qspkfdu!ovncfs;!127:38.111
OPUFT;
JOGPSNBUJPO!TJHOT
Jufn!2/
JNQSPWFE!QBSLJOH!
JOGP0
TJHOBHF
FYJTUJOH!TUBMM!DPVOU!
HSPVQ!QJDOJD!TIFMUFS!
PQUJPOBM;
OBUVSF!
UIFNFE!!
QMBZ
MPPQ!USBJM!
NPUPSJ\[FE!
TZTUFN
XBUFSDSBGU!
BDDFTT!BOE!
QBEEMF!TIBSF0
DBOPF!MBOEJOH
TFBUJOH0
WJFXJOH!
BSFBT
FYJTUJOH!
SFHJPOBM!
USBJM
Gsjemfz!Qbsl!Tztufn!}!Dpodfqu
4:
Gsjemfz-!Njooftpub!
L;\]127:38.111\]Hsbqijdt\]127:38!Qbsl!Dpodfqut`Qsfgfssfe
Kbovbsz-!3132!}!XTC!Qspkfdu!ovncfs;!127:38.111
Jufn!2/
MPX!
NBJOUFOBODF!
JNQSPWFE!QMBZHSPVOE
MBXO
CVJMEJOH!XJUI!
SFTUSPPNT!BOE!NFFUJOH!
SPPNT
QBSBMMFM!QBSLJOH!
USBJM!MPPQ
MPX!
NBJOUFOBODF!
MBXO
Gsjemfz!Qbsl!Tztufn!}!Dpodfqu
3
51
Gsjemfz-!Njooftpub!
L;\]127:38.111\]Hsbqijdt\]127:38!Qbsl!Dpodfqut`Qsfgfssfe
Kbovbsz-!3132!}!XTC!Qspkfdu!ovncfs;!127:38.111
Jufn!2/
USBJM
PSOBNFOUBM!
GFODF
CBTLFUCBMM!DPVSU!
XJUI!GFODF
DIBMMFOHF!PS!
UFFO!FWFOUT
JNQSPWFE!QMBZHSPVOE
TIBEF!DPWFSJOH!PWFS!
TFBUJOH!QMB\[B
PSOBNFOUBM!
GFODF
MBOETDBQF
TDSFFOJOH
HFOFSBM!OPUFT;
VQEBUFE!TJUF!BNFOJUJFT
Gsjemfz!Qbsl!Tztufn!}!Dpodfqu
52
Gsjemfz-!Njooftpub!
L;\]127:38.111\]Hsbqijdt\]127:38!Qbsl!Dpodfqut`Qsfgfssfe
Kbovbsz-!3132!}!XTC!Qspkfdu!ovncfs;!127:38.111
Jufn!2/
MBOETDBQF!
TDSFFOJOH
JNQSPWF!DPVSU!
BT!OFDFTTBSZ<!
PQUJPOBM!
FOMBSHFNFOU
TFBUJOH!BSFB
MPX!NBJOUFOBODF!
MBXO
JNQSPWFE!QMBZHSPVOE
USBJM!DPOOFDUJPO
JOGP0TJHOBHF
JNQSPWF!DPVSU!
BT!OFDFTTBSZ
MPX!
NBJOUFOBODF!
MBXO
Gsjemfz!Qbsl!Tztufn!}!Dpodfqu
2
53
Gsjemfz-!Njooftpub!
L;\]127:38.111\]Hsbqijdt\]127:38!Qbsl!Dpodfqut`Qsfgfssfe
Kbovbsz-!3132!}!XTC!Qspkfdu!ovncfs;!127:38.111
Jufn!2/
DIBMMFOHF!QJFDF
CBTLFUCBMM!DPVSU
TNBMM!TIFMUFS
TFBUJOH!BSFB
FYJTUJOH!
QBSLJOH!
OFX!QMBZHSPVOE
MPX!
NBJOUFOBODF!
MBXO
MBOETDBQF
TDSFFOJOH
SBJO!HBSEFO
USBJM!MPPQ
HBUFXBZ
Gsjemfz!Qbsl!Tztufn!}!Dpodfqu
2
54
Gsjemfz-!Njooftpub!
L;\]127:38.111\]Hsbqijdt\]127:38!Qbsl!Dpodfqut`Qsfgfssfe
Kbovbsz-!3132!}!XTC!Qspkfdu!ovncfs;!127:38.111
Jufn!2/
USBJM!MPPQJNQSPWFE!QMBZHSPVOE
MPX!NBJOUFOBODF!
MBXO
TNBMM!TIFMUFS
CBMMGJFME!
PQUJPOBM!
JNQSPWFNFOUT
SBJO!
HBSEFO
MBOETDBQF!
TDSFFOJOH
Gsjemfz!Qbsl!Tztufn!}!Dpodfqu
55
Gsjemfz-!Njooftpub!
L;\]127:38.111\]Hsbqijdt\]127:38!Qbsl!Dpodfqut`Qsfgfssfe
Kbovbsz-!3132!}!XTC!Qspkfdu!ovncfs;!127:38.111
Jufn!2/
USBJM
CPBSEXBML
EPDL
EPDL
Gsjemfz!Qbsl!Tztufn!}!Dpodfqu
56
Gsjemfz-!Njooftpub!
L;\]127:38.111\]Hsbqijdt\]127:38!Qbsl!Dpodfqut`Qsfgfssfe
Kbovbsz-!3132!}!XTC!Qspkfdu!ovncfs;!127:38.111
Jufn!2/
Draft Implementation Strategy - Approach #1
The following park improvement costs are categorized based on the needs analysis of the community for recommended improvements focused on balanced access to quality recreation. This
provides a strategic guideline to address the
highest needs of the community, as determined by priority, but does not identify actual phasing for implementation. Actual implementation and phasing will be established based on potential
funding opportunities, available budgets and
community needs at time of implementation.
Draft park priorities to meet community needs were made according to the following:
- Aging, poor or unsafe condition of park that needs to be addressed
- Park serves high number of residents or underserved populations
- Park is able to provide unique or destination experience
- Park is able to meet community-wide needs
- Park improvements would help balance recreation across the community
Park Service Area Priority
L = Low; general neighborhood; needs adequately met; good condition
M = Medium; serves one or more neighborhoods; needs basically met; fair condition
H = High; serves multiple neighborhoods; needs not met; poor condition
HighMediumDeferred
Park Neighbor-Alt / Future
Park NameComments
Base Estimate
PriorityPriorityPriority / Alt
Priority
hood #Estimate
1-5 yrs5-10 yrs10+ yrs
Community Parks
Civic gathering space and new playground. On maintenance and
Civic Center / Locke Play 14
replacement schedule w/ongoing investments.
Currently in fair to poor condition. Park provides a range of
community wide athletics as well as general recreation needs to
neighborhoods currently lacking a park within a half-mile,
M$11,171,930.00$3,539,830.00$11,171,930.00$3,539,830.00
Commons 28
including multiple high density populations. Improvements would
meet community-identified priorities with destination
experiences.
Aging infrastructure; provides community-wide athletic needs
mainly focused on baseball/softball. Improvements would balance
MCommunity 13a$4,916,310.00$896,000.00$5,812,310.00athletic needs with added turf fields and improved access and
circulation. Added types of recreation as neighborhood park for
broader range of experiences.
