Park and Recreation Master Plan Planning the future of Roseville s parks, facilities, and recreation programs

Park and Recreation Master Plan Planning the future of Roseville s parks, facilities, and recreation programs Citizen Advisory Team Meeting 9: Policy and Concept Plan Review June 3, 2010 6:30 to 8:30 pm Willow Room, Roseville City Hall Agenda 1 Review meeting notes 5 minutes 2 CAT items 5 minutes 3 Community outreach 5 minutes Questionnaire Two High school survey results 4 Policy review 30 minutes Review of draft policies forwarded to CAT on 28 May 2010 5 Concept plan review 40 minutes Review of concepts Input gained from open house Recommendations for adjustments to concepts 6 Major facilities review 20 minutes Summary of CAT 8a Review of draft concepts 7 Questions 5 minutes 8 Public comment 10 minutes 9 Adjourn Upcoming meetings Thursday June 17, 2010 Citizen Advisory Team Meeting # 10 6:30 to 8:30 pm, City Hall Wednesday June 23, 2010 Community Meeting Four: Sharing the Draft Plan 7:00 to 9:30 pm, Skating Center

Park and Recreation System Master Plan Update Citizen Advisory Team Meeting 8: Policy review Notes May 13, 2010 6:30 to 8:45 p.m. Willow Room, Roseville City Hall draft Attendance CAT members Erin Azer Bob Bierscheid Bill Farmer Gary Grefenberg Elfrieda Hintze Sheila Mahnken Rose Masanz Nancy O Brien Dan Roe Tom Turba Bob Willmus Ken Yokanovich City Staff Lonnie Brokke Jill Anfang Jeff Evenson Brad Tullberg Consulting Team Dan Cornejo Others Michael Schroeder Notes 1 Review meeting notes Meeting notes from the previous meeting were approved by the CAT. 2 CAT items Michael Schroeder noted that the CAT meeting scheduled for June 17 th will include an hour with the City Council and Parks and Recreation Commission. It was decided that this meeting would be an opportunity to update these bodies prior to Community Meeting Four. Michael also noted that the meeting will be held in the Willow Room, and that the City Council and Parks and Recreation Commission were invited to meet with the CAT, and this is the CAT s opportunity to share their directions with these bodies. 3 Community outreach Michael Schroeder noted that a listening session was conducted with the Business Networking Initiative, a group of Roseville related businesses formed for networking purposes. About eight members of BNI attended. It was clear that businesses valued parks, and several noted that they conduct business regularly in parks (home remodeling and repair contractors meeting with potential clients). As a result, they value the maintenance of the parks. They noted a desire for parks and recreation

Roseville Park and Recreation System Master Plan Update Community Advisory Team Meeting 8: Policy review NOTES 13 May 2010 Page 2 components in the industrial park, suggesting there is a large population of workers who might benefit from some park elements near where they work. It was also noted by one BNI member that he uses parks in other communities for commercial photography, and questioned whether that was possible in Roseville and that in other communities photographers pay a permit fee (with the understanding that their fees are directed toward maintenance). Staff noted that there are no prohibitions against commercial photography. Lonnie Brokke described a Community Town Hall meeting that was held at City Hall on May 3, 2010, noting that while participation from the public was limited, positive attention was directed to parks and recreation and the master planning process. Attention was directed to the term of the master plan, with Lonnie suggesting the plan will look out over a period of twenty or thirty years. Participants noted that this was a good time to be making investments in Roseville, using those investments to attract new residents. This spurred a discussion about the trends in demographics in the community whether trends in ownership and families were trending upward with greater enrollment in schools, or if the trends indicate an aging community. Jeff Evenson attended a PTSA meeting at Parkview School and provided an update on the master plan process to those attending, and invited them to participate in the upcoming parks concept planning workshop. Michael Schroeder noted that a survey was provided to the Roseville Area High School that would be distributed to every student, and that the students would be required to complete and return the survey. Around 2100 surveys are expected to be returned. A copy of the survey was provided to CAT members in their packets. This survey was facilitated by Julia Jacobson. Jeff Evenson discussed the second questionnaire, noting that it is nearly ready to distribute, and that it will be forwarded to everyone who has provided an email address during the master plan process. Michael Schroeder noted that a subgroup of the TAT met to discuss the master plan. Representative of Falcon Heights, Lauderdale, and Saint Anthony participated. While Saint Anthony seems to relate more directly to parks and recreation opportunities and resources in New Brighton, Falcon Heights and Lauderdale expressed interest in more closely cooperating with Roseville on parks and recreation issues and opportunities. Both noted the existing relationship between their cities that focus on engineering and IT. Michael Schroeder summarizes a meeting with Roseville staff department heads, where the focus was the possible locations for major facilities. Some sites were suggested as having limiting conditions (due to traffic or ownership), while others were reinforced as possibilities. 4 Community Meeting Three summary Michael Schroeder offered a more detailed review of the input gained

Roseville Park and Recreation System Master Plan Update Community Advisory Team Meeting 8: Policy review NOTES 13 May 2010 Page 3 than was provided during the last CAT meeting. He reviewed the policy exercise, where he had aggregated the responses of all groups (consensus and minority opinions), and then suggested the consolidated response of the entire group (as well as the trends within responses that might suggest an orientation to one of the policy positions). The discussion then focused on who participated in this meeting. There is still a concern that we are missing immigrant groups in our engagement process. It was noted that Pat Kennedy might be a good resource for finding ways to engage segments of the population that are not currently involved. It was also noted that we may have to find the more singular spokesperson for each group. Staff noted that language can be a problem, and that they have attempted to engage immigrant groups in locations where they already are (as opposed to solely relying on invitations to broader meetings). 5 Proposed park policies In the review of park policies, discussion included the following: Parks are not just about recreation; they play an important role in setting identity, creating a sense of place, and offering a sense of belonging for neighborhoods. We should be strongly linking these policies to the outcomes discussed earlier in the process. Pathways are not just about transit, but are a way of creating connections for other purposes; the master plan should demonstrate the role of pathways in building a stronger community, and not just using pathways as a way to access transit. We should take a broader view of parks, and deal with open space character in the community. A discussion focused on the image of Roseville offered by Snelling Avenue, having Parks and Recreation Department take on an advocacy role in the design of these spaces. Gateways and corridors, and associated mobility issues, need to consider links that are not yet planned or constructed. These areas need to be considered from a Parks and Recreation perspective, not just a Public Works viewpoint. The policies should deal with reforestation, which might begin to address issues related to community character along some key routes. Open spaces related to schools should be zoned as park space, creating a way of ensuring that these open spaces are not lost. CAT members requested staff to explore the balance between programmed recreation space and non programmed space in the parks and recreation system There should be flexibility in programming, not just a ballfield focus. Public art discussions highlighted a number of ideas for incorporation of art into the parks, but suggested that art is typically more integrated into the design of space or a building, and that art

Roseville Park and Recreation System Master Plan Update Community Advisory Team Meeting 8: Policy review NOTES 13 May 2010 Page 4 may serve purposes beyond decoration. It was also noted that programmed events are often arts related, and that art could help build a stronger sense of neighborhood identity. Finally, it was suggested that the policy might be as direct as suggesting that a policy needs to be developed. These items will be considered as policies are further refined. 6 Park classification Michael Schroeder reviewed briefly a comparison of the current park classification definitions, and noted that the master plan will likely carry forward a version similar to the current definitions, but that an expanded definition will be provided to demonstrate a parks relationship to the constellation concept. He noted that having parks classifications is an important part of the parks accreditation process. CAT members suggested that the definition of some parks be reconsidered, noting in particular the need to address the classification of parks as athletic fields. 7 Parks concept planning Jeff Evenson briefly reviewed the upcoming parks concept planning workshop and the notification procedures used to invite participation. 8 Approach to major facilities It was suggested by the CAT that a separate meeting be scheduled to deal exclusively with the community center and other major facilities. Staff will forward a date for this meeting, which will occur before the next scheduled CAT meeting. This topic will be the sole agenda item. It was suggested that dog parks and splash pads be noted as communitywide facilities. A summary of considerations will be forwarded to the CAT to prepare for the next CAT meeting, which will include a list of possible components and considerations for locations 9 Questions There were no questions addressed. 10 Public comment There were no comments from the public. 11 Adjourn The CAT adjourned at approximately 8:30 p.m. Upcoming meetings Wednesday May 19, 2010 Park Concept Plan Workshop Skating Center, 6:30 to 9:30 pm

Roseville Park and Recreation System Master Plan Update Community Advisory Team Meeting 8: Policy review NOTES 13 May 2010 Page 5 Thursday May 27, 2010 Wednesday June 2, 2010 Thursday June 3, 2010 Special CAT meeting dealing with major facilities Skating Center (Fireplace Room), 6:30 to 8:30 pm Park Concept Plan Open House Skating Center, 7:00 to 9:00 pm CAT Meeting 10: Policy review City Hall, 6:30 to 8:30 pm These notes represent the author s interpretation of discussions and decisions occurring at the meeting. Corrections or deficiencies may be directed to Jeff Evenson, Roseville Parks and Recreation Department (jeff.evenson@ci.roseville.mn.us) before the next regularly scheduled meeting of the CAT, or they may be addressed at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the CAT, after which the notes will be recorded as approved upon a vote of the CAT.