Currently in poor condition, is highly visible and provides a special
use recreation draw with beach/water activities. Park also
provides recreation to multiple neighborhoods currently lacking a
HMoore Lake E$2,965,900.00$6,713,000.00$2,965,900.00$6,713,000.00
park within a half-mile, including underserved populations.
Improvements would meet community-identified priorities with
destination experiences. Building unknown, deferred.
Provides community wide recreation with focus on natural
resources and program opportunities. Also serves adjacent high
Springbrook NC 1
density development. Currently on a maintenance and
replacement schedule w/yearly ongoing investments.
Neighborhood / Special Use Parks
Aging infrastructure; serves small neighborhood area.
LAltura 35$127,870.60$127,870.60
Improvements related to condition, accessibility and sustainability
Aging infrastructure. Improvements related to condition,
MBriardale 30$435,695.00$628,586.00$435,695.00$628,586.00
accessibility and sustainability
Aging infrastructure; water/drainage issues affects usability of
Craig 4b$0.00site. This park serves a larger neighborhood area due to the size
and types of recreation available.
Aging infrastructure. Improvement options from replacement of
MCreekridge 21$318,142.50$318,142.50amenities or new layout for expanded recreation and improved
function.
Aging infrastructure; services immediate underserved populations
HCreekview 15$388,765.00$388,765.00and receives a high amount of use. Improvements to condition,
accessibility and sustainability.
Aging infrastructure; serves large isolated neighborhoods including
underserved populations in conjunction with school, private
HEd Wilmes 22a$280,962.50$280,962.50
recreation amenties and natural resource based park along river.
Improvements add recreation but is limited due to small park size.
Aging infrastructure; serves multiple neighborhoods including
underserved populations. Its location along a regional trail could
increase its significance in terms of funding. Improvement options
HEdgewater Gardens 16b$758,380.00$647,500.00$758,380.00$647,500.00
range from some layout modifications to completely new layout
with enhanced recreation opportunities, including community
gardens, improved condition, accessibility and sustainability.
Natural park around a pond located in a neighborhood lacking
developed park amenities other than school sites. Improvements
LFarr Lake 34b$119,718.75$119,718.75
to provide added recreation however, trail easements are
required and there are issues with making the site accessible due
to steep slopes.
57
Jufn!2/
HighMediumDeferred
Park Neighbor-Alt / Future
Park NameComments
Base Estimate
PriorityPriorityPriority / Alt
Priority
hood #Estimate
1-5 yrs5-10 yrs10+ yrs
Aging infrastructure; serves multiple & underserved
MFlanery 8$1,042,790.00$1,042,790.00$0.00
neighborhoods. Options for redevelopment to improve condition,
accessibility and recreation, option for community gardens.
Mini park with aging infrastructure. New use focused on youth
MGlencoe 2b$103,125.00$103,125.00
with a complementary design to proposed Springbrook
(Glenbrook) improvements.
Aging infrastructure. New layout for consideration that improves
MHackmann Circle 32$332,500.00$332,500.00
condition, accessibility, sustainability, and recreation.
Aging infrastructure. New layout for consideration that improves
LHarris Lake 26$417,352.50$417,352.50
condition, accessibility and highlights lake views.
Natural resource based park with trails. Improvements focused on
condition, accessibility and sustainability. Potential acquisition
MInnsbruck NC 34a$407,820.00$282,100.00$407,820.00$282,100.00
option that would expand park function and programming
capabilities.
Aging infrastructure. General improvements to condition,
MJay 17$179,630.00$179,630.00
accessibililty and sustainability.
New proposed use focused on meeting the needs of older youth
MJubilee 36$252,093.75$252,093.75
replaces a duplicated playground in order to be complementary to
nearby Oak Hill.
Consideration of alternative trail alignment in attempt to make
the trail more accessible with improvements to enhance access to
LLocke Lake 16a$323,302.00$323,302.00lake. May have significant site impacts. Due to regional trail
significance, this project may be suitable for funding
opportunities.
Aging infrastructure; serves neighborhoods with potential to serve
adjacent neighborhoods currently lacking parks. Options for some
HLogan 10$513,366.00$90,020.00$513,366.00$90,020.00
layout revisions to full layout revision to improve condition,
accessibility and sustainability with expanded recreation.
Aging infrastructure; water/drainage issues affect usability of
portions of site. Highly visible park that serves multiple
HMadsen 5$4,095,350.00$4,095,350.00
neighborhoods including underserved populations. Improvements
to function, condition, accessibility, sustainability, and includes
expanded recreation with community-identified priorities.
Aging infrastructure. New layout for consideration to improve
LMeadowlands 19$885,360.00$885,360.00
condition, accessibility and sustainability.
Aging infrastructure. Improvements to condition and accessibility
MOak Hill 37$160,562.50$160,562.50
with complementary design to proposed Jubilee improvements.
LPlaza 13b$177,156.25$177,156.25
Aging infrastructure. Improvements to condition and accessibility.
Aging infrastructure, poor condition. Park located in far southern
MPlymouth Square 40$438,100.00$438,100.00
neighborhood. New layout to improve function, condition, and
accessbility with added recreation.
Additon of small playground. Desire for general ballfield
improvements not included at this time due to greater
LRay Thompson LL B2$98,970.00$98,970.00
accessibility issues at the site that need further review, which will
likely affect the ballfields.
Undeveloped open space parcel along the Mississippi River; not
Rivers Edge Way 22b
accessible.
Special use site with greater community appeal due to access to
Mississippi River. Improvements focused on enhancing river
access to meet community-identified priorities, site programming
MRiverview Heights 4a$804,090.00$1,138,901.40$804,090.00$1,138,901.40opportunities, and accessibility. Special uses, natural resources
and location along the regional trail likely to contribute to funding
opportunities. Develop more definitive master plan with
community.
Aging infrastructure; serves isolated neighborhood and an
additional high density neighborhood. Could potentially be
MRuth Circle 3$2,281,020.00$385,000.00$2,281,020.00$385,000.00
considered a higher priority. New layout for consideration to
improve function, condition, accessiblity and sustainability.
Mini park with aging infrastructure. Located in highest
underserved neighborhood in city and may also be impacted by
HSkyline 31$592,562.50$592,562.50
newer high density housing development. Improvements to
function, condition, accessibility and expanded user groups with
added recreation.
New use focused on adult recreation replaces existing playground
LSpringbrook/Glennbrook 2a$256,312.50$256,312.50
for complementary design to proposed Glencoe improvements.
58
Jufn!2/
HighMediumDeferred
Park Neighbor-Alt / Future
Park NameComments
Base Estimate
PriorityPriorityPriority / Alt
Priority
hood #Estimate
1-5 yrs5-10 yrs10+ yrs
Aging infrastructure. Improvements to condition, accessibility and
MSummit Square 39$350,375.00$350,375.00
sustainability with enhanced connectivity of separated parcels.
Aging infrastructure; water/drainage issues that affect some
usability of site. Serves a large neighborhood including a high
density area and may also serve additional underserved
HSylvan Hills 24$521,430.00$521,430.00
neighborhoods with improved awareness and connectivity. New
layout with improvements to function, condition, accessibility and
expanded recreation.
Aging infrastructure. Improvements to condition, accessibility and
LTerrace 18$404,500.00$404,500.00
accessibility.
Special use site with greater community appeal. Improvements
focused on protection of natural resources with opportunities for
LW Moore Lake Sand Dunes B1$1,027,670.00$1,027,670.00
educational programming and natural resource management and
improved accessibility. Undertake community driven master plan
process.
$37,149,112.35$14,320,937.40$14,934,809.75$15,650,145.60$20,885,094.40
SubTotals:
10-Year Priorities:
$30,584,955.35
Deferred / Future Options:$20,885,094.40
* Grand Total:$51,470,049.75
NOTE: Estimates are based on a high-level planning process and assume all work would be completed by a contractor through a public bid proccess. Estimates do not account for actual
site conditions and other factors such as
final design and programming, poor soil conditions, methods of construction, locations of utility connections, etc. but are intended to provide a budgetary figure for development that
can be updated yearly. Estimates do not
account for inflation, anticipated to range from 2-3% yearly.
59
Jufn!2/
Draft Implementation Strategy - Approach #2
The following park improvement costs are categorized based on the needs analysis of the community for recommended improvements focused on balanced access to quality recreation. This
provides a strategic guideline to address the
highest needs of the community, as determined by priority, but does not identify actual phasing for implementation. Actual implementation and phasing will be established based on potential
funding opportunities, available budgets and
community needs at time of implementation.
Draft park priorities to meet community needs were made according to the following:
- Aging, poor or unsafe condition of park that needs to be addressed
- Park serves high number of residents or underserved populations
- Park is able to provide unique or destination experience
- Park is able to meet community-wide needs
- Park improvements would help balance recreation across the community
Level of Development (Proposed Modifications):
L = Low; general neighborhood; needs adequately met; good condition
M = Medium; serves one or more neighborhoods; needs basically met; fair condition
H = High; serves multiple neighborhoods; needs not met; poor condition
Level of
HighMediumDeferred
Neighbor-Alt / Future
Developm
Park NameBase Estimate Comments
PriorityPriorityPriority / Alt
hood #Estimate
ent
1-5 yrs5-10 yrs10+ yrs
Community Parks
Civic gathering space and new playground. On maintenance and
Civic Center / Locke Play 14
replacement schedule w/ongoing investments
Currently in fair to poor condition. Park provides a range of
community wide athletics as well as general recreation needs to
MCommons 28$11,171,930.00$3,539,830.00$14,711,760.00
neighborhoods currently lacking a park within a half-mile,
including multiple high density populations. Improvements would
meet community-identified priorities with destination experiences.
Aging infrastructure; provides community-wide athletic needs
mainly focused on baseball/softball. Improvements would balance
MCommunity 13a$4,916,310.00$896,000.00$5,812,310.00
athletic needs with added turf fields and improved access and
circulation. Added types of recreation as neighborhood park for
broader range of experiences.
Currently in poor condition, is highly visible and provides a special
use recreation draw with beach/water activities. Park also
provides recreation to multiple neighborhoods currently lacking a
HMoore Lake E$2,965,900.00$6,713,000.00$1,482,950.00$8,195,950.00
park within a half-mile, including underserved populations.
Improvements would meet community-identified priorities with
destination experiences. Minimal phased-in approach.
Provides community wide recreation with focus on natural
resources and program opportunities. Also serves adjacent high
Springbrook NC 1
density development. Currently on a maintenance and
replacement schedule w/yearly ongoing investments.
Neighborhood / Special Use Parks
Aging infrastructure; serves small neighborhood area.
LAltura 35$127,870.60$127,870.60
Improvements related to condition, accessibility and sustainability.
Aging infrastructure. Improvements related to condition,
MBriardale 30$435,695.00$628,586.00$1,064,281.00
accessibility and sustainability.
Aging infrastructure; water/drainage issues affects usability of site.
Craig 4b$0.00
This park serves a larger neighborhood area due to the size and
types of recreation available.
Aging infrastructure. Improvement options from replacement of
MCreekridge 21$318,142.50$318,142.50
amenities or new layout for expanded recreation and improved
function.
Aging infrastructure; services immediate underserved populations
HCreekview 15$388,765.00$388,765.00
and receives a high amount of use. Improvements to condition,
accessibility and sustainability.
Aging infrastructure; serves large isolated neighborhoods including
underserved populations in conjunction with school, private
HEd Wilmes 22a$280,962.50$280,962.50
recreation amenties and natural resource based park along river.
Improvements add recreation but is limited due to small park size.
Aging infrastructure; serves multiple neighborhoods including
underserved populations. Its location along a regional trail could
increase its significance in terms of funding. Improvement options
HEdgewater Gardens 16b$758,380.00$647,500.00$758,380.00$647,500.00
range from some layout modifications to completely new layout
with enhanced recreation opportunities, including community
gardens, improved condition, accessibility and sustainability.
Natural park around a pond located in a neighborhood lacking
developed park amenities other than school sites. Improvements
LFarr Lake 34b$119,718.75$119,718.75
to provide added recreation however, trail easements are required
and there are issues with making the site accessible due to steep
slopes.
Aging infrastructure; serves multiple & underserved
MFlanery 8$1,042,790.00$1,042,790.00$0.00
neighborhoods. Options for redevelopment to improve condition,
accessibility and recreation, option for community gardens.
Mini park with aging infrastructure. New use focused on youth
MGlencoe 2b$103,125.00$103,125.00
with a complementary design to proposed Springbrook
(Glenbrook) improvements.
Aging infrastructure. New layout for consideration that improves
MHackmann Circle 32$332,500.00$332,500.00
condition, accessibility, sustainability, and recreation.
5:
Jufn!2/
Level of
HighMediumDeferred
Neighbor-Alt / Future
Developm
Park NameBase Estimate Comments
PriorityPriorityPriority / Alt
hood #Estimate
ent
1-5 yrs5-10 yrs10+ yrs
Aging infrastructure. New layout for consideration that improves
LHarris Lake 26$417,352.50$417,352.50
condition, accessibility and highlights lake views.
Natural resource based park with trails. Improvements focused on
condition, accessibility and sustainability. Potential acquisition
MInnsbruck NC 34a$407,820.00$282,100.00$689,920.00
option that would expand park function and programming
capabilities.
Aging infrastructure. General improvements to condition,
MJay 17$179,630.00$179,630.00
accessibililty and sustainability.
New proposed use focused on meeting the needs of older youth
MJubilee 36$252,093.75$252,093.75
replaces a duplicated playground in order to be complementary to
nearby Oak Hill.
Consideration of alternative trail alignment in attempt to make the
trail more accessible with improvements to enhance access to
LLocke Lake 16a$323,302.00$323,302.00
lake. May have significant site impacts. Due to regional trail
significance, this project may be suitable for funding
opportunities.
Aging infrastructure; serves neighborhoods with potential to serve
adjacent neighborhoods currently lacking parks. Options for some
HLogan 10$513,366.00$90,020.00$513,366.00$90,020.00
layout revisions to full layout revision to improve condition,
accessibility and sustainability with expanded recreation.
Aging infrastructure; water/drainage issues affect usability of
portions of site. Highly visible park that serves multiple
HMadsen 5$4,095,350.00$4,095,350.00
neighborhoods including underserved populations. Improvements
to function, condition, accessibility, sustainability, and includes
expanded recreation with community-identified priorities.