Date: May 28, 2010 To: From: Subject: CAT members Master Plan Design Group DRAFT Vision, Outcomes, Goals and Policies Attached is DRAFT of the initial text of the Master Plan document which contains the Vision, Outcomes, Goals and Policies. Please review this over the next week, and come prepared to discuss any questions you may have at our next CAT meeting on Thursday, June 3 rd. We have attempted to use the input you have given us over the past nine months, the input from our community outreach efforts, the goal statements and policies in the Parks chapter of the City s 2008 Comprehensive Plan Update, and the review of existing administrative policies. This DRAFT is our best effort at consolidating and bringing forward goals and policies that remain relevant, revising them as necessary to better reflect our work together in the Master Plan process, and devising new language that best lays out the directions we believe will lead the Roseville community forward to create and sustain a world-renowned parks and recreation system. There are a number of areas about which we have lingering issues or believe more discussion is warranted: 1. Sectors and Constellations: Have we adequately described this new approach to park location, development, and program delivery? 2. Community Center: What should it contain, where should it go? Should there be one community center, or several smaller ones? 1

3. Parks and Recreation as an essential service: Have we adequately discussed it, in terms of its prominence in our early discussion of the need for parks? 4. No net loss of parkland: We do not have an explicit policy. This policy/practice has been an administrative understanding. Should we have an explicit policy? 5. Commercial uses in parks: Does the current draft language (see Policy 1.19) adequately reflect our discussion and conclusions? 6. References to other Comprehensive Plan chapters: Should we make reference to other Comprehensive Plan chapters (e.g., Transportation, Land Use) where there appears to be an overlap in responsibility for implementation or jurisdiction? These are just a few questions we have. You may have others. Please come prepared to discuss the ideas and themes embodied in this DRAFT. We will take care of minor edits, any typos, and grammatical issues. 2

DRAFT 05-28-10 Roseville Parks and Recreation System Master Plan Vision, Outcomes, Goals and Policies Introduction and Purpose The City of Roseville is one of the premier Parks and Recreation Systems in the country with 679 acres of parks and open space. The System consists of 30 parks, numerous facilities and a variety of opportunities. In addition, Ramsey County and school district properties complement our award-winning Parks and Recreation System. Much of the Parks and Recreation System was acquired and constructed in the 1960s, 70s and 80s. Many of these parks and recreation facilities are aging and in need of updating. New recreation trends and changing demographics have emerged which may require facility or programming changes. The City recognizes the importance of its Parks and Recreation System to quality of life. In 2009 the City initiated an effort to update the City Parks and Recreation System Master Plan. Over the years, there have been ongoing citizen planning efforts to improve various parks and programs. This update looked more in-depth and system-wide. This effort included an extensive public outreach program to ensure that citizen needs, expectations and standards are met for today and into the future. The purpose for preparing the Parks and Recreation System Master Plan was to: Align with Imagine Roseville 2025 visioning process, Identify community needs and desires, Prioritize Parks and Recreation System improvements, Chart growth, direction and priorities for the Parks and Recreation System, Identify sustainable funding sources and invest wisely. 3

The Parks and Recreation System Master Plan sets broad directions for the next several generations and includes a more specific program of development, management, and improvements for the next twenty years. The Plan includes a summary of public input, desires and needs, vision, intended outcomes, goals and policies. The Parks and Recreation System Master Plan should be viewed as a living document, to be evaluated and refined on a regular basis to keep pace with demographic, recreation, funding and other trends as they evolve. This document will also build awareness and understanding of contemporary parks and recreation needs, as well as create a path for implementing recognized improvements for parks, programs, and facilities. A Vision for Parks and Recreation: Where do we want to go? Long-term view and fundamental ideas that form the basis for the Plan By starting now to set aside the land which we will need, at locations which can best serve all neighborhoods, it is our confident belief that we can materially add to the general welfare and desirability of our village. Robert C. Bell, Chairman Roseville Planning Commission from the Roseville Parks and Recreation Plan, 1960 More than fifty years ago, residents of a much younger Roseville set about framing a community around its parks, and forged a path toward the park and recreation system we enjoy today. Since then, Roseville has multiplied far beyond its population in 1960, our land has been consumed by development to the point where few, if any, undeveloped parcels remain, our time is stretched thin while at same time technology promises greater opportunities for leisure, the resources available seem ever more limited, and our personality is evolving to embrace new residents and cultures. Now, more than ever, our parks, programs, and facilities are important. And what s really amazing is that our parks have served well the purpose that Chairman Bell and his contemporaries intended in the city s original plan. Now, we find ourselves in their place, enjoying the fruits of their efforts as we look forward to a Roseville that continues to respond with parks, programs, and facilities that are a valued and essential part of our community. Now, it s our turn to plan. 4