Aging infrastructure. New layout for consideration to improve
LMeadowlands 19$885,360.00$885,360.00
condition, accessibility and sustainability.
Aging infrastructure. Improvements to condition and accessibility
MOak Hill 37$160,562.50$160,562.50
with complementary design to proposed Jubilee improvements.
LPlaza 13b$177,156.25$177,156.25
Aging infrastructure. Improvements to condition and accessibility.
Aging infrastructure, poor condition. Park located in far southern
MPlymouth Square 40$438,100.00$438,100.00
neighborhood. New layout to improve function, condition, and
accessbility with added recreation.
Additon of small playground. Desire for general ballfield
improvements not included at this time due to greater accessibility
LRay Thompson LL B2$98,970.00$98,970.00
issues at the site that need further review, which will likely affect
the ballfields.
Undeveloped open space parcel along the Mississippi River; not
River Edge Way 22b
accessible.
Special use site with greater community appeal due to access to
Mississippi River. Improvements focused on enhancing river access
to meet community-identified priorities, site programming
MRiverview Heights 4a$804,090.00$1,138,901.40$1,942,991.40
opportunities, and accessibility. Special uses, natural resources
and location along the regional trail likely to contribute to funding
opportunities. Develop more definitive master plan with
community.
Aging infrastructure; serves isolated neighborhood and an
additional high density neighborhood. Could potentially be
MRuth Circle 3$2,281,020.00$385,000.00$2,281,020.00$385,000.00
considered a higher priority. New layout for consideration to
improve function, condition, accessiblity and sustainability.
Mini park with aging infrastructure. Located in highest
underserved neighborhood in city and may also be impacted by
HSkyline 31$592,562.50$592,562.50
newer high density housing development. Improvements to
function, condition, accessibility and expanded user groups with
added recreation.
New use focused on adult recreation replaces existing playground
LSpringbrook/Glennbrook 2a$256,312.50$256,312.50
for complementary design to proposed Glencoe improvements.
Aging infrastructure. Improvements to condition, accessibility and
MSummit Square 39$350,375.00$350,375.00
sustainability with enhanced connectivity of separated parcels.
Aging infrastructure; water/drainage issues that affect some
usability of site. Serves a large neighborhood including a high
density area and may also serve additional underserved
HSylvan Hills 24$521,430.00$521,430.00
neighborhoods with improved awareness and connectivity. New
layout with improvements to function, condition, accessibility and
expanded recreation.
Aging infrastructure. Improvements to condition, accessibility and
LTerrace 18$404,500.00$404,500.00
accessibility.
Special use site with greater community appeal. Improvements
focused on protection of natural resources with opportunities for
LW Moore Lake Sand Dunes B1$1,027,670.00$1,027,670.00
educational programming and natural resource management and
improved accessibility. Undertake community driven master plan
process.
$37,149,112.35$14,320,937.40$17,535,598.50$15,636,241.25$18,298,210.00
SubTotals:
10-Year Priorities:$33,171,839.75
Deferred / Future Options:$18,298,210.00
61
Jufn!2/
Level of
HighMediumDeferred
Neighbor-Alt / Future
Developm
Park NameBase Estimate Comments
PriorityPriorityPriority / Alt
hood #Estimate
ent
1-5 yrs5-10 yrs10+ yrs
* Grand Total:$51,470,049.75
NOTE: Estimates are based on a high-level planning process and assume all work would be completed by a contractor through a public bid proccess. Estimates do not account for actual
site conditions and other factors such
as final design and programming, poor soil conditions, methods of construction, locations of utility connections, etc. but are intended to provide a budgetary figure for development
that can be updated yearly. Estimates do
not account for inflation, anticipated to range from 2-3% yearly.
62
Jufn!2/
PARK SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT PLAN
REFINEMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE
August 12, 2021
7:00 PM
Fridley City Hall, 7071 University Avenue N.E.
MINUTES
MembersPresent: Mike Heintz, Peter Borman, Dan Gourde, Don Whalen, Kim Farraro, Ken Schulz,
Malcolm Mitchell, Liz Novotny, Jordan Hurst, Jim Stangler, Maija Sedzielarz
Members Absent: E.B. Graham, Traci Wuchter, Jeremy Powers
Others Present: Mike Maher,Community Services Director,CandaceAmberg, WSB Landscape
Architect, and Jeff Jensen, Operations ManagerforStreets, Parks and Facilities
Mike Maher, Community Services Director, called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m.
1.Welcome and Introductions
Mr. Maher welcomed those who were present.
2.Icebreaker Activity
Mr. Maher ledthe group in an introduction and icebreaker. He concluded the exercise by summarizing
that this meeting will be to set the table for the group’s future work. The group will discuss how to set
expectations of how the group wants the decision-making processto be. He informed the members that
these meetings areopen to the public.
3.Review and Discuss Refinement Task Force Charter and City Council Resolution No. 2021-51,
Directing Continued Efforts Pertaining to the Park System Improvement Plan
Mr. Maher reviewed feedback from the 2021 Town Hall Meetingwhere preliminary concepts were shared
with the public. Responses from residents were consideredand caused the City Council to adopt
Resolution No. 2021-51, which was the Council’s direction for staff to refine theParkSystem Improvement
Plan(Plan). Resolution No. 2021-55 formally appointed members to two separate task forces.The Finance
Advisory Committee will examine funding options for the Plan, and the Refinement Committee will
examine concept plans to pare down the cost of the Plan to approximately $30 million.
Mr. Maher reviewed the committee charter, which outlines the framework of the group’s work, the format
of the committee’s meetings and the role of the committee in the overall Plan. He reiterated that this is
an advisory committee tasked with making a recommendation, that will ultimately be decided upon by
the City Council.
63
Jufn!2/
4. Park System Improvement Plan Background
Mr. Maher provided a brief history of the Fridley park system, reviewed current park conditions and
introduced park improvement plan benefits. Mr. Maher recapped 2019 community workshops that
identified the community’s priorities of safe and connected parks for all, nature access, and quality
facilities.
Committee members noted additional considerations should be including age groups included in plans,
better wayfinding and signage, and flexibility in accommodating sporting trends.
Candace Amberg, WSB Landscape Architect, reviewed her firm’s process in analyzing what the current
park usages were and incorporated those sports into the Plan. Peter Borman commented that Community
Park was built for softball and now is sitting vacant. Mr. Borman recommend consulting with sports
associations to find out why they play where they do. Mr. Maher said the next meeting would be to review
community parks. Ms. Amberg reported that she will consult with local sports associations to integrate
their feedback, community survey results, and feedback from this meeting’s discussions to refine concept
plans.
Mr. Maher reconfirmed the group will get into discussions on specific parks and uses for each at later
meetings.
Jim Stangler noted it would be nice to know what each park is currently being used for. Ms. Amberg
replied that analysis will be integrated into future presentations to the group as concept plans change.
Mr. Maher asked the group to spend time reviewing each park concept. The group will discuss the three
community parks: Commons, Community and Moore Lake, and approximately six of the
neighborhood/special use parks to recommend changes. In subsequent meetings the group will decide
what six parks they will work on. This process will help refine the priorities, which will impact the price.
Mike Heintz noted the Park and Recreation Commission’s strong recommendation that there be no
consideration of selling any park land within the City. Mr. Maher noted the consideration of selling park
land is not being considered in the Plan.