Organizational Structure. In previous years, Roseville approached the location of parks, acquisition of land for parks, park development and maintenance, and recreation programs and services on the basis of the fifteen (15) planning districts depicted in Comprehensive Plan. The focus of this approach was to create a neighborhood park to serve each neighborhood that was being developed. As a natural evolution from the 1960 Plan, and through the process of developing this Parks and Recreation System Master Plan, we see that a new organizational structure must be created to better serve the parks and recreation needs and desires of the Roseville community which is nearly fully developed. A sector and constellation concept has been created, organizing Roseville into four (4) sectors (formed by the major north-south arterial road Snelling Avenue and the east-west Highway 36. The four sectors are divided into a total of fifteen constellations formed by a combination of factors, primarily significant roads and the ½ mile walking radius around existing parks. We believe that this revised organizational structure will serve as the new basis for park and facilities location and development, maintenance, and recreation program and service delivery. Playing and Learning Life Skills. We see parks as a place where play happens, embracing both age and culture in recreation opportunities, where games can happen simply for the sake of amusement, where we learn through play how to act and interact, and where we compete and collaborate successfully as our proficiencies grow. Active Living All the Time. We see parks and recreation activities where everyone can gain lifestyle skills that bring about life-long physical and mental health and create a state of well-being from activity and interaction throughout the entire year in all seasons. Citizen Engagement. We see parks as a place for programs that engage our citizens, young and old, with activities and adventures that they might not otherwise have opportunity to engage in, with services directed to critical needs in our community, with programs that connect people of similar interests while yielding a greater sense of community, and with events that allow us to celebrate traditions and create new customs or rituals. Environmental Stewardship. We see parks as an opportunity to care for our wild places and creatures, where we have been entrusted with a resource that must be managed and cared for so future generations can benefit from the 5

spirit of nature, its function, and its regenerative qualities, and where nature is extended to the every resident s park experience. High Quality and Maintenance. We envision our parks being administered to ensure the continuity and quality of service, where we maintain well what we have already created, and where we plan carefully new additions so that they, too, become integral, well-cared for components of our parks and recreation system. Community Connections. We envision parks, and greenway connections between them, as a way of binding us within our immediate neighborhoods and constellations, our sectors, and across our community, where we connect to nature and to each other both being essential elements of our place, where we celebrate our common cultures, where we form friendships, practice citizenship, and where we have the chance to create an emotional commitment to our community. Community Character and Identity. We envision our park and recreation system as a feature of Roseville that we frame for ourselves, that we invite others who share our passion for parks and community to help us create, that we continue to mold as Roseville continues to change, and that we embrace and protect as a defining and essential quality of our community character and identity. It s in this spirit of planning the future of our parks and recreation that we find resonance with the ideas others have carried forward in Roseville. Through dialogue and the exchange of ideas, an understanding of changing contexts and new challenges, we have come to understand that our parks are worldrenowned. Because we have created the means to make and keep them our own, we recognize the need to perpetuate their presence as a vital and essential part of the Roseville community. We know that as we secure a future for parks for our individual reasons, we secure them for the more universal purposes of our common life as a community. 6