Malcolm Mitchell asked if there were any criteria for review that the group should look at? Ms. Amberg
replied that yes, the priority to understand system as a whole to identify particular populations and how
the parks serve them, examine the barriers to park usage, age of the park, safety concerns, condition and
accessibility of each park. Ms. Amberg discussed barriers to recreation in high-density, low-income and
minority neighborhoods is a major component of analyzing the Plan. Those are the parks she really would
encourage the group to focus on to make sure the most meaningful impact to the community is felt. The
change needs to be noticeable so taxpayers understand what their tax dollars pay for. Ms. Amberg
stressed the need to make a good and big impact for residents so they realize the good work being done
and are supportive of additional improvements.
Kim Farraro asked how long it would take to pay for the Plan. Mr. Maher said it depends on the
recommendation of the Finance Committee who is working on exploring different financing strategies.
Mr. Mitchell thought working on financing strategies first does not make sense until the Plan is fully
64
Jufn!2/
established with a clear price tag. Mr. Maher informed the committee that most likely the primary source
of funding will be bonding, but other avenues are being explored. This group is tasked with paring down
to the current proposal from $50 million to $30 million at direction of the City Council.
Mr. Heintz added the City has a good track record with how it financed the Springbrook Nature Center
building through bonding. Mr. Maher added that if the group would like to learn more about the
financing options, he would request the City’s Finance Director come to speak with the committee.
Ms. Amberg noted this is an exercise to prioritize top parks to work on. There will be projects that will
move down the priority list and that will decrease the cost. She asked the committee to look at broad
picture to make sure the whole community is served.
Mr. Mitchell asked if the $50 million price was based on high-estimate price for each concept plan in the
binder. Ms. Amberg affirmed. Ms. Farraro asked if there a price list for each item at each park? Ms. Amberg
affirmed and noted that as the group works through feedback, they can decide what items to remove,
which will decrease the overall cost.
Ms. Amberg reviewed the park service area analysis in the committee’s binders.
Mr. Mitchell asked what features are most desired by diverse groups. Ms. Amberg recommended the
committee consider age. Typically, City parks accommodate younger children, and teens are often not
considered when new equipment is installed. Also, how can we get parents involved to enjoy the park
alongside their children or grandchildren.
Mr. Heintz added shelter buildings are appealing for diverse groups who use those facilities for
family/community gatherings. It is a good way to serve those who may not have their own yard space.
Mr. Maher noted these discussions will be a big part of this group’s work.
Jeff Jensen, Operations Manager for Streets, Parks and Facilities stressed the important work of this group
to analyze and determine where are high-need areas are. There will be some conflict. The group must
weigh all aspects and prioritize the work to be done, and not every group will be satisfied. The
committee’s task is to discuss and debate so the City may attempt to best serve all groups. He added that
the City needs to create a Plan that will provoke a response from residents to the Plan, and this committee
is tasked with finding a way to wisely pare down the initial proposal.
Mr. Borman asked if the committee should take into consideration the added burden to the City of staff
hours and maintenance. Mr. Jensen answered, not at this phase. The operational cost has already been
considered. Those costs will be absorbed by the City and is a past practice of the Council.
Mr. Maher informed the committee that first thing they will be asked to consider are the three community
parks. He asked the group to visit each one and envision the space with the proposed changes to visualize
the concepts. This will allow each member to best be prepared to analyze each proposal, and to
recommend changes.
5. Task Force Meeting Agreements
65
Jufn!2/
Mr. Maher led the group through a discussion to understand and agree on how the group will interact
with each other.
Mr. Borman asked how long the meetings go on, and what was the ultimate goal. Mr. Maher replied that
he has scheduled meetings until the end of 2021. He is open to what the group thinks for how long they
would want to meet. Don Whalen added that the first two meetings will tell the group a lot once they
begin getting into details. Ms. Amberg added the next meeting will be to discuss high-level items first,
and subsequent meetings will do a deeper examination into particular parks. Mr. Maher reminded the
group that their suggestions will go to Ms. Amberg who will then bring back a revised Plan for the group
to review.
Mr. Mithcell suggested the meetings be set for 90 minutes with the flexibility to go longer, but not more
than two hours. The group collectively agreed.
Mr. Mitchell noted its ok to have a disagreement. Maija Sedzielarz added the committee members should
assume positive intent and be willing to listen to other people’s perspective.
Mr. Maher confirmed that all members will have an equal voice in the process and committee meetings.
The committee’s meetings will be public meetings and members of the public are encouraged to attend.
Mr. Maher reminded the group that this is a refinement process where the three community parks will be
examined first, followed up by six neighborhood parks. The committee will work toward an end
recommendation that the City Council will consider.
Mr. Jensen added that this could be a ten-year plan. Part of the process with any park plan is community
input to begin designing a concept. This group will work to take those park concepts, consider feedback
from the community and planning experts to come to a more defined and clearer concept. Then
ultimately, present the refined Plan to the community for their buy-in.
Ms. Amberg offered to provide guidance through her expertise, but will not make any decisions for the
group.
Mr. Stangler asked why the City is not asking for the full $50 million concept. Ms. Amberg answered that
based on community feedback in the resident survey, there was a set dollar amount residents were willing
to pay for a Plan. Mr. Maher confirmed that the City Council decided on the $30 million price based on
the resident survey.
Ms. Farraro asked if the group was aware of increasing taxes from the school districts and the County.
Mr. Maher explained that the City typically uses eight other cities as comparisons for percentage of
property taxes. Fridley is usually in the middle of that list. He noted that adding a $30 million bond would
increase property taxes but not significantly compared to other cities. Ms. Farraro added that a tax
increase would compete with another increase from the school district, and may not be supported. Mr.
Maher acknowledged it will be hard to separate the finance conversation from the work of this committee,
but that is the work of the finance committee.
6. Review and Confirm Future Meeting Schedule
66
Jufn!2/
Mr. Maher presented proposed meeting dates for the remainder of 2021: September 9, October 14,
November 10, and December 9. For each meeting an agenda along with the previous meeting’s minutes
will be sent.
Jordan Hurst asked for confirmation of what the committee should do for the next meeting. Mr. Heintz
answered to take the binder to the community parks and visualize the Plan and come to the meeting to
discuss.
Mr. Maher thanked the committee for attending this evening’s meeting.
The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Melissa Moore, Administrative Services Coordinator/Deputy City Clerk
67
Jufn!2/
PARK SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT PLAN
REFINEMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE
September 09, 2021
7:00 PM
Fridley City Hall, 7071 University Avenue N.E.
AGENDA
Present: Mike Heintz, Traci Wuchter, Dan Gourde, Don Whalen, Kim Ferraro, Malcolm Mitchell, Jordan
Hurst, Jeremy Powers, Pete Borman, Jim Stangler
Absent: E.B. Graham, Liz Novotny, Ken Schultz, Maija Sedzielarz
Others Present: Alyssa Kruzel, Community Engagement Specialist, Jeff Jensen, Operations Manager for
Streets, Parks and Facilities, CandaceAmberg, WSB Landscape Architect, Mike Maher, Community
Services Director, David Ostwald, City Councilmember, Melissa Moore, City Clerk, Anna Disco, Nick
Skochinsky
Mike Maher, Community Services Director, called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m.
REVIEW OF MINUTES
1.Meeting Minutes of August 12, 2021 Refinement Advisory Committee Meeting
Mr. Mitchell informed the group that thebonding forSpringbrook did notfrom the City, but from the
State.Ms. Moore agreed to revise the minutes to reflect the correction.
ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION
2.Community Park Plans Review and Discussion
2021 meetingand reminded the groupthey wereto go out and review the plans for the three community
parks.
Ms. Amberg directed the group to page 17 of the agenda regarding the concept plan for Moore Lake
Park. The plan the group will review today was developed from research and direction from the
gem
Moore Lake ranked first.
Ms. Amberg stated the current proposed plan improves parking areas, adding a dog park area, creating
a flexible open lawn space, improve existing volleyball space,addinga new group picnic shelter and picnic
lawn, larger playground spaces, new beach pavilion and lakeside plaza.This plan does shrink down the
68
Jufn!2/
beach area, to accommodate other water activities than swimming, such as canoes and paddleboards, a
lakeside boardwalk, . The
plan does remove the tennis and basketball courts. If residents wanted to play tennis, there are nearby
courts at Totino Grace and Briardale Park. And anyone wishing to play basketball could visit Briardale Park
and Hackman Circle.
Mr. Heintz noted Moore lake is closed to swimming due to water quality. Mr. Mitchell asked for an update
on the water quality. Mr. Jensen answered the City received a grant from the Rice Creek Watershed District
to install an enhanced sand iron filter system, and is treating the water for phosphorous levels. There are
issues with e-coli, due to geese, which is heavily dependent on the water levels. Mr. Jensen informed the
group that to fix the water will be a 50+ year project. The water is relatively clean, but has floating debris
in it, so its mainly an appearance issue. The City continues regular testing and is researching different
filtration solutions.
Mr. Powers asked if plant filters could be placed to assist. Mr. Jensen answered that plant buffer zones
are great to help with water quality, and is a part of the plan for Moore Lake.
Mr. Stangler asked if there was a cost breakdown by amenity. He asked if the City considered Moore Lake
as a location for the splashpad. Ms. Amberg noted there is some amenity cost breakdown in the
Mr. Mitchell asked if it would be possible to connect both sides of the lake under Highway 65. Mr. Jensen
said that would be up to the State and would be extremely expensive.
Ms. Disco commented that if there was something there to draw people to the lake, such as a splashpad,
since the water quality keeps people away.
Mr. Heintz would like to see an emphasis on park shelter spaces. The group agreed the park currently
gets a lot of use for gatherings. Ms. Amberg asked the group for feedback on the shelter areas. Ms.
Mr. Gourde commented he felt the dog park area was not necessary because of a larger County-owned
dog park nearby. The group agreed.
Ms. Amberg asked the group I they approved of about the baseball fields being repurposed. The group
agreed.
Ms. Amberg asked the group for feedback on removal of the tennis courts. The group agreed on the plan
to remove them for more green space. Mr. Gourde noted Commons Park has tennis space.
Mr. Mitchell suggested a basketball half court be added. The group agreed.
Ms. Amberg asked the group for feedback on the play spaces. The group expressed approval of the
proposed area.
69
Jufn!2/
Ms. Amberg asked the group for feedback on the boardwalk or trails. Mr. Mitchell said there should be a
loop. Mr. Jensen said the trail through the swamp to the north would need to be a boardwalk.
Mr. Heintz asked about stationary exercise equipment and bike repair stations. Ms. Amberg replied those
amenities are in the Commons Park plan.
Mr. Mitchell asked if alternative energy solutions were considered. Ms. Amberg said those are
considerations for discussions at a later stage. Mr. Jensen noted the City is testing solar lights at the park
to the east of City Hall.
Mr. Hurst noted his desire to include food stations for guests to the park. The group agreed that would
be an option for future consideration.
Ms. Amberg opened a discussion on Community Park. This park was ranked third in the resident survey.
The plan includes new walking trails, creating new flexible spaces and improving existing athletic fields.
The proposed plan includes new turf fields, a new parking area, new playground, interactive sport court,
edible orchard, demonstration gardens, and resizing one of the fields to youth ball sports.
Mr. Heintz expressed concern that this proposed plan does not accommodate baseball. The group
discussed various layout options. Mr. Stangler suggested turf fields.
leadership eventually wants to see a connection with the Civic Campus with Community Park, via an
overpass.
Ms. Amberg opened a discussion on Commons Park. This park was ranked second in the resident survey.
Two ball fields are proposed to be removed for flexible space. Ms. Ferraro noted the ball fields are used
heavily by kids who walk directly from the Middle School. Mr. Stangler and Mr. Heintz expressed concern
that baseball players age 12-16 do not currently have ballfields that accommodate the size fields they
require. Mr. Powers asked if a needs assessment was done for ball fields. Mr. Jensen asked if different
ages could play on the same fields but have some sort of movable mound. Mr. Stangler said field one at
Community is the only field that meets the 75-foot baseline requirement for baseball. Mr. Powers
recommended feedback is needed from the local associations to assess the needs. Ms. Farraro said if a
baseball field was removed from Community, the 1216-year-old kids would not have a field to play on.
Ms. Amberg will consult with the City and baseball associations to alter her proposals for baseball fields
among the community parks.
a strong desire to not decrease the size of the sledding hill.
Mr. Stangler asked why the hockey rink needs to move. Mr. Jensen said the biggest feedback from the
survey was for warming houses and restrooms for public use.
Mr. Jensen added the City is extremely short on soccer fields. Mr. Mitchell asked if there are projections
on needs for soccer, and other sports. Ms. Amberg said it depends on each community.
6:
Jufn!2/
Ms. Amberg asked the group for their desire to keep the splashpad and pavilion. The group agreed.
3. Review Next Steps and Future Meeting Dates
Mr. Maher asked Ms. Amberg if she could have alternative plans for the next meeting. She said she would
October 14 meeting.
Mr. Mitchell asked if there was information on changing demographics of neighborhoods. Ms. Amberg
answered they do have demographic assessments and needs assessments. She plans to review as many
neighborhood parks as the group can work through.
Mr. Maher reminded the group the next meeting dates are October 14 and November 10. The best
preparation committee members can do is to review the proposed park plans in the neighborhood plans,
The meeting adjourned at 9:09 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Melissa Moore, City Clerk
71
Jufn!2/
PARK SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT PLAN
REFINEMENT ADVISORY COMMITEE
October 14, 2021
7:00 PM
Fridley City Hall, 7071 University Avenue N.E.
AGENDA
Present: Kim Ferraro, Mike Heintz, Dan Gourde, TraciWuchter, Maija Sedzielarz, Ken Schultz, Don Whalen,
E.B. Graham, Malcolm Mitchell, Jordan Hurst, Liz Novotny
Absent: Jim Stangler, Jeremy Powers, Peter Borman
Others Present: Jeff Jensen, Operations Manager for Streets, Parks and Facilities, Candace Amberg, WSB
Landscape Architect, Mike Maher, Community Services Director, Melissa Moore, City Clerk
Mike Maher, Community Services Director, called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m.
REVIEW OF MINUTES
1.Meeting Minutes of September 9, 2021 Refinement Advisory Committee Meeting
There were no revisions to the minutes.
ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION
2.Neighborhood Park Concept Plan Review and Discussion
Ms. Amberg reviewed the feedback and process the committee engaged in at the September 9 meeting.
plan proposals. There was no
Itemized cost listswill be providedafter
priorities are established.At this time the Committee is working to refineconcept plans for the City-a
vision of where the City will go. At a later date the City would check back in with residents through
targeted outreach events on particular park plans.
Mr. Maher reminded the Committee they have been askedto come up with a plan that can be
implemented over a 10-yearperiod. As the years go on and the City isready to work on certain parks,
the City will check in with surrounding neighborhoods by doing targeted outreach. At that time specific
plans for parks will occur, such as what kind of play equipment would be putin a park or changing a
tennis court to a pickleball court.
Ms. Amberg led the group through altered proposed plans for each park. The changes included are:
AlturaPark: improved ADA accessibility, concrete surround of the playground;
72
Jufn!2/
Briardale Park: picnic shelter is large enough for 4-6 tables, and could add a permanent bathroom
at a later date, moved the pollinator garden;
Creek View Park: expanded parking was removed;
Creekridge Park: ballfield area was kept, modified the plan to expand the playground, removed
parking space, bring existing trail out to Mississippi Street;
Ed Wilmes Park: pollinator garden changed to an ornamental garden; readjusted border of the
playground to accommodate half-court basketball space;
Edgewater Gardens Park: two open lawns at ends of the park, expanded playground, picnic shelter
with permanent restroom, added tennis court and moved community garden, fewer parallel
parking spaces;
Locke Lake Park: the committee recommended the removal of the kayak/canoe storage;
Farr Lake Park: the committee recommended the removal of the dock due to continuous low water
levels and playground was removed;
Flannery Park: smaller parking lot, new playground to connect with existing shelter, added teen
challenge area, moved the basketball court;
Glencoe Park: improved full-size basketball court; added teen challenge area;
Hackman Circle: put basketball court back into the plan, moved playground, removed trail loop
and small picnic shelter;
Harris Lake Park: downsize parking lot, added bike rack and kiosk;
Innsbruck Nature Center: no changes;
Jay Park: stretch out half-court basketball court;
Jubilee Park: basketball court will have shortened-height hoop;
Little League: added playground;
Logan Park: ballfield improvements; expanded playground, reconstructed tennis court, optional
trail loop with fitness challenge zones;
Madsen Park: trail crossing changed, moved parking lot;
Meadowlands Park: reduced parking, more wayfinding;
Oak Hill Park: no changes;
Plaza Park: removed parking stalls;
Plymouth Square Park: no changes;
River Edge Way Park: no changes;
Riverview Heights: modifying one loop trail, widen configuration of parking lot, group picnic
shelter with permanent restrooms, possible fishing area;
Ruth Circle Park: no changes;
Skyline Park: reconfigured layout;
Springbrook Park: added improved existing playground and a small shelter;
Summit Square Park: low maintenance lawn instead of pollinator garden;
Sylvan Hills Park: remove tennis court and put in full size basketball court;
Terrace Park: no changes; and
West Moore Lake Park; no changes.
73
Jufn!2/
3. Community Park Concept Plan Review and Discussion
Ms. Amberg described the two concept plans for Community Park. Concept 1 includes three ball fields
that were kept, but reoriented, championship field would be multi-purpose, parking lot was removed to
accommodate multi-use attractions, improved concessions plaza. Concept 2 changes include expanded
playground, multi-purpose athletic field, expanded parking lot.
Ms. Amberg described the two concept plans for Commons Park. Concept 1 expands parking, keeps
primary shelter and splashpad, keeps baseball field, removes the softball field, moves the ice rink to the
east, removes tennis courts. Concept 2 moves the softball field, ice rink stays where it is, expanded parking
and volleyball court, removing tennis court. Concept 3 keeps the baseball field, removes the softball field,
moves the ice rink, removes the tennis courts and changes to the volleyball court.
Ms. Amberg described the two concept plans for Moore Lake Park. Concept 1 removes the dog park and
boardwalk, and adds a multi-use court space. Concept 2 moves the paddle sport rental space, enlarges
beach space, and adds natural playground on the north end.
4. Review Next Steps and Future Meeting Dates
Mr. Maher reminded the Committee of the next meeting dates of November 10 and December 9, 2021.
ADJOURN 9:05 p.m.
74
Jufn!2/
PARK SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT PLAN
REFINEMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE
November 10, 2021
7:00 PM
Fridley City Hall, 7071 University Avenue N.E.
MINUTES
Present: Kim Ferraro, Dan Gourde, Traci Wuchter, Maija Sedzielarz, Ken Schultz, Don Whalen, E.B.
Graham, Malcolm Mitchell, Jim Stangler, Jeremy Powers, Liz Novotny, Mike Heintz
Absent: Peter Borman, Jordan Hurst
Others Present: Candace Amberg, WSB Landscape Architect
Mike Maher, Community Services Director
Melissa Moore, City Clerk
Stephen Keeler, Fridley Public Schools
Maurice Roberge, Resident
Mike Maher, Community Services Director, called the meeting to order at 7:05p.m.
REVIEW OF MINUTES
1.Meeting Minutes of October 14, 2021 Refinement Advisory Committee Meeting
There were no revisions to the minutes.
ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION
Mr. Maher recognized guests in attendance. Mr. Robergeaddressed the Committee on his request
for dedicated pickle ball courtsversus adapting tennis courts.
Mr. Powers asked staff for an index of space offerings City-wideat the next meeting. A list that would
spell out each activity, and where they have dedicated space throughout the City.
Mr. Keeler addressed the Committee regarding a possible City/School District collaboration to
enhance the project overall. The group discussed the property surrounding Fridley High School and
Fridley Middle School. Mr. Keeler will liaison with the City.
75
Jufn!2/
2. Community Park Concept Plan Review and Discussion
meeting. Site Concept 1 includes the following changes: combines all parking into one lot, removed
one ball field, creates neighborhood park amenities in previous parking space, removed fencing from
west ball fields to allow for multi-use fields and soccer field, improved and relocated shelter, and
future plans for pedestrian bridge to connect the Civic Campus.
The Committee expressed concern with removing fencing on the west ball fields. Ms. Amberg will
put the fences back in and decrease the size of soccer fields.
Ms. Novotny shared her desire to see public art from Fridley artists in the community parks.
Site Concept 2 includes the following changes: existing north parking remains, expands south
parking, northwest softball field is changed to a multi-purpose athletic field, added playground and
picnic and mixed amenities area around a central shelter.
Ms. Farraro noted only having two fields, and smaller soccer fields, will not draw tournaments.
Therefore, a concession stand would not be needed.
Ms. Amberg confirmed consensus for the parking set up of Site Concept 2.
Ms. Amberg opened the discussion of Commons Park Site Concept Plan 1. Changes include improved
baseball fields, removed softball field, added parking lots, splashpad and playground, removed tennis
courts for multi-game court, new concessions and restrooms, relocated hockey rink. The group
agreed the location of the warming house, away from the hockey rink, does not make sense. The
group agreed the multi-game court should be a dedicated pickleball court.
Ms. Amberg opened the discussion of Commons Park Site Concept Plan 2. Changes include creating
new parking lot, moved softball field, expanded volleyball courts, multi-use facility at the base of the
sledding hill, readjusted south parking lot. The group agreed the softball field is not needed and
should be removed for open athletic space for soccer.