Outcomes: What do we want when we get there? Intended long-term results of a healthy and vibrant park and recreation system Our vision does not stand alone. As stewards of both our natural environment and our park buildings and programs, we are dedicated to a focus on outcomes to further guide our efforts, and to offer additional insight about the kind of park and recreation system we are choosing for ourselves. It is important that we understand these outcomes. They are expectations. They cannot be changed or relaxed without diminishing our intentions. They are more of a filter, allowing us to use these statements with our vision to better understand if a proposal for change actually fits our vision, our intended outcomes, and our goals. These statements of outcomes offer us a common language to speak about our parks and recreation, and the ways we are shaping them to guide an evolution of our community. Preserve natural assets and areas with significant environmental features and provide spaces for active recreation in our community. Foster environmental awareness and promote and manage the presence of wildlife and wild places in the community and its parks. Create life-long experiences, and intergenerational and intercultural opportunities, by providing activities and options for play throughout residents lives which generate friendships and memories that extend beyond park bounds. Improve physical and emotional community public health and provide residents with opportunities for active living as part of a vibrant community. Stem potential public safety issues by keeping people active and engaged and by populating the city s public spaces. Provide valuable life education for all aspects of life and teach people how to act and interact as a part of a community. Encourage healthy and active lifestyles for people that live and work in Roseville. Enhance property values, especially for properties near city parks. 7

Maintain park and program accessibility and affordability for every resident and offer a sense of inclusion and connection to the community. Develop a sense of civic responsibility, creating a sense of obligation to maintain and enhance the legacy handed to the current generation of residents and to convey something equally profound to succeeding generations of residents. Harness parks potential to attract and retain residents by understanding the choices of prospective residents when buying or renting a home and knowing that parks play a role in existing residents decisions to remain in the community. Encourage volunteerism as a connection to community service and community-building, as well as developing leadership skills and life training. Support parks and programs with funding from a variety of methods, including mutually-beneficial partnerships with other public entities, the private sector, and non-profits. Goals and Policies: How do we get there? More specific statements of intended directions 1. Park and Recreation Systems Management 2. Parks Development, Redevelopment, and Rehabilitation 3. Park and Open Space Acquisition 4. Trails, Pathways, and Community Connections 5. Recreation Programs and Services 6. Community Facilities 7. Natural Resources Management 8

Parks and Recreation Systems Management Goal 1 Maintain an ongoing parks and recreation planning and management process that involves citizen engagement, adheres to professional standards and utilizes prudent professional practices, provides timely guidance for protecting the community s investment in parks, open space, and recreation programs and facilities, and ensures their long-term and sustained viability. Policy 1.1: Re-evaluate, update, and adopt a Park and Recreation System Master Plan at least every five years to reflect new and current trends, changing demographics, new development criteria, unanticipated population densities, and any other factors that affect park and recreation goals, policies, and future direction of the system. Policy 1.2: Monitor progress on the Parks and Recreation System Master Plan on an annual basis to ensure that it provides actionable steps for maintaining, improving, and expanding the system. Policy 1.3: Consider staffing and resource needs in the evaluation of proposals for additions to parks, programs, and facilities. Policy 1.4: Use the Sector and Constellation organization structure as the basis for park, recreation program, and facility locations, development, and service delivery. Policy 1.5: Enhance neighborhood and community identity in the design of parks, programs, and facilities with public art, special events, and stewardship of natural features. Policy 1.6: Establish a service standard of having a neighborhood park or active play space in every park service constellation. Policy 1.7: Preserve parks and school open space areas as part of the citywide systems plan for structured recreation space and unstructured preserved natural areas. Policy 1.8: Include Ramsey County park land and open space in planning and providing recreation services to Roseville residents. 9

Policy 1.9: Seek partnerships with other entities to provide the community with a greater diversity or number of parks and facilities, and to offer a more expansive catalog of programs and events. Policy 1.10: Continue to coordinate, cooperate, and collaborate with adjacent communities, school districts, and other governmental jurisdictions to leverage resources regarding the use of parks on common municipal boundaries and on joint programming where appropriate for mutual benefit to optimize open space, fitness, and recreation programming and facility options. Policy 1.11: Complete park concept plans for all parks. Policy 1.12: Evaluate the maintenance implications of potential park land acquisitions and capital improvements. Policy 1.13: Annually recommend the adoption of a ten-year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for Parks and Recreation. Policy 1.14: Use the procurement methods that deliver the best value for the community. Policy 1.15: Research, develop, and recommend to the City Council and citizens periodic bond referendums, park and trail dedication fees, urban forest management fees, special assessments, or other funding programs to reinvest in parks and recreation facilities needed within Roseville. Policy 1.16: Explore the potential for implementing a park service district as a means of creating a sustainable, independent source of local funding for the parks and recreation system. Policy 1.17: Supplement the development and maintenance of parks and recreation lands and facilities with the use of non-property tax funds. Policy 1.18: Pursue local option sales tax or State bond funds to support Roseville facilities of regional or State-wide significance. Policy 1.19: Discourage commercial uses in parks, programs, or facilities and/or parks and recreation facilities. However, commercial uses could be permitted in situations in which the proposed use complements the park or recreation function, is benign, or where it does not conflict with the purpose of the park, recreation facility, or the overall intent of the Parks and Recreation System Master Plan. In no case should a commercial use be permitted in designated conservation or natural use areas. 10

Policy 1.20: Involve the Parks and Recreation Commission in the parks and recreation planning process, and support the Commission in its role as liaison between citizens and Roseville s elected officials and appointed staff to interpret citizen needs and interests, to recommend programs, facilities, and services to serve their needs, and to stimulate additional volunteer involvement in the delivery and support of the parks and recreation system. Policy 1.21: Involve a diverse and representative group of participants in the parks and recreation planning process. Conduct active and continuous interaction within the community with neighborhoods, special interest groups, and individuals of all ages to achieve effective recreational programming and facility development. Policy 1.22: Parks and recreation staff should play the key role in the delivery of parks, programs, and facility services. Community volunteers should be used whenever and wherever possible and appropriate to enrich the experience for the participant and volunteer. Policy 1.23: Develop and implement an ongoing public information and marketing program to inform the public of their investments, opportunities, and benefits of a quality parks and recreation system. Parks Development, Redevelopment, and Rehabilitation Goal 2 Provide a high-quality, financially sound system of parks, open spaces, trails, and waterways that meets the recreation needs of all city residents, provides a visual/physical diversion from the hard surfacing of urban development, enhances the quality of life in Roseville, and forms an essential part of the identity and character of the community. Policy 2.1: Evaluate and refurbish parks, as needed, to reflect the needs related to changes in population, age, and diversity of community residents, recreational activities preferred, amount of leisure time available, and best practices designs and technologies. Policy 2.2: Orient parks and programs equally to youth activities that focus on community building activities teaching them life-long skills, and exposing them to a variety of recreation experiences, and to adult activities which accommodate adults needs for wellness and provide a range of social interaction opportunities. 11

Policy 2.3: Focus parks on passive and active recreational activities and activities that take particular advantage of the unique natural features of our parks. Pursue opportunities for incorporating art and cultural programs, which enrich citizens mental and emotional well-being, as a complement to primary physical focus of our parks and recreation programs. Policy 2.4: Organize all parks and facilities so that a component is provided for informal, non-programmed activities those open to anyone in the community, at any time. Policy 2.5: Maintain parks and open space according to the standards outlined in the Park Maintenance Manual which recognizes that levels of service must be provided based on the intensity of use and purpose of site. Policy 2.6: Use innovative methods for park and facility improvements that offer lower lifecycle costs, even if the initial cost is higher. Develop park and recreation facilities that minimize the maintenance demands on the City by emphasizing the development of well-planned parks, high-quality materials and labor-saving maintenance devices and practices. Policy 2.7: Promote and support volunteerism to encourage people to actively support Roseville s parks and open spaces. Parks and Open Space Acquisition Goal 3 Add new parks and recreation facilities to achieve equitable access in all neighborhoods, accommodate the needs of Roseville s redeveloping areas, and meet residents desires for a broad range of recreation opportunities serving all age groups and cultural communities. Policy 3.1: As areas of Roseville evolve, and properties undergo a change of use and/or density, land should be dedicated to the community for park purposes to ensure adequate park facilities for those new uses. Policy 3.2: Determine potential locations and acquire additional park land in neighborhoods and constellations that are lacking adequate parks and recreation facilities. Policy 3.3: Determine potential locations for new park and recreation facilities in redevelopment areas as part of the redevelopment process and use the park dedication process to acquire appropriate land. 12

Policy 3.4: Make continued effective use of the Park Dedication Ordinance. Park land dedication will be required when land is developed or redeveloped for residential, commercial, or industrial purposes. Review annually park dedication requirements in order to ensure that dedication regulations meet statutory requirements and the needs of Roseville. Policy 3.5: Use park dedication funds to acquire and develop new land in addition to other funding sources. Policy 3.6: Acquire properties necessary to implement adopted park concept plans and in Roseville s Comprehensive Land Use Plan, and consider other additions based on needs identified in the sector or constellation concept. Acquire land on a willing seller basis unless otherwise determined by the City Council. Trails, Pathways, and Community Connections Goal 4 Create a well-connected and easily accessible system of parks, open spaces, trails, pathways, community connections, and facilities that links neighborhoods within the community and provides opportunities for residents and others to gather and interact. Policy 4.1: Develop, adopt, and implement a comprehensive and integrated trails, pathways, and community connections system plan for recreation and transportation uses, including separate facilities for pedestrians, and bicyclists (including off-road unpaved trails for bikers and hikers that offer new challenges while protecting resources). Policy 4.2: Develop, adopt, and implement a Trails Management Program (TMP). Policy 4.3: Advocate the implementation of community parkways on the County Road C and Lexington Avenue corridors to accommodate pedestrian and bicyclist movement and inclusion of community character and identity features. Policy 4.4: Maintain the trail and pathway system through all seasons. Policy 4.5: Make the park system accessible to people of all abilities. Policy 4.6: Align development and expansion of non-motorized trails, pathways, community parkways, and other routes with the need to provide connections to 13

and within parks, to open spaces, recreation facilities, and key destinations, as well as between neighborhoods, constellations, and sectors. Policy 4.7: Educate the public on the advantages and safe use of non-motorized trails, pathways, and community parkway connections. Policy 4.8: Develop clear and communicative signage and kiosks for wayfinding. Recreation Programs and Services Goal 5 Provide Roseville residents with opportunities to participate in a variety of recreation, athletic, wellness, art, social, learning, and environmental education activities and programs through the implementation of welldesigned, cost effective, and relevant services. Policy 5.1: Provide recreation programs and services that adequately address the recreational desires of people of all abilities and all segments of the community including children, teens, adults, and older adults. Policy 5.2: Organize a variety of community special events that stimulate interest in recreation participation, promote community identity and pride, encourage volunteerism, and bring together all segments of the community. Policy 5.3: Celebrate Roseville s heritage and cultural potential by acquiring and exhibiting quality works of art, providing access to a variety of performance arts, and by offering a diverse mixture of community events. Policy 5.4: Fairly and equitably administer all programs and services to ensure that all individuals and groups receive adequate representation. Policy 5.5: Monitor new trends, patterns, and activities in recreation and leisure service programs and incorporate revisions to Roseville s programs to reflect these changes at a broader level. Policy 5.6: Establish ongoing communication, information, and marketing program between all groups to broaden recreational interests and to encourage participation in Roseville s recreation programs. Policy 5.7: Coordinate and cooperate with school districts, community, county, and state agencies, private businesses, and surrounding municipalities to provide a diverse and extensive array of programs and services that are affordable to all participants. 14

Policy 5.8: Facilitate community recreation groups by providing technical support, equipment storage, promotional assistance, mailboxes, and meeting space. Policy 5.9: Act as liaison to recognized community groups providing recreation programs and services. Policy 5.10: Evaluate all programs and services quarterly and annually for quality, participant satisfaction, financial feasibility, and community desirability. Policy 5.11: Develop and maintain a system of program fees and charges that assess direct costs to the participants, and are affordable to the community. Policy 5.12: Provide residents with community activities and events using subsidies or fee waivers through scholarships, sponsorships, or other methods of fee assistance. Community Facilities Goal 6 Locate, design, construct, and manage community facilities to meet the needs of residents now and into the future. Policy 6.1: Provide community facilities that include desired community amenities for recreation and social interaction at an appropriate level within sectors and constellations. Policy 6.2: Continually assess community needs and desires for the use of existing community facilities and the need for additional space, renovated space, and improved space. Policy 6.3: Facilitate a system of community and recreation spaces in conjunction with the school districts that provides for both structured and unstructured times as managed and scheduled by the City. Policy 6.4: Identify a site, confirm a program, and define a strategy for implementing a community center. Policy 6.5: Manage and maintain facilities using best practices and costeffective methods to provide desired recreation services. 15

Policy 6.6: Leverage private involvement in the form of sponsorships, joint ventures, and contract for services to support facilities. Natural Resources Management Goal 7 Preserve significant natural resources, lakes, ponds, wetlands, open spaces, wooded areas, wildlife habitats, and trees as integral aspects of the parks system. Policy 7.1: Encourage dedication of parks, open spaces, and trails in new development and redevelopment areas, especially those that preserve significant natural resources and/or adjacent to the subject site. Policy 7.2: Create, adopt, and use Natural Resources Management Plans to preserve, restore, and manage the significant natural resources in the park system. Policy 7.3: Preserve wooded areas and implement an aggressive reforestation and forestry management program to ensure that Roseville has a substantial aesthetically pleasing and environmentally critical tree population in its parks, open spaces, boulevards, and other City property. Policy 7.4: Provide community environmental education programs, including proper tree care and plantings procedures and satellite areas within the parks and recreation system through recreation programs and services. 16

Forbes.com - Magazine Article http://www.forbes.com/2010/05/21/fittest-cities-washington-lifestyle-health-exercise-obesity_print.html Page 1 of 2 5/25/2010 Fitness in America America's Fittest Cities David Whelan, 05.24.10, 9:00 AM ET Not all cities are equal from a fitness standpoint. In some big cities one in three people are obese; in others it's only one in five. In some cities there is one baseball diamond for every 10,000 people; in others there are five times as many ball fields. So says this year's American Fitness Index report, published by the American College of Sports Medicine. It takes the biggest 50 metropolitan areas and ranks them by fitness levels. The top city on the list, now for three years running, is Washington, D.C. The least fit is Oklahoma City, Okla. The index considers 30 factors. The most important ones are measures of the city population's disease rates, mortality, physical attributes and lifestyle--even how many people eat full servings of fruit and vegetables. The rest of the ranking is based on the number of dog parks, golf courses, swimming pools and the like. In Depth: America's 10 Fittest Cities "We are thrilled to be the fittest city in the nation for the third consecutive year," Washington Mayor Adrian Fenty said in a statement. "We are investing in our recreation centers, building new swimming pools and opening more parks so our residents can exercise, swim, walk, bike and compete in sports." Washington isn't normally thought of as a health-obsessed city. That designation might bring to mind outdoorsy places like Denver or Minneapolis, two other cities in the top 10. But the Washington metro area "has a low smoking rate, a better-than-average number of folks eating fruits and vegetables and a lower-than-average rate of obesity," says Walter Thompson, a professor at Georgia State who advises the index. Another example is the diabetes rate: Only 6.7% of the D.C.-area population has diabetes, compared with 8.3% nationwide. The youthful population of government aides and interns surely helps. The nation's capital is also a well-endowed city when it comes to community recreation centers, ball fields and other places to exercise. Washington has the second-highest rate of people walking or biking to work, aided by 60 miles of bike lanes. On the other hand, just because there are a lot of parks and bike lanes being built doesn't mean that everyone uses them. And by giving points simply for having infrastructure, the index might favor wealthier cities or those with bigger governments. "It's a fair point," says Brenda Chamness, who gathers the data for the index. Chamness points out that research has found that fitness levels rise along with the building of new facilities. "If individuals do not have access to safe, convenient and affordable places to exercise, they would be less likely to exercise." Another city that does well is affluent Boston, with a low smoking rate and state-mandated health insurance. Both Seattle and Portland, Ore., make the top five as well, thanks to low obesity rates and lots of opportunities for physical activity. At the other end of the spectrum is Oklahoma City, which comes in dead last among the largest metropolitan areas. In Depth: America's 10 Most Sluggish Cities Oklahoma City Mayor Mick Cornett is used to people saying he's from an obese city. "I'm not saying we shouldn't be last," he

Forbes.com - Magazine Article http://www.forbes.com/2010/05/21/fittest-cities-washington-lifestyle-health-exercise-obesity_print.html Page 2 of 2 5/25/2010 says. "There are issues here that are real that we're not running away from. We have an obesity problem." In Oklahoma City almost one in three people weighs in as obese, and the diabetes rate is a sky-high 10.5%. The city lacks farmers' markets, and virtually everyone drives to work. But Mayor Cornett thinks the city gets unduly penalized because of technicalities in how the rankings are computed. Because the city doesn't run the schools, it can't classify school playgrounds as city-owned parks, as some other metro areas do. Cornett is working hard to improve the city's ranking. Two years ago the city launched a website, called ThisCityIsGoingOnADiet.com, where 41,000 people have logged on to record how much weight they have lost. The city has made it halfway to its goal of dropping 1 million pounds. Cornett say he personally dropped 38 pounds. The city only has about half as many parks, tennis courts, swimming pools and recreation centers per capita as a typical city, but is trying to reverse the tide. A recent bond issue, Cornett says, will pay for gymnasiums inside urban schools, 53 miles of bike trails, 450 miles of new sidewalks, a 77-acre city park and a plan to make 180 acres of downtown into a pedestrian mall. "It is not OK for anyone to be obese," Cornett says. "There needs to be a cultural shift." In Depth: America's 10 Fittest Cities In Depth: America's 10 Most Sluggish Cities