Ms. Amberg opened the discussion of Commons Park Site Concept Plan 3. Changes include moving
the hockey rink, tennis courts removed for parking, softball field removed for open athletic space,
adding volleyball courts.
The Committee consulte
76
Jufn!2/
Ms. Amberg opened the discussion of Moore Lake Park Site Concept Plan 1. She noted the Rice Creek
Watershed District redrew flood maps, which
plans. The new plan will need to ensure any structures are waterproof and above the required flood
elevation. She updated the group that changes are in progress to refine the roundabout, which would
impact access to the park. Changes to the concept include improved parking space, multi-use game
court, natural playground and picnic space, removed the splashpad.
Moore Lake Park Site Concept Plan 2 includes removing smaller shelters and constructing one large
shelter, one large playground, larger beach area and removed boardwalk. The group discussed
potential for paddleboard rental options.
kleball courts at this park or rely
on other parks for those activities. The group agreed the park should include at least a half-court
basketball court
4/ Sfwjfx!Ofyu!Tufqt!boe!Gvuvsf!Nffujoh!Ebuft
Ms. Amberg informed the group that she will come to the next meeting with an updated priorities
spreadsheet, updated cost spreadsheets, and further revised concept plans. Mr. Maher updated the
group that the Financing Committee is close to finalizing their recommendation to the City Council
on the financing vehicles for a ten-year implementation periodmeeting in December
will be to further refine the community park recommendation. Each community park and each
neighborhood park will have a proposed final concept for the group to consider. With feedback from
that meeting, staff will finalize a formal recommendation for the group to approve at a January
meeting.
The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
77
Jufn!2/
PARK SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT PLAN
REFINEMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE
December 09, 2021
7:00 PM
Fridley City Hall, 7071 University Avenue N.E.
MINUTES
Present: Peter Borman, Mike Heintz, Dan Gourde, Maija Sedzielarz, Malcolm Mitchell, Jeremy Powers,
Jordan Hurst, Traci Wuchter, Jim Stangler,E.B. Graham, Ken Schultz,
Absent: Don Whalen, Liz Novotny, Kim Ferraro
Others Present: Candace Amberg, WSB Landscape Architect
Mike Maher, Community Services Director
Jeff Jensen, Operations Manager for Streets, Parks and Facilities
Melissa Moore, City Clerk
Mike Maher, Community Services Director, called the meeting to order at 7:02p.m.
REVIEW OF MINUTES
1.Meeting Minutes of November 10, 2021 Refinement Advisory Committee Meeting
There were no revisions to the minutes.
ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION
2.Preferred Community Park Concept Plan Review and Discussion
Ms. Amberg noted the exhibits in theagenda are concepts. She will review them with the group and
solicit their feedback for further revisions.
Ms. Amberg described the updated proposal to Commons Park. The committee expressed support for
the proposed plan, and shared hopes the Fridley School District (District)would be supportive of an
agreement to implement the proposed plan. Mr. Maher met with Stephen Keeler from the District who
expressed generalizedand would be open to
discussing plan details.
Ms. Amberg described the updated proposal to Community Park. Mr. Mitchell asked for more data on
what trends are in recreation. Ms. Amberg said it variescommunity to community, and changes over time.
This plan creates flexibility andallows for future changes if needed.
78
Jufn!2/
Ms. Amberg described the updated proposal to Moore Lake Park. Mr. Maher notified the group that the
City was recently notified that the entire area was newly designated as a flood zone by the Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources (DNR), so the original plan for the park must be significantly pulled
back. The new flood plain means the City is greatly restricted in what can be done with the land
immediately surrounding the lake. Mr. Jensen added that he is working with the City Engineer to
determine if the existing shelter structure could be renovated to meet the new needs of the park, but
improving the structure will be tough with the requirements established by the DNR. Mr. Jensen informed
the group that work by Anoka County will begin in 2022 on the planned roundabout.
Mr. Heintz asked if more shelters could be added to the park, since that is a popular use for the park. Mr.
Maher said that yes, more shelters could be added.
Ms. Amberg reviewed Draft Implementation Strategy - Approach #1. The spreadsheet prioritizes work to
be done throughout the City. The base estimate column includes all work originally proposed by WSB for
a total of $37 million, with approximately $14 million in alternate or deferred amenities. This approach
prioritizes Moore Lake Park, Commons Park was secondary, and Community Park would wait for future
work. The remainder neighborhood parks would also be prioritized except for a few that can wait for
future work. Mr. Heintz shared feedback given to the Parks and Recreation Commission for a significant
desire to have work done quickly on Moore Lake Park.
Ms. Amberg reviewed Draft Implementation Strategy - Approach #2. This approach prioritizes work to be
complete on the three community parks sooner, along with a few neighborhood parks in underserved
areas.
Mr. Schultz confirmed that in the first five years there are no committed plans to construct pickleball
courts. Ms. Amberg confirmed that Pickleball Courts are included planning for Commons Park but that
these improvement may not be completed in the first five years of the implementation plan.
Mr. Mitchell asked for guidelines, or policy, to be established to help the City shape a plan for what
activities it will provide. Ms. Amberg replied these are still high-level discussions, and do
not get into details. Mr. Mitchell asked for a City policy to guide how the City will choose what activities
to implement.
Ms. Amberg reminded the committee of the survey feedback from Finding Your Fun in Fridley and
subsequent community surveys. That feedback has inspired the plans and proposals to this point.
Mr. Shultz expressed support for Approach #1 to enhance neighborhood parks for the biggest impact on
residents. The committee expressed general agreement. Mr. Heintz added that waiting on renovating
Community Park would provide the City more time to gather data on recreation trends if plans should
change for that particular.
Mr. Borman asked if Moore Lake can not receive newly constructed buildings, how the City would provide
any restroom options. Mr. Jensen replied that he and the City Engineer are exploring options for
improving the existing building, or possibly creating a vaulted restroom. Ms. Sedzielarz asked for timeline
for when staff would know more information. Mr. Jensen said hopefully in the next few months. The DNR
79
Jufn!2/
and the City are still working on restrictions and possibilities to figure out the potential engineering
solutions for the park.
Mr. Maher reminded the committee this is a long process and the City will still be working on the plan in
ten years. What the committee is tasked with, right now, is a preliminary planning process. The committee
is charting a basic roadmap for the City. He asked if the committee with the amount of information given
on Approach #1, if
feedback, for the committee to consider at its next meeting.
Mr. Heintz said yes, and acknowledged the City will need to address future changes as the plan is
implemented.
Mr. Schultz added Approach #1 shows most immediate impact for residents.
Mr. Stangler Approach #2 because he does not feel Approach #1 serves certain youth activities, such as
baseball, but understands the value in Approach #1.
Mr. Maher restated his perception of a consensus of the committee to endorse Approach #1 as a general
guiding plan, knowing there will be changes and modifications based on cost and environmental
conditions the City finds as work begins.
Mr. Heintz motioned that the Financing Committee formally endorse Approach #1, which should be
recommended to the Fridley City Council. Seconded by Mr. Mitchell. All committee members voting aye.
3. Review Next Steps and Proposed Future Meeting Dates
Mr. Maher thanked the committee for their time, effort and dedication.
ADJOURN 8:40
7: