Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCORRESPONDENCE - RFP - P1024 PARKS AND RECREATION POLICY PLAN UPDATENo Text 2. Open Lands and Natural Areas ................................. 4-48 CHAPTER FIVE — IMPLEMENTATION A. Introduction...................................................... 5-1 B. Implementation Actions ............................................ 5-2 APPENDICES A. General Management Guidelines for City -Owned Open Space and Natural Areas B. Comparative Level of Service Offered by Front Range Communities C. Coley/Forrest Memorandum Regarding Maintenance Funding Options D. Recreation Fee Policy LIST OF MAPS ~� Map 2.1 Master Plan ..................................... end of Chapter 2 Map 3.1 Existing Conditions .............................. end of Chapter 3 .. Map 3.2 Open Lands Considerations ...................... end of Chapter 3 Map 4.1 Neighborhood Parkland Need ..................... end of Chapter 4 LIST OF TABLES Table 2.1 Comparative Level of Service and Parkland Standards .. In Selected Front Range Communities ....................... 2-9 Table 3.1 Fort Collins Parks: Inventory ................................ 3-8 Table 3.2 City -Owned Natural Areas ................................ 3-16 Table 3.3 Poudre School District Recreation Facilities .................. 3-26 Table 4.1 Historic Population Growth 1980-1990 ....................... 4-1 -- Table 4.2 Projected Population Growth 1990-2005 ...................... 4-2 Table 4.3 Fort Collins Age .Distribution ................................ 4-4 — Table 4A Historic and Projected Numbers of School Age Children ....... 4-4 Table 4.5 Historic Numbers of Participants in Basketball Programs ....... 4-9 Table 4.6 Historic Numbers of Participants in Volleyball Programs ...... 4-10 —' Table 4.7 Comparison of Level of Service Provided for Gymnasiums By Front Range Communities .............................. 4-12 . Table 4.8 Historic Numbers of Participants in Baseball Programs ....... 4-14 Table 4.9 Historic Numbers of Participants in Softball Programs ........ 4-15 Table 4.10 Comparison of Level of Service Provided for Baseball/ Softball Fields by Front Range Communities ................. 4-17 Table 4.11 Historic Numbers of Participants in Soccer Programs ......... 4-20 — Table 4.12 Historic Numbers of Participants in Football Programs ........ 4-21 Table 4.13 Comparison of Level of Service Provided for Soccer/Football Fields by Front Range Communities ........................ 4-22 Table 4.14 Historic Numbers of Participants in Tennis Programs ......... 4-24 Fort Collins Parks and Recreation Policy Plan i-vi Softball continues to attract a high level of participation, particularly the City adult league. The number of available fields, however, has not kept pace with growth in participation, so fields are in short supply. City fields are also utilized by Poudre School District, which places a further demand for fields. Softball tournaments are also growing in popularity. Over the past five years, over 88,000 people have participated in tournaments. Scheduling fields has been a difficult task for several years and has resulted in limited opportunities for increasing participation. Some small private teams have had to look outside the city for field use. School facilities are often used for practice, though many are not suitable for adult play. Adult fields receive continual use from March 1 to November 1. Numerous team/league organizers stated in their surveys that a lighted multi -field (6-8) softball complex is needed. An expanded program would require additional staff. b. Cost of Providing Services In 1994, the net operational cost to the City was approximately $11.26 and $31.40 per individual softball player and baseball player respectively. When costs were divided by total participation (individuals x the number of times they used a field), softball cost $0.% and baseball cost $0.93 each time a participant was involved in a program or dropped in to use a field. Unlike gymnasiums, the majority of ballfields are owned and maintained by the City. Port Collins Parks and Recreation Policy Plan 4-16 c. Level of Service Comparison- Baseball/Softball Fields Table 4.10 Comparison of Level of Service Provided for Baseball/Softball Fields by Front Range Communities ::tr':i :.tr. .:;tr:•x^.:o:+$':{:? 2%:_:$.J,::i::`.�:;i ::::$:o:'<o''k::tr;$R:zi::i::':i;:Y':<::: tr:' i4'.i"h: J':4ii{{:P :i.i$i /O$ �$i::}i$ FO:p:' n. h'i ::.:4 v:S�'::$}, iJ •:F •J !?itr:. :i'6:'<' .: {i:i�YA� 4n'{.!:q.. $':J:4:Jl:i: �yfpi:f��j�/•f,.:�!f: :: ff,.���/�.:Yf,.�t.'ei9f+ O. .:iJ': �'::: �.4. tr. Sv ::O'yi}. : <.?C: ;..J.? ..{:Y•.N:: i}:+i .+U. Y?.9� .?P;°N,.;.: n.i}vi'i.f,•.:ev: .: W'iC'.$�:C%::..OS5 .R�Etr,'•�:�SR:.t:i: W::${;i .4t�{$vi�}A,�4i'. {::�vi$:.. /� ���.aY f:}: L:$. 4.:trj ::f.•:}N: O•. )`i ...�v. vv��.'.+i• `}i.i\:; ::�:::�.Yh:.O'ih•J�k,.ii:�Ytrnv::u`.i:tri:i`ii{:tr:: ;i`itri�:}/;.$,}: �.J}f.'tr`:,v'+�:t�• �.� + J . ✓.':.{:.ii:, n;'Nv. n:.Y..: Yiifi i. : 4{`� v. e..l,.: n :{<:.::.v.�:trv;+v, :..p. v. i< :•�.�:..�. :+ .. 4. .:}•}:: �,J /;ii%i �+v 4yi: :trt{' :iS': ...i: v.::: �:.xv:::.'. Ci{C::rO::iif:i iJ'f.�?ii:ii�.iri{:%$::{.i i::.Yi{::$:i{iy • > :..J'•.i.$ } v ...i.. :J'v:JNR:nw:: i:i:vn.:.S.i': �:: }. tr{::... :n : )�` .:(i.tr .$: ntr' ,4.:•:. $v..:./.:.:::%v::vfioio$:.tr:::::,^.,::'i}ii:.?i:$;tr.:,::..}v,:Y.?ii.i'?i$Y{ .J., :�`:. vv. C{ Jv'•v?i';f .:... n:0 i:}..?..y}: .h:Y.. +?•::iT.i �i:0'.:... .tr.?Ri1 pi: n„J: n9J:...... trn.:: v:iJ.. •:?.:. . i. .. : ::;. .^.::C:J <...:: :....0 tr'/. :. }:tr: v? ..:. v ::. .6:.:/i..x+ :.+:.. f::. ,+. ....i.xn:::.vv...:.v:: :•;. .,vx+:::+;:?»}{.}:;•{$` 'J}:.#.J':?�$.:'+hL:��±.v ��:�i. in•: `/.h.:C::^.},�::.+..�. Ctr': 'f,•.4.0: .. : � � Castle Rock (pop.12,000) 1:4,000 1:3,000 Loveland (pop. 42,000) 1:3,000 1:14,000 Longmont (60,000) 1:3,000 na Thornton (pop. 60,000) 1:7,500 1:5,455 Greeley (pop.64,092) 1:4,005 1:2,289 Westminster (83,400) 1:6,950 1:7,582 Boulder (pop. 94,706) 1:3,946 1:6,313 Lakewood (pop.132,000) 1:6,286 1:6,600 Colorado Springs (pop. 1:21,800 1:5,274 327,000) Average 1:6,720 (1:4,836 1:6,314 (1:4,564 excluding excluding Colorado Loveland) Springs) Fort Collins (pop. 96,960) 1:3,878 1:1,979 Fort Collins Parks and Recreation Policy Plan 4-17 d. Conclusions The City of Fort Collins is well above the average level of service offered by surveyed Front Range cities for both game and practice baseball/softball fields, even when the cities with exceptionally low service levels are not factored in. It appears as though the City is making good use of school fields, although their quality is less than the City provides on its own fields. Many school ballfields have short outfields and are therefore not adequately sized for older youth and adult games. However, they will continue to be important practice facilities for all age groups and game fields for younger children. As long as the school district continues to build schools proportionally to the school age population, there should be adequate fields for the younger children. The adult population is expected to expand greatly in the next ten years and additional lighted softball fields will be needed. There is already evidence that the existing facilities are at capacity and additional youth baseball/softball and adult softball fields are currently in demand. Many games and practices are also scheduled in neighborhood parks, which has been identified as a conflict with neighborhood use after school and on weekends. If programming of these fields is reduced, additional fields will need to be constructed in future community parks or at a sports complex if the current level of service is to be maintained. In other cities, private groups have stepped forward to either build facilities themselves or to assist the City financially to construct ballfields. In 1994, approximately 70% of the people surveyed who had an opinion felt the City has enough ballfields. It is recommended that the City construct or potentially be a partner in the construction of 6 to 10 additional softbalVbaseball fields in the next ten years (year 2005) to maintain a level of service that is similar to what is offered in 1995. Of these, 2 youth baseball fields should be adequate given the relatively slight increase in this age group. The remainder should be adult softball fields. 3. Soccer/Football Fields The city currently has 63 soccer/football fields of various sizes; 32 are owned by the City, 30 are owned by Poudre School District, and 1 is owned by a private school. Of the 63, approximately 60 can be considered available to the public for practices and/or games. Three additional full-size fields are located at high schools and are generally not available for public use. Approximately 38 fields are currently scheduled for games and 13 are full size. Of the 38 game fields, 32 are City fields, i is private and 5 are Poudre School District -owned. A total of 13 of the 32 City fields are in community parks and the remainder are in neighborhood parks. The fields at elementary schools and junior high schools are heavily relied upon for practices. Fort Collins Parks and Recreation Policy Plan 4-18 a. Participation Rates and Perceived (1) Soccer Progravis Needs In 1994, the total number of times that people participated in soccer and football was approximately 122,000 and 22,300 respectively. The number of individual soccer and football players was estimated to be 4,275 and 1,060 respectively. The average number of times per year each soccer and football player uses a field is 25.8 and 21.0 respectively. In 1994, 79% of the people surveyed who had an opinion felt the city had enough soccer fields, 97% felt there were enough football fields. The following pages describe each program in more detail Soccer participation in Fort Collins has steadily climbed for the past five years. Table.1.11 shows historic numbers of participants in soccer programs. The largest club in the state, the Fort Collins Soccer Club (FCS(--), manages all organized league play within the city. The club offers ycuth recreational (ages E- Iq) and competitive (ages 11-19) leagues, men and women adult leagues and ar, adult co-ed league. The club',, participation records show an annual increase Fort Collins Soccer Club youti: game Fort Collins Parks and Recreation Policy Plan 4-19 in participation and nurnber of - tea ms for all leagues over the past five years. There were over 3,200 youth and 1,000 adult soccer participants as of September 1994. Table 4.11 Historic Numbers of Participants in Soccer Programs n. &. oR i ! O. 0 "�: +��bbvv.. v 'E. 'Kid :o ..J v. o• i 4 q 4 :, .: ` <JPO'f:.{J'J�: •j• � eo,.£..v #5.< <�Gpp$fiodv'•.y.. •r�(W�' v�. r ` } •r J •�vWilli" t: >f:::.f'J:":r.Oti�4r Mons :;Y?.•�^ .• O�<$�:•tr',.`+i ;�.,. 2,591 192 2,319 179 1990 Youth 1991 Recreational 2,711 210 2,685 233 1992 3,050 194 2,762 236 1993 3,125 277 2,825 250 1994 3,136 286 3,319 254 1990 Youth 375 23 375 25 1991 Competitive 390 26 330 22 1992 360 24 373 24 1993 402 26 365 24 1994 405 25 405 25 1990 Adult League 300 16 384 20 1991 420 23 392 21 1992 445 24 436 23 1993 476 26 472 26 1994 540 30 505 28 1990 Co -Ed League Summer 367 17 1991 457 22 1992 545 26 1993 472 24 1994 496 1 24 Four field sizes are utilized by the club for different age groups and leagues. Regulation field sizes are 30 x 50 yards for the youth recreation league (ages 6-7), 40 x 80 yards for youth recreational league (ages 8-10), 65 x 110 yards for youth recreation and competitive leagues (ages 11-14), and 75 x 120 yards for youth recreation and competitive (ages 15-19) and adult leagues. According to FCSC, the number of existing regulation size fields for these various age groups/leagues is less than needed, particularly the 65 x 110 and 75 x 120 full-size fields. The club has been forced to shorten game times, use fields of inadequate size for players' age levels, and schedule games too close together for appropriate warm-up needs. This field shortage has resulted in a continuous scheduling challenge that sometimes cannot be met for practice I games. All available fields are scheduled for daylight hours, after school practices during weekdays, and on weekends for games. The FCSC prepared (September 1994) an analysis of field needs based on current participation, historic growth and Poudre School District student enrollment Fort Collins Parks and Recreation Policy Plan 4-20 population projections up to the year 2004. The FCSC report states that field need estimates are conservative and would be higher if proper turf maintenance was practiced. This report also states that a minimum of 20 soccer fields will be needed within 8 to 10 years. 2. Football Programs City -sponsored football programs have held generally steady participation rates over the past five years as shown in Table 4.12. No significant growth has occurred in youth football since the mid-1980s. Adult flag football has decreased 50% since 1986. The popularity in soccer for all age groups and football injury frequency has limited growth in football. All programs are held in the fall. Availability of fields with good turf for football is limited in the city due to competition with soccer. Several programs have been forced to use softball and baseball fields that are not ideal for football play. Both school and park sites are utilized. Table 4.12 Historic Numbers of Participants in Football Programs Fort Collins Parks and Recreation Policy Plan 4-21 b. Cost of Providing Services In 1994, the net operational cost to the City was approximately $8.49 and $20.00 per individual soccer player and football player respectively. When costs were divided by total participation (individuals multiplied by the number of times they used a field) soccer cost $0.33 and football cost $0.94 each time a participant was involved in a program or dropped in to use a field. The majority of soccer/football fields are owned and maintained by the City. c. Level of Service Comparison- Soccer/Football Fields Table 4.13 Comparison of Level of Service Provided for Soccer/Football Fields by Front Range Communities f}:f :}}:Y ::n.J: •}.f:�f}Y ::iini;.:: 4: :: ...f .:A. f:::.,f:.�.: }trj.Y:O:+};>,%:., v.:v ♦. tr",pf:: y <:4:: :ff .:},: :.i ;.. .•.f.:9.:f ': :.n ;.>.::. i$i.:^.::�f}?0::.:Yfi$,;f.?J'}Gltr:•�?trtr:�:J:<::.J;:: �!.i4'�'?f ,i4::4•; v.f}�•}. Y ^tr. f:" ^kW :tr`FJ:. ?Nti}?' ?}:}�'i ::% '. ..:,?t�'4':: .. l.: yy .:%Yh`.iv ?i^;r{'#'%;•?,: .3?i''�i'�..8 . %:9' :}Ytr tr.rif• �.f :F.r, •}::; f: �� �kJ`, �?::?:'/..: i?J , ..f .$. ,} . f '9'N. :kff: "%9y :{}:,i }}:f}%i:..Q;..f�j}?f%O}Y!ii':./�:: f.Y}: if<}:f j.?.%}Q ��. '���:p(:": ?. .:. �'. .{,•. ^i�?: f}; F:n:4�fM,�f... T: :?f �: i:N;:a''sk>':Y:Y+� ��6.0. }ff. vi:,:jJ,,Y?.� �^:.};: x f::4?:.:ftri�?i��F'.: f•:O,hififrc;f. ,4Y 4 %.. >� >.J•':4':Y ••¢?};j :f {••?Y:{:O �k��}:J., :{. {�� .:j::d:�}}if+ )f'::5 }Jtrj:. f• i h ::J?::�! fJ :4,. f < ' tr 4;} j:'i:}:, .[ .,{,'�.�i.'�f: F'i'i:::Jf}.�:':�i'�C�3�?. ,'i' }`OTi'N: :,S,:f}}Y.fY:iftr..n.>.:..:, :.. $.�.f ..f.:f•...:i:,: i�tr O�tr :> J :}� i' 4J� jJ@. �; :}�,. :�:�:J i <' f�':fG,'.�O�i /tr Jl.}. i. � Y}i;J: : �{ ::tr :: ': fn:,::;.;:,'�,•??kiL<:j?'F.:}Y::Ji:�;Yf:. .:} LJ •:�F..:::�ik�'�f• { �}?�i. '0.9:0{.:�qq�++..Jxi?... ...f:: .. .:l.:: i:tr.>:;,:�,: nO.j},n: v.) fJ.G...F'.. �.?:{}i: ':jrit Yf.+.%fy..::f:}f �. jv:) v :. f .04:J�;�,�;,,f. I..}<}i:v: :.f.4x}�i:fv.ff..i :i. .:nk'?>%:i",�'?�::i:: $i}. ??1:.:ri,..i.:jY�;;ki.4, :Yin'f'}if,/?:n.::: N'.. ..tr ,//: J :, 4.::h.:: i;.>.?J .::4'4,:..:?:F:f'Y' C;�$,' v:., ..4::i: 'f??f�;J:i: .vb...'•?.:'f,.%f..::ii5j:6f �i4:::Or 2.�:(; .,4vy i.ni..Yk:.JY•N,2'F::�::tJO'..:f'iJ..: : :Y. kY,� Y:'. .n,�`:.y ..tr }`::i:::t::tkifk:Y:iiY?.: :;.f ..trf ..,:::.}J:.J.:: f kYv? ::.G.. }�?4:i:'•. ..:...f:vi4.i.::.....j:.}..., ..,..,.:: :...tr.f.,.,. f.,. :... ::.:;i�% .iv.;?tr: i, ::.}Yi• . ��:: 0 :.il:, : is •Jr.•:.... .:.. 1:1,714 Castle Rock (pop.12,000) Loveland (pop. 42,000) 1:3,500 1:4,000 Longmont (60,000) na 1:6,667 Thornton (pop. 60,000) 1:30,000 1:3,159 Greeley (pop.64,092) 1:32,046 1:2,136 Westminster (83,400) 1:10,430 1:1,668 Boulder (pop. 94,706) 1:7,892 1:2,785 Lakewood (pop.132,000) na 1:6,000 Colorado Springs (pop. 1:14,863 1:5,450 327,000) 1:14,349 1:3,731 Average Fort Collins (pop. 96,960) 1:7,458 1:1,616 Fort Collins Parks and Recreation Policy Plan 4-22 d. Conclusions Although the soccer groups feel that many more fields are needed, the City of Fort Collins is well above the average level of service offered by surveyed Front Range cities for all sizes of soccer fields. In fact, Fort Collins offers a higher level of service than any other surveyed community. Seventy-nine percent (79%) of people surveyed in 1994 who had an opinion felt the city had enough soccer fields. The popularity of soccer has greatly increased over the past decade, but there are signs that demand is starting to level off. Football programs compete for fields with soccer; however, there appears to be an adequate supply for both soccer and football if scheduling changes were made and more use was made of school fields for games. As long as the school district continues to build schools proportionally to the school age population, and they continue to build soccer/football fields for their school programs, there should be adequate fields for the younger children. The adult population is expected to expand greatly in the next 10 years; however, adult soccer is not very popular and doesn't show signs of increasing significantly over the next ten years. Another factor in determining the need for additional fields is the recent trend to reduce the amount of programmed activity in neighborhood parks. Currently 12 of the 13 full-size fields and 25 of the total 38 game fields are in neighborhood parks or schools located in the middle of a neighborhood. If some of these fields were not available for Saturday games, there would be an increased need to construct replacement fields in community parks. The soccer club has stepped forward with a plan to privately construct a soccer complex north of the city. It is recommended that the City construct 4 to 8 more full-sized soccer fields in community parks in the next ten years and continue to construct at least a junior - size field for practices and youth games in neighborhood parks. The number of fields and associated support facilities and parking in each park should not exceed the 40% maximum programmed area as discussed later in this section. If these fields were constructed; the total number of new public fields within 10 years would be 12 to 16 City fields, plus 2 to 4 additional school fields for a total of 14 to 20 new fields This would provide a level of service of between 1:1,829 and 1:1,692, which is well above the Front Range average and still better than almost all of the other surveyed communities. The City could also consider becoming a partner in the construction of the soccer complex, depending upon the level of service the City desires to provide. Fort Collins Parks and Recreation Policy Plan 4-23 4. Tennis Courts (1) Tennis Programs The City currently has 41 tennis courts that it programs or that are available for drop -in play. The courts are primarily City -owned, with 21 located in community parks. The majority of the remaining courts are located in neighborhood parks. a. Participation Rates and Perceived Needs In 1994, the total number of times that people participated in tennis programs or were estimated to have dropped in to use a City court was approximately 68,000. The number of individual tennis players was estimated to be 9;000. The average number of times per year each tennis player used a court was 6.6. In 1994, 86% of the people surveyed who had an opinion felt the city had enough tennis courts. The following pages describe the tennis programs in more detail. Tennis programs are offered by Cultural, Library and Recreational Services and through the Fort Collins Tennis Association (FCTA). The City program provides youth and adult classes, youth team play and drop -in. As shown in Table 4.14, enrollment in the City's program remained steady from 1990 through 1992, and then increased by 10% in 1993. In 1994, the number of participants dropped significantly. The number of teams varies from year to year in the FCTA. There were a total of 12 teams (120-130 players) in 1994. Tournaments have become very popular, with 1,500-1,600 and 500-600 players annually for FCTA and United States Tennis Association leagues, respectively. Adult and junior participants in tournament play have increased the most. Table 4.14 Historic Numbers of Participants in Tennis Programs Fort Collins Parks and Recreation Policy Plan 4-24 CSU courts have had to be rented by the FCTA for large tournaments and Rocky Mountain High School courts are no longer available to them. Tournament play should ideally be held at one site. This is not always possible due to conflicts in facility scheduling. The Rolland Moore' Park Racquet Complex and the tennis facility at Edora Park are the only City - owned sites with five or more courts, which is the number of courts required for league play. During the peak season of organized tennis, courts may be difficult to find evenings and weekends for drop - in players. b. Cost of Providing Services In 1994, the net operating cost to the City was approximately $7.10 per individual tennis player. When costs were divided by total participation (individuals multiplied by the number of times they used it) tennis cost $0.94 each time a participant was involved in a program or dropped in to use a court. c. Level of Service Comparison -Tennis Courts Table 4.15 Comparison of Level of Service Provided for Tennis Courts by Front Range Communities ': %v f' �'yaPi, :tr fEniitQ'$ �. Castle Rock (pop.12,000) G •;�`:•• :jf: ,•'J Q: •::f+00:OR 1:1,5W Loveland (pop. 42,000) 1:1,555 Longmont (60,000) 1:2,500 Thornton (pop. 60000) 1:2,222 Greeley.(pop.64,092) 1:1,424 Westminster (83,400) 1:5,560 Boulder (pop. 94,706) 1:1,503 Lakewood (pop.132,000) 1:2,750 Colorado Springs (pop. 327,000) Average 1:2,794 1:2,423 Fort Collins (pop. 96,960) 1:2,365 Fort Collins Parks and Recreation Policy Plan 4-25 Table 4.15 Comparison of Level of Service Provided for Tennis Courts by Front Range Communities ....................... 4-25 Table 4.16 Historic Numbers of Participants in Swimming/ Aquatic Programs ......................................... 4-27 Table 4.17 Comparison of Level of Service Provided for Swimming Pools by Front Range Communities ......................... 4-29 Table 4.18 Historic Numbers of Participants in Ice Skating Programs ..... 4-31 Table 4.19 Comparison of Level of Service Provided for Ice Skating Rinks by Front Range Communities ........................ 4-33 Table 4.20 Historic Numbers of Participants in Archery Programs ........ 4-34 Table 4.21 Comparison of Level of Service Provided for Recreation Centers by Front Range Communities ...................... 4-37 Table 4.22 Parkland Needs Based on Current City Standards ............ 4-39 Table 4.23 Comparison of Area Devoted to Programmed Sports Facilities in Selected Front Range Community Parks .......... 4-40 Table 4.24 Projected Neighborhood Parkland Needs by Area of the City.. 4-43 Table 5.1 Implementation Actions .................................... 5-3 Fort Collins Parks and Recreation Policy Plan i-Vii d. Conclusions The City of Fort Collins is just above the average level of service offered by surveyed Front Range cities for tennis courts. Many courts are provided by the private sector, either in private clubs or through homeowners associations. Tennis players have expressed some demand for additional City -owned lighted courts, and survey data indicated approximately one quarter of the respondents think there are not enough courts in parks. It is recommended that new neighborhood and community parks contain enough tennis courts to maintain the current level of service, with one or two complexes of 5 lighted courts each, constructed in the next ten years to accommodate tournaments and other group activities. 5. Swimming Pools The City currently has 3 indoor pools and one outdoor pool. The school district does not have any pools and relies on the City for space for its swim teams. a. Participation Rates and Perceived Needs In 1994, the total number of times that people swam is estimated to be approximately 310,000. The number of individual swimmers was estimated to be 28,000 based on known numbers of program participants and survey data that said what percentage of Fort Collins residents use the pools. The average number of times per year each swimmer used a pool was 11.1. In 1994, 52% of the people surveyed who had an opinion felt the City did not have enough outdoor swimming pools; 31 % felt there were not enough indoor pools. The following pages describe the swimming programs in more detail. (1) Swimming Programs Public swimming facilities are limited to three indoor pools — EPIC, Mulberry Pool and the new Senior Center — and one outdoor pool at City Park These pools are used by Cultural, Library and Recreational Services programs, general city and area residents, private swim and water sports groups, Poudre School District high schools and CSU teams. As shown in Table 4.16, annual use levels of the pools have fluctuated significantly from 1990 to 1993, but the overall trend has been towards significant increased growth. Interest in water activities continues to rise. Renovation of the Mulberry Pool in 1992 resulted in a significant increase in pool use, from 10,239 (total participation) in 1990 to over 41,000 in 1993. Functional and aesthetic improvements as well as the addition of a children's play/wading area has made this a popular family facility. Concern has been raised by City staff about public use closure of this facility weekdays from November through May (3-7 p.m.) for high school swim team practices. This closure forces all recreational swimmers and other groups to use EPIC or the Senior Center. Fort Collins Parks and Recreation Policy Plan 4-26 Table 4.16 Historic Numbers of Participants in Swimming/Aquatic Programs ------------ .................... . .:::::::.........:..... ..::::::::::::::.::..:::.:. 1990 103,959 10,239 32,881 1991 101,599 13,164 31,434 1992 111,867 Closed data unavailable 1993 70,278 41,091 26,130 1994 76,090 38,716 31,964 .................... >►':... ' ``>`>s`:'iri `iii?s`>i`>>>i`>>`>i`:`»[»i OR 1990 13,021 data unavailable 12,912 1991 16,653 20,335 19,630 1992 32,617 Closed data unavailable 1993 24,615 17,249 12,880 1994 40,499 19,240 12,965 ...........:..................... .............................................:.. :::::::::::.... ............:::.::.... 1990 16,132 14,616 na 1991 25,416 11,691 na 1992 28,336 Closed na 1993 16,256 8,076 na 1994 18,348 8,816 na The EPIC facility has had significant use since opening in 1987. Total annual participation has exceeded 100,000 since 1990, except when the Mulberry Pool reopened. The facility has become a tremendous community as well as regional resource. Various swim meets are held here too, including both the boys' and girls' state high school championships. In addition, the CSU swimming, diving and water polo teams utilize EPIC and the other City pools. Neither the City nor CSU have adequate facilities for training world -class swimmers. EPIC is also the only place in the city with 3-meter diving boards. As the facility ages, increasing levels of maintenance and facility repair will be needed. Bathhouse, concession and wading pool improvements were made at the City Park outdoor pool in the late 1980s. However, the main pool is in need of major repair or replacement. Fort Collins Parks and Recreation Policy Plan 4-27 Overcrowding during the summer season frequently occurs at the City Park public outdoor pool. The Fort Collins Area Swim Team (FAST) utilizes EPIC and a private health club pool. Enrollment in this competitive swim club is increasing but limited in future growth due to lack of pool time and available practice lanes. People associated with pool -related programs have stated that available time and space are severely lacking. City staff has stated that adequate certified staff is difficult to find and keep. Staff turnover rate is a problem due in part to uncompetitive pay. There are also no public pool facilities in the southern part of the city where the majority of growth in population has occurred. Lastly, a problem is seen in providing sufficient pool time to the general public due to high demand by organized sports. b. Cost of Providing Services In 1994, the net operating cost to the City was estimated at $20.20 per individual swimmer. When costs were divided by total participation (individuals multiplied by the number of tunes they used it) swimming cost $1.83 each time a participant was involved in a program or dropped in to use a pool. Fort Collins Parks and Recreation Policy Plan 4-28 c. Level of Service Comparison - Swimming Pools Table 4.17 Comparison of Level of Service Provided for Swimming Pools by Front Range Communities :#%::::::if}:�6::;�::••::ibpfi$.;i'.;v�/'/$:fi}:.:::�:L.'':<:?Gs;o.$::'S`G il:2 �'`::�%:;t'S::i.3L°�. •: bq ;., �, •. .. $ J:.:: Yv"�}:Y: �): +if l:}.:�;:$A. iK::Ntrl Y: trO. J:tr 4.%•v y'n�. :�'$:jfi�v$i:?::f{j:�ffM:.O::(:OYOf�:$f::f^�i�+:?{$:..,;: v':$'tr'�f%'.<:. �.::($$:::O:�i. ,i�Q..:�:� <�.•..: f n�., C 'p,CiO,��:'t•i '; /�'�P¢: >'C { $v'{'SCI.: f; tr ,.:�;::.:.�: .;4b,.. O <:. f: \tr:�� ..$i':. S. :9o:'.';::�? fi� nC: Castle Rock (pop.12,000) 1:6,000 Loveland (pop. 42,000) 1:10,500 Longmont (60,000) 1:30,000 Thornton (pop. 60,000) 1:20,000 Greeley (pop•64,092) 1:21,364 Westminster (83,400) 1:41,700 Boulder (pop. 94,706) 1:7,285 Lakewood (pop.132,000) 1:22,000 Colorado Springs (pop. 327,000) 1:40,875 Avenge 1:22,192 Fort Collins (pop. 96,960) 1 1:24,240 d. Conclusions The outdoor pool at City Park and the indoor pools are some of the most popular recreational facilities in the city, as evidenced by the numbers of people who use them. In 1991 and 1994, 43% and 52% (respectively) of the people surveyed who had an opinion thought that the city does not have enough outdoor pools. The City of Fort Collins is just below the average level of service offered by surveyed Front Range cities for swimming pools. In some of the other communities school pools are also available for public use. Fort Collins should work with the school district to determine if a joint use facility is feasible. As a minimum, an outdoor pool and at least one additional indoor pool should be constructed within the next ten years to maintain the current level of service. Fort Collins Parks and Recreation Policy Plan 4-29 6. Ice Skating Arena The City currently has 1 indoor ice skating arena located at EPIC. No other indoor facilities exist in the city, and the nearest ice arena provided by another community is located in Boulder. The take at City Park is groomed as an outdoor rink when ice conditions permit, however, its season is usually limited to a few weeks per year at best. a. Participation Rates and Perceived Needs In 1994, the total number of times that people ice skated was estimated to be approximately 174,000. The number of individual ska tern was estimated to beL,- 3,500 based on Hockey observations made by the Recreation staff. This is supported by national statistics that say 3.7`I�, of the population ice skates. The average number of times per year each skater uses EPIC is 49.7. Members of the figure skating club average 162 times per year. In 1994, 63% of the people surveyed who had an opinion felt the city had enough indoor skating rinks; 56 Jo felt there should be more outdoor skating areas. The following pages describe the ice skating programs in more detail. arm (1) Ice Skating Programs Ice skating interest and participation in the United Stales has significantly increased over the past decade. The high success of American skaters in numerous ice sports and strong media attention has contributed to this surge in interest. Since opening in 1987, EPIC has experienced annual growth in all ice programs and events. Residents from other cities and towns in Northern Colorado and Southern Wyoming use the facility as well since they do not have ice rinks in their communities. Table 4.18-shows the number of individual participants and to to 1 participation in ice skating programs over the past five at t;Ptc years. EPIC supports the largest competitive figure skating program in Colorado as well as the state's largest learn -to -skate program. The Ice Skating Club of Fort Collins (ISCFC) is the third largest in Colorado. Tota I participation for figure skating in the ISCFC program has increased from 6,579 in 1988 to 24,240 in 1993. Similarly, the learn -to -skate program went From 10,089 total participation in 1990 to 22,000 in 1994. The ISCFC utilizes the ice rink 24 hours each week of the year. Fort Collins Parks and Recreation Policy Plan 4-30 Total annual participation rates for the following ice activities is derived by taking the number of individuals per program multiplied by the number of times the activity meets. Table 4.18 Historic Numbers of Participants in Ice Skating Programs Fort Collins Parks and Recreation Policy Plan 4-31 *Added 1 night/week to schedule in 1994. Note. City staff says that a typical ice facility normally accommodates a figure skating club of only 30-60'membem. EPIC hosts a wide variety of other programs and events including youth and adult hockey, CSU hockey, tournaments and an annual ice show. Northern Colorado Youth Hockey alone utilizes 24 hours of ice time per week during their season. This organization has indicated their program could double if a second sheet of ice were available. Waiting lists have grown to 100 and nearly 200 people for some programs. General recreational skating sessions during the winter are frequently crowded, public users often turned away due to lack of ice space. Expansion of existing programs and the addition of new ones is extremely limited without more ice time. City staff and other program leaders have also indicated that the EPIC lobby, concession and locker/changing rooms are not adequate in size to properly accommodate the large number of users. b. Cost of Providing Services In 1994, net operating cost to the City was an estimated $38.36 per individual ice skater. When costs were divided by total participation (individuals multiplied by the number of times they used it) ice skating cost $0.77 each time a participant was involved in a program or dropped in to use the rink Fort Collins Parks and Recreation Policy Plan 4-32 c. Level of Service Comparison -Ice Skating Rinks Table 4.19 Comparison of Level of Service Provided for Ice Skating Rinks by Front Range Communities Castle Rock (pop.12,000) 0 Loveland (pop. 42,000) 0 Longmont (60,000) 0 Thornton (pop. 60,000) 0 Greeley (pop.64,092) 0 Westminster (83,400) 0 Boulder (pop. 94,706) 1:94,706 (CU rink not included -not public) Lakewood (pop.132,000) 1:132,000 (privately operated) Colorado Springs (pop. 327,000) 1:163,500 (including Colorado College) Average 1:130,069 Fort Collins (pop. 96,960) 1:96,960 d. Conclusions Although the sample is small, the City of Fort Collins is above the average level of service offered by similar communities in the Front Range. Most other cities do not have indoor ice rinks. Two of the three other communities that provide ice rinks also have a rink associated with a university or college that relieves pressure on the public rinks. The third community's rink is open to the public but is privately operated. The ice skating rink at EPIC is at capacity and is in use approximately 20 hours per day. However, a relatively small proportion of the residents of Fort Collins are estimated to use the facility (total users was estimated to be approximately 3,500 people). In 1994, 63 % of people surveyed who had an opinion thought that the city had enough indoor ice skating facilities. Fort Collins Parks and Recreation Policy Plan 4-33 In 1995, city voters turned down (for the second time) a proposal to fund an additional ice rink with sales tax revenue. The citizens of Fort Collins do not appear to be willing to support City development of an additional indoor ice rink now or in the near future. However, development of a seasonal outdoor rink or providing skating on more City lakes appears to be in great demand. 7. Recreation Centers and Other City Facilities The City currently has 2 recreation centers, the new Senior Center and the Northside Aztlan Community Center (NACC). The Senior Center is not fully available to all segments of the community and NACC has limited facilities. EPIC also includes one meeting room, but is not considered a full -service recreation center. Currently the City is leasing a portion of the old Fort Collins High School for use as a drop -in youth center; however, it may not be available indefinitely given the school district's intent to sell the building. The City also has an archery range, a pottery studio, a domestic farm and a community building that is located in City Park a. Participation Rates and Perceived Needs To the extent the data exists, total �► participation and number of individuals who participate in the following programs is discussed in each section. (1) Archery Programs Participation in archery activities has nearly doubled in the past four years as shown in Table 4.20. The City's archery range is open year-round but receives the most use during the summer and fall seasons. Primary use of facilities at the range is by general area residents. Table 4.20 Historic Number of Participants in Archery Programs Fort Collins Parks and Recreation Policy Plan 4-34 The Fort Collins Archery Association (FCAA) does the majority of operation and maintenance of the range with assistance (including funding) from the City. Summer leagues are offered by the association on Wednesday evenings for 14 weeks. League enrollment is usually between 50-70 members. Three to four invitational events are also provided. A private club — Arrow Dynamics — offers competitive archery events once each month. Prize money is awarded to the winners. The range is also utilized by the Boy Scouts and 4-H Clubs. Facilities are said to be adequate at the current time. A second range, located northeast of the Boxelder Treatment Plant and adjacent to the Resource Recovery Farm, is being considered by the FCAA. This range would be handicap accessible. A lighted shelter over the existing practice range shooting area is also desired. (2) Dance Programs The City offers youth and adult dance classes in ballet, modern, jazz, ballroom, country, swing and tap dance. Line dancing and clogging are also offered and are very popular. Senior dance participation has fluctuated in recent years. Classes are currently held at the new Senior Center, the Youth Activity Center (YAC) and City Park Center. (3) Fitness Programs Fitness program participation declined each year from 1990 through 1993; however, participation has increased with the opening of the new Senior Center. Fitness/wellness programs at the Senior Center are offered for persons 18 and older. Although aerobic equipment is available at the Senior Center, no weight training equipment or programs are offered, but staff believes they should be. Weight training and aerobics equipment are available at EPIC, NACC and the YAC. (4) Alternative Programs for the Developmentally Disabled The number of participants in the City's alternative programs dropped from 1,842 in 1990 to 878 in 1993. Increased participation, however, has been realized since the opening of the new Senior Center. Securing adequate transportation for program users has been and will likely continue to be a challenge. Program expansion will be possible only with more staff. A staff therapeutic recreation specialist is available to work with people with disabilities and to train other staff members. More program opportunities are also needed for disabled youth, including those that integrate them into non -disabled programs. Fort Collins Parks and Recreation Policy Plan 4-35 No Text (5) Pottery and Basic Arts and Crafts Instruction Pottery and arts and crafts instruction is offered by Cultural, Library and Recreational Services and is held at the Pottery Studio in City Park and the Senior Center. These programs are open to essentially all age groups. Beginner classes are the most popular, but advanced instruction is becoming more of a need. Space at the Pottery Studio is very limited, and program expansion is not possible without more space and equipment. People have been turned away from demonstration programs due to space shortage. In addition, the Pottery Studio does not fully meet ADA standards. (6) General Interest Program (older adults) The baby boomer population is approaching the age of 50+ and becoming more interested in self- help%improvement; education and travel programs. The number of participants grew from 492 in 1990 to 719 in 1993. b. Cost of Providing Services A cost analysis was developed only for the largest facility for which cost information was available, the NACC. In 1994, the net operating cost to the City was an estimated $35.21 per user of NACC. When costs were divided by total participation (individuals multiplied by the number of times they used it) use of NACC cost $2.56 each time a participant was involved in a program or dropped in to use the facility. The $2.56 is the highest per time cost of any of the facilities that were analyzed, reflecting the fact NACC is targeted for lower income residents, and many of the programs have reduced fees. Fort Collins Parks and Recreation Policy Plan 4-36 c. Level of Service Comparison - Recreation Centers Table 4.21 Comparison of Level of Service Provided for Recreation Centers by Front Range Communities •:O •:h:� n•J.f: i•vi}i��)i:::�:�i::.hii:.f:�<::..O;:J� vi�0:+{i}f••}:::{:C::O::(�rif::J:iF{i.:0'4:,.::.0';:.i:..'Iv;:�n: ...i'.Y':.. f�%4hvh f�?4 ��f 0:�'I44 �$.:J%i :4'h: +.: ..}}':. ':ri:. .:i i0. •:{}'ifi':i.. •:)' �itri�;h..:LOi:i .:J:i:: �C.:v.:gf: .. O}?M:}h �C�.`}y4.:trii4':� {?;:$:.O.�y..•?(kfw::v.,J.:' i!/4:�4 :�:4hf :^��}�>.',`h,�n,9i �'\�.:O,+�i'Q:,:S:}n6.<isi6'::�i:�:i:�i:i�ffi:.�;tr';O i6' •+'i0::0":f �¢!++v.>.... :Jvi::i ::fhv v+ih::3\i����. Castle Rock (pop.12,000) 1:12,000 Loveland (pop. 42,000) 1:42,000 Longmont (60,000) 0 Thornton (pop. 60,000) 1:30,000 Greeley (pop.64,092) 1:64,092 Westminster (83,400) 1:41,700 Boulder (pop. 94,706) 1:23,677 Lakewood (pop.132,000) 1:66AM Colorado Springs (pop. 327,000) i..:. :. ...:. f.Sff. f.:: ::::.:: is ::.: ... ::.f: %n'/i h.:h.i: h::h.:n 0 .h::v:.i..i .n::::.::}.::}f•}:v:::•: Average 1:39,924 Fort Collins (pop. 96,960) 1:48ABO d. Conclusions The City of Fort Collins is below the average level of service offered by similar communities in the Front Range for recreation centers. In 1994, 60% of people surveyed who had an opinion thought that the city did not have enough drop -in facilities for youth, 47% thought there were not enough gymnasiums and 46% thought there were not enough workout exercise facilities. Additional space for dance, fitness and other general interest classes also appears to be lacking. It is recommended that the City provide a permanent youth center and at least one additional full -service recreation/community center in the near future. 8. Other Emerging Needs Public comment and observable trends suggest several specific activities that are likely to place increasing demands on the City's park system. Some of these Fort Collins Parks and Recreation Policy Plan 4-37 activities are briefly discussed in this section. Dog owners have expressed a need for areas where dogs can be unleashed without creating conflicts with other park users. Several communities and park systems, including Cherry Creek State Parkin the Denver area, have established dog use areas where owners are able to let their dogs run free within acceptable limits. An increasing population, conversion of close -in vacant areas, and leash restrictions on dogs in parks and natural areas are likely to result in increasing demands for special areas where dogs can be exercised without the limitations created by keeping a dog on a leash. It is recommended that the City explore options for creating a park for dogs either in conjunction with some existing open lands or in one of the new community parks that the City will be developing in the future. The continuing popularity of skateboard use and in -line skating are also'apparent in the parks. Increasing demands for special facilities such as criterium courses, in -line hockey rinks and other facilities can be anticipated. For example, the popularity of in -line skating among CSU students has led to development of a hockey arena on the campus. The City should continue to seek partnerships to develop the facilities at existing or future community parks as space and funding are available. D. Parks The major issues that the City faces regarding parks in Fort Collins are the following: (1) how many community and neighborhood parks should be developed, where they should be located and how large they should be; (2) how to ensure that parks are designed to provide an acceptable balance between recreational opportunities for all residents; and (3) how to fund community parks. The first and second issues are discussed in this section. Funding is addressed in Chapter 5, Implementation. 1. Existing Parkland Standards One way to assess the need for additional parkland is to apply the current parkland standards for neighborhood and community parks. These standards provide 2 acres of neighborhood parkland per 1000 population and 4 acres of community parkland per 1000 population. Using these standards, there is not currently a great need to purchase additional parkland because the City has a reserve of undeveloped land. However, based on the existing City's policy of 4 acres per 1000 population, a community park should be developed in the near future as there is currently more than a 92-acre deficit in developed community parks. This deficit is anticipated to grow to 234 acres by the year 2005 based on projected population increases in the city (see Table 4.22). This translates into a need to develop 2 to 3 community parks in the next ten years. Recent population projections formulated by the City Planning Department assume that the City may have as many as 150,000 people by 2015. If this occurs, the city will need an additional 292 acres of community Fort Collins Parks and Recreation Policy Plan 4-38 parkland, or three 100-acre parks, at the current 4 acres per 1,000 population standard. Suggestions for changing this standard are discussed at the end of the Community Parks section which follows. On a citywide basis, neighborhood parkland appears to be adequate; however, some existing residential areas in the city and Urban Growth Area are not well served by neighborhood parks. The need for additional developed neighborhood parkland is anticipated to grow to 43 acres by the year 2005, which translates into 4 or 5 new, 8-10 acre parks according to current City standards. However, the actual number of parks needed may be greater due to their distribution in the city and new ideas regarding park size and location within a neighborhood. This is discussed in more detail later in this section of the report. Table 4.22 Parkland Needs Based on Current City Standards 1986 Estimated Population — 85,600 • Developed Acreage in 1986 - Application of Standard <Shortage>/Surplus 450 514 <64> 142 M <29> 308 W <35> 1995 Estimated Population—100,000 - Developed Acreage in 1995 536 228 308 - Application of Standard M 20 44S1 <Shortage>/Surplus <64> 28 <92> 2005 Estimated Population — 135,365 530 228 308 - Developed Acreage in 1995 &Z 2Z1 M2 - Application of Standard <276> <43> * <234> <Shortage>/Surplus * Existing undeveloped neighborhood parkland 97 acres »» Existing undeveloped community parkland 203 acres Fort Collins Parks and Recreation Policy Plan 4-39 2. Community Parks The need for community parks cannot be solely determined by applying a general acreage standard. One factor that must be considered is the desire to provide a better balance between programmed and unprogrammed spaces in parks. This has been a major issue that was identified by the public, citizen's advisory committee, Parks and Recreation Board and City Council members. The amount of community parkland that will be required is the amount that is necessary to accommodate the types of sports facilities listed in the previous sections, while still providing adequate unprogrammed area and other types of recreational uses (e.g. community gardens, water features, amphitheaters, picnic areas and playgrounds). An analysis was performed to determine the amount of area in community parks that should be devoted to facilities and parking for organized sports programs (softball, baseball, soccer, football are the largest) without dominating the park and becoming more of a sports complex than a community park Several parks along the Front Range were analyzed including Arapahoe County Community Park, Westminster City Park, Addenbrooke Park in Lakewood, and Rolland Moore and City Parkin Fort Collins (see Table 4.23 Comparison of Area Devoted to Programmed Sports Facilities in Selected Front Range Community Parks). Arapahoe County Community Party which is essentially a sports complex, has the largest percentage of area (64%) devoted to programmed sports fields and parking. Addenbrooke Park and Westminster City Table 4.23 Comparison of Area Devoted to Programmed Sports Facilities in Selected Front Range Community Parks # Includes elements like recreation/community centers, amphitheaters, picnic areas and gardens. Fort Collins Parks and Recreation Policy Plan 4-40 Park (which both provide a good balance between programmed and unprogrammed space) have 34% and 37% of area, respectively, devoted to programmed sports facilities. Rolland Moore Park, which is the City of Fort Collins, most sports -oriented park, has 40% devoted to programmed sports facilities and associated parking. Using these examples, if the City of Fort Collins desires to have well-balanced community parks, the City should not develop more than 40% of each park for programmed sports facilities and parking. A second factor to consider when determining the need for community parks is the desired level of service, or total numbers of sports facilities, that the City will provide. If the City chooses to build facilities for future population growth in numbers sufficient to provide the same level of service that it is currently offering, the land area needed by the year 2005 just for the major sports facilities is approximately 140 acres. Assuming that a majority of these facilities are in community parks and that they occupy a maximum of 40% of the community parkland, approximately 350 acres of community parkland would need to be developed in the next 10 years versus the 234 acres that result from applying a 4 acres per 1000 population standard. Developing 350 acres more of community parkland would result in a level of service of 4.9 acres per 1000 population standard. The alternatives to raising the community parkland standard are building fewer sports facilities (or forming partnerships with private entities to build facilities in other locations) or constructing separate sports complexes in addition to community parks. These and other alternatives related to other aspects of the parks system were explored in more detail during the planning process. A third factor in determining the need for additional community parks is their relative distribution in the city. Currently there are no community parks in the southwest, southeast or northeast portions of the city. Undeveloped parkland exists at two sites — Southwest and Fossil Creek Parks — totaling approximately 203 acres. Both of these sites should be developed in the next ten years based on population growth projections. Another community park site should be acquired and developed in the northeast, given that this quadrant of the city is also expected to grow. Given all three factors, the preferred direction for providing community parks is to develop two to three community parks in the next 10 to 15 years: Southwest, Fossil Creek and an approximately 100-acre park in the northeast. This will result in a relatively equal distribution of community parks in the city and enough land to provide a level of service for sports facilities that is similar to what is offered presently, while maintaining adequate nonprogrammed area in each of the parks. Building these parks would result in a level of service of approximately 4.5 acres per 1,000 population by the year 2015. Fort Collins Parks and Recreation Policy Plan 4-41 3. Neighborhood Parks The City has kept up with the demand for neighborhood parks by constructing 6 new parks in the past ten years. To determine where and how much neighborhood parkland will be needed in the future, the amount of parkland per square mile was compared to existing and future population within each square mile, or portion of the city for which population figures were available. The analysis was based on the current policy of providing 2 acres of neighborhood parkland per 1000 population. Both larger and mini - neighborhood parks, as well as community parks, were included in the parkland totals. The best available source for existing and future population was the City's Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZ's), which were developed by the City Planning Department for the April 1995 City of Fort Collins Congestion Management Plan. These zones correspond to one square mile areas fairly well, as shown on Map 4.1, Neighborhood Parkland Need. Table 4.24 lists all TAZ's within the Fort Collins Urban Growth Area and shows population projections for the year 2005, total neighborhood parkland need, Fishing at Troutman Park existing developed and undeveloped parkland and additional parkland needled for each area.. The population figures are based on multiplying the households projected for the TAZ's by 2.43 persons per unit (City of Fort Collins Planning Department). Fort Collins Parks and Recreation Policy Plan 4-42 Table 4.24 Projected Neighborhood Parkland Needs by Area of the City (based on 1995 policy of 2 acresl1,000 population) 39 236 82 318 0.6 0.6 40 603 1047 1650 3.3 3.3 41 58 705 763 1.5 1.5 42 73 49 122 0.2 0.2 43 12 Z435 2447 4,9 49 44 12 1910 1922 1 3.8 3.8 45 943 58 IMI 2 2 46 637 58 695 IA IA 47 2707 296 3003 6 8.4 10.0 48 126 117 Z43 0.5 0.5 52 379 83 462 0.9 0.9 53 1922 278 2200 4.4 4.4 54 296 134 430 0.8 0.8 55 2841 542 3383 6.8 91.3 56 403 761 1164 2.3 23 57 940 1959 2899 5.8 22.7 58 1514 Zvi 3985 8 8 59 34 853 887 1.7 1.7 60 1047 93 1140 13 2.5 61 46 0 46 0.1 62 950 5 955 1.9 0.2 1.7 63 241 14 255 0.5 0.5 64,72,73 1764 448 2212 44 24.2 65,69,70, 71 2219 496 2625 5.3 5.3 66 2143 564 2707 SA 5.4 67 1633 172 1805 3.6 3 68 1366 214 1580 3.2 85.2 Fort Collins Parks and Recreation Policy Plan 443 Table 4.24 (continued) f 74 \ 450 104 554 1.1 1.1 75 1147 109 1256 7.5 2 5 76 736 219 955 2 2 77,80,81, 4821 1028 5849 11.7 4.7 7.0 82 78 1293 143 1436 29 2.9 79, 83, 84 4027 312 4339 8.7 8.7 85,86 6490 970 7460 14.9 17.9 87 4265 709 4974 93 23.7 88 770 489 1259 2.5 2.5 90 4780 724 5504 11 7.3 3.8 91 4590 943 5533 11 68 92,93 1519 780 2299 4.6 3 1.6 94,95 5385 357 5742 11.5 19.0 96 3878 20 3898 7.8 65.4 97 722 3713 4435 8.9 is 98 17 0 17 0 99 182 95 277 0.6 0.6 100 3353 127 3480 7 7.0 101,102 6442 196 6638 13.3 1.4 11.9 103,104 3640 790 44M 8.9 12.7 105 4352 732 5084 10.2 15.8 0.5 106 25" 1456 4000 8 123.4 107 326 408 734 1.5 1.5 108 717 1404 2121 4.2 14.6 109,110 184 1086 3900 7.8 19.5 111 2928 559 3467 7 34.0 112 1441 413 1854 3.7 11.5 113 2172 669 2841 5.7 5.2 0.5 114 83 145 228 OS OS 119 671 1589 2260 4.5 4.5 Fort Collins Parks and Raemation Policy Plan 444 Table 4.24 (continued) nl .>' :i't$, k.tr. •:v :;•. .i.W` 4 � . ? O. $: o fi .f�'. •Y, ..,5✓'x .i,{ N,...i:,i"n.t:\:?f,,::t t'.::o ,c::.O.;flu',' $.9��'t,at a•5 ;>•<•a O`f "' n O•tr�.2•.:/�} O¢. {:•,if: ,. 9 � � O T +trf`,•SO�S a. .y ,irpO"o°'i o f "�;�n':8�:.�.. '1:.i: L`�+t::i. :::?!: gg�:'A,"l,.:y;' ¢y ys,. , f.:fifc:3:: �:v: vf:i�,�i,.Pv fYin.`• ?Y:L`:'::;Y� ..^,4.`.. ':`..i. :%:'t:.Yt: �..;�::ok::w':u• � f�:Q9::i•`i:.:.<..:.?$:�%i,:v-'vi'fi:.;i:3,::3:T. •f�+i•i',l".O. nsfS H <i:vi: .+v�::#.;. iYI,,O.:: k.;.: �trt 'l O :iw,��c`tF e c�Q,° '�:o,:: o:ir '�'+F: ;ia. �` ¢ + ,C' i5,:. `%%u,<;%r.:R: <� ' , ��'.. ' ..�i: 3�:,v.:�,2:f:f:�$�.�,',+`';`9. t�°: ,f>.::t: f:iJ'::. F4FJ:tr;'•'p> ':: e' ya �/. E.;'<::•ynA:: �:<:. `.s':'+i�f n;:3:. ::>:::,o," o;>.'. �::,: ,,a� .'if .. v: .. .¢3 ..y� p?':$ 9�0O'" tr O� ��"• 'L" ��i f, f� .;y ' �Ae:$s ., �`, � ,�+$�f`; .:.'d*i a fi .::#?'�•' 'tr' ,O ;7.tr. iq ,fttrtf�'.: S `if.?tr, <'rc`. f: 1:�. `U.'?R: :t :�2„$ k�fi 0,`:,•a :f$': q �. .�f. `O \ > �• tr '�: i ' o ,* * a tr,::it/¢' .i.•rd' L.: h: a�i .9. i . ,��f. 11.9 120,125 595 837 1432 29 121 %7 146 1113 2.2 22 122 250 1240 1490 3 10.0 123 360 777 1137 13 2.3 126,127 598 841 1439 2.9 99.5 326 36 1633 1669 3.3 3.3 329 209 7 216 0.4 0.4 330 209 7 216 0.4 10.2 332 5 722 727 1.5 1.5 333 153 877 940 1.9 1.9 336 126 1036 1162 2.3 2.3 337 12 462 474 1 1 A lack of parkland is most pronounced in the central portion of the city, where there are large numbers of people and little or no land available for neighborhood park development. In the area north of Prospect Street, east of College Avenue (TAZ's 77, 80, 81 and 82), this deficit has been lessened by the recent development of the 1.9-acre Eastside Neighborhood Park in 1995; however, this issue continues to be a challenge to the City. The following list identifies areas where there is currently a shortage, or will potentially be a shortage by the year 2005 for at least 5 acres of neighborhood parkland. 58 Past of Lemay Avenue, North of Vine (Lindenmeier Lake Area) 8.0 acres 66 Shields Street, Vine Drive, Taft Hill Road and LaPorte Avenue 5.4 acres 65, 69, 70, 71 College Avenue, Mulberry Street, Shields Street and LaPorte Avenue 5.3 acres 77, 80, 81, 82 College Avenue, Mulberry Street, Prospect Road and Lemay Avenue 7.0 acres 79, 83, 84 College Avenue, Prospect Road, Shields Street and Mulberry Street 8.7 acres 100 Lemay Avenue, Horsetooth Road, Tunberline Road and Drake Road 7.0 acres 101,102 College Avenue, Drake Road, Horsetooth Road and Lemay Avenue 11.9 acres Fort Collins Parks and Recreation Policy Plan 4-15 No Text This analysis also revealed that in recent years, the City has been acquiring and constructing neighborhood parks that are larger than needed for the neighborhood, according to the policy of 2 acres per 1000 population. For example, Greenbriar Park at 22.08 acres in size would be enough parkland for 11,000 people within its service area. However this TAZ shows a projected population of 2,899 people and a parkland need of 5.8 acres by the year 2005, when this area is expected to be mostly built -out. The difference is 16.2 acres. This example is also relevant to other recently constructed parks, including Troutman, Overland and Rossborough. Many recent park acquisitions have also been larger than what would be necessary to serve the projected residents in the neighborhood they will serve, based on a 2-acre per 1,000 population standard. One reason that this oversizing of neighborhood parks has occurred is because the City has not recently built community parks and had no other place to construct sports fields that were in demand. A reliable funding source existed for the construction of neighborhood parks (Neighborhood Parkland Fund) while only recently a new fee was approved for community parks. This community park fee is effective as of July 1996. As mentioned earlier, the amount of programmed sports in parks has been raised as a concern by many Fort Collins residents. Neighborhood parks should continue to be developed as growth occurs; however, they should be smaller in size than what has been developed in the past ten years to more closely correlate to the 2.5 acres per 1000 population standard. They should also contain fewer programmed sports facilities, making the park more attractive for use by neighborhood residents when they most want to use the park, during evenings and weekends. Another issue that has been identified is the appropriateness of a half mile service radius for a neighborhood park The goal in locating neighborhood parks is to place a park within walking distance of most residences in the neighborhood and to integrate the park into the neighborhood fabric. In the past; one neighborhood park has been located within each square mile of the city, sometimes near the edge of the square mile, making walking distances for many residents more than one half mile. Contemporary subdivision layouts, with cul-de-sacs and curvilinear streets may sometimes double the distance to the park One-half mile is too far for many people to walk, especially those with physical disabilities or small children. One way to make neighborhood parks more accessible to neighborhood residents is to construct more than one park per square mile. One park would need to be sized to contain practice fields (8-10 acres) and 2 or 3 others sized at 1 or 2 acres to result in a total of approximately 10 to 14 acres of neighborhood parkland in a typical square mile that contains 4,000 people. This would require that the Fort Collins Parks and Recreation Policy Plan 4-46 current policy of 2 acres per 1000 population be increased to 2.5 acres per 1,000 population. Also, where desirable and feasible, existing large undeveloped neighborhood park sites may be reduced in size to allow for development of additional smaller parks throughout the neighborhood. This, however, may not be possible as it is very difficult for the City to sell parkland that people were expecting to have developed, even if it is being replaced in the same neighborhood with smaller parks. E. Trails and Natural Areas 1. Trails The City's trail system is enormously popular. Evidence of this fact can be found in survey data or through casual observation of the level of usage on the trails. On most weekends, the trail system attracts a steady stream of users — people of all ages and activity preferences who tome to walk, in -line skate, bike or move along via just about every known mode of non-motorizecl travel. The survey conducted in 1994 indicated that 7 8% of residents used the trail system in a given year; 391X> used it more than W, times in a year. The extraordinary popularity of the trail system has raised a number of issues, some of which are noted below: Opportunities for leisurely walking and solitude are increasingly limited. Should spur trails or additional trails be created for the exclusive use of walkers? Poudre RiverTrail • In a few areas of the community, access to the City trail system is difficult, requiring the crossing of major streets or lengthy travel to get to a trailhead. Now that much of the basic trail network has been established, greater emphasis should be placed on improving accessibility. Fort Collins Parks and Recreation Policy Plan 4-47 Although most people prefer a trail located close to a drainageway and through the attractive riparian community it supports, recreational trail use can adversely affect wildlife and other natural resources. The need to carefully locate trails and manage their use is very important. Additionally, emphasis must be placed on avoiding or minimizing environmental impact of trails. Although these issues must be addressed in the continuing development of the City trail system, it's also clear that community residents are enthusiastic trail supporters and urge that remaining segments on the Poudre and Spring Creek trails be completed, extended and widened during renovation to address safety concerns. Additional trails should be constructed along Fossil Creek and other areas of the city. Secondary trail connections are desired to improve opportunities for north -south travel and to provide shorter trail loops within the city. 2. Open Lands and Natural Areas In November of 1995, City residents confirmed their strong support for the protection of open lands, natural areas and trails. In addition to the existing quarter cent sales tax approved for natural areas in 1992, the City will receive revenue from a countywide measure approved in 1995. The two revenue sources overlap in 1996 and 1997. The countywide measure expires in 2003. Clearly, use of these revenues provides the City with a major opportunity to protect important open lands. As the time for utilizing these additional revenues approaches, several issues should be addressed: The natural areas plan emphasizes protection of critical habitat values, rare plant communities and other natural resources as well as providing appropriate opportunities for hiking, fishing, nature study, environmental education and other passive recreational uses. As additional funds become available, open land goals should be broadened to accomplish other community desires such as maintenance of community gateways and buffers, protection of scenic views, separation between communities and appropriate recreational use and trail development. Additional emphasis should be placed on providing nearby neighborhood scale natural area opportunities. In some cases, these �. could be developed in conjunction with neighborhood parks, including the restoration or creation of natural areas on lands previously disturbed by cultivation or some other activity. « Fort Collins Parks and Recreation Policy Plan 4-48 1 • L4Li \�ILI� '� 1iLII�I EO' . ` � a� F �k;l:��� �� i • _ • � 'a D��i! - �J� �.��� • �'. 8 it ,t¢ � :rI `� ' :, e �� ► • 'n Imo' � � ! '�����1�� f � : � ► � � , • � ..� 1 ii na wwuueii ��-� aiM ♦ `+ a _ _ l _ E _ 11111. ::" nri•ri •` w u 1 'tteilH • r� 4 • r 1��1�J•1� 1r 1 ♦ rro r '' — J-11 E J r"t.— 11.11:061 � inlll�IlR�li.,.��i •' w•ww••s vi:_ali.1� -� /y� _..,.- 1��11[r _ _c?!1r'Ir9iFW - �\!•�i►�1 i luwwad rroaw. vYi'aI :r ,:::i �►v♦. "fi \'n& ::: r. m _ iw� � fi's F+. n : •a e:'. .'•�'����"� tom. \ fiiiurc e.•- �•W fur• •wv • ii •� ���:i�`� 11j� •� r ICI • i `` 1 • 1 � � • o f me r } %� i � � • + � �1- � r � `� i rww•ti i• er x . . .�Iiv �� 1 s, w•r• r �•. x• .� .�i ua . rit:•�a:•t. v w• •::: 1 w..�.•... I - l � • ipl tuna Ir �e r �a.':•.i�,..�,♦.me ••n r wwwe••i �� V4• See. ��-.�I��Ii 1 1: = a �-• �, �� tom; ,i. I �'�� � U..Ci�llLLI: tl�. 4 :ii' iiiiciiei•.' ° iiiieii:xidi in -me gw .I 1 .•w. ♦ww +II -I.�L a Ywllrrrl .l•W n•I HER • � �� h�n'_i` ♦ r1L ^:�'f iSL. S4'II/M •!t ��� Q - ll� 1•]� } � 1 wv 1 : 4. J �• •F .,' : - t ` •,�j'I��' �111�\�, `'� -/' `i'r�/ k� �' ♦ I t:' _ � ���. - - �; �_�:�:I��s;,! ��III 111��II ,�.:�, ; ►11111�!���, �I�►i�1 � 4a.sn'"' 11 1UI� 11�U11Ili, � � - `,;� w. �•r+'.ia' '�..� �1 �.rr�7 iar._iYi���'1L��,� _ P �`j'ia i■1 hA © FORT COLLINS PARKS & RECREATION POLICY PLAN Neighborhood Parkland Need Map 4.1 Notes • Parkland need is based on the year 2005 projected population, and the current 2 acres per 1000 population neighborhood parkland standard. Parkland needs were not determined outside the Fort Collins Urban 0 Ac. Growth Area Boundary. F71-.1 - 2.9 Ac. • Community parks also fulfill neighborhood parkland needs for those areas within the % mile service radius. Therefore, community park acreage was ® 3 - 4.9 Ac. considered in determining needs within each TAZ. 5 - 9.9 Ac. • Although many of the fringe areas within the UGA show a deficit of Ulmneighborhood parkland, the City actively pursues acquisition of new park 10 + Ac. sites in developing incorporated areas in accordance with adopted parklands standards. Specific neighborhood park projects meet the Projected TAZ population growth (1990-2005) greatest needs in existing and developing areas are addressed in Chapters 2 — Master Plan, and 5 — Implementation. Traffic Analysis Zone number (TAZ) � v A November 19M _ ®0 1/2 mt EDAW Chapter Five Implementation No Text Chapter Five Implementation A. Introduction Conservation Trust Fund (Colorado Lottery Proceeds). Funding for trails The recommendations presented in this and open space acquisition, chapter establish the overall priorities by development, maintenance; annual year of implementation for parks and revenue - $600,000 to $800,000. recreation facility development as well as the preferred funding mechanism for City of Fort Collins Natural Areas each project. This chapter was not Tax (1/4 cent through 1997). Funds included in the 1988 Parks and Recreation natural areas acquisition, Master Plan. Although this updated maintenance and trails - $4 million. version of the Parks and Recreation Policy Plan makes funding recommendations for Neighborhood and Community all projects, it does not identify specific Parkland Funds. Funds the amounts from specific funds for every acquisition and development of implementation action. Currently the neighborhood and community parks; Parks and Recreation Department annual revenue estimated at $700,000 receives monies from over six funding to $900,000 for each fund. sources, ranging from general fund dollars for recreation, forestry and park Larimer County Natural Areas Tax maintenance to dedicated funding (City portion of county 1/4 cent sources for new park site acquisition and through 2003). Funds for development from two impact fees, preservation and protection of open including the new impact fee for space, natural areas, wildlife habitat, community parks that was adopted in parks and trails - $2.99 million June 1996. In addition, the new Larimer annually. County Open Space Tax will help fund new trails, natural areas --and other open Capital Improvement Program (CIP). land acquisitions and development for the In the past, the City has used funds community through 2003. The specific from CEPS to acquire, develop, types of funding sources and approximate renovate or replace parks, trails, parks annual budgets are: and recreation equipment and/or facilities, etc. New CEP funding • General Fund. Annual budget for sources have not been determined for Recreation, Forestry, Parks the specific projects outlined in this Maintenance, Cemetery and Park chapter. Planning and Development is approximately $11.47 million. Fort Collins Parks and Recreation Policy Plan 5-1 Grants, Donations, and Other Miscellaneous Funds, including GO Colorado Grants. Portions of all divisions in Parks and Recreation receives funding from these sources. Because these are not predictable sources for major funding, no specific amounts are outlined in this chapter. A new funding mechanism, a park maintenance fee, is currently being investigated as a possible way to fund a portion of the costs of maintenance and life cycle replacements costs that are directly attributable to specific park users. This fee may be rolled into the current Recreation Fee Policy and will help support a small portion of the maintenance costs for programmed sports uses. B. Implementation Actions The estimated costs for all implementation actions outlined in this chapter are approximately $109.5 million. Although this may seem high, the Policy Plan is comprehensive and identifies items that will maintain, or in many cases, increase the level of service for the community for the next ten years. Major items that have been identified include three new community parks, a new multi- purpose recreation center with an indoor/outdoor pool, major renovations to the Northside Aztlan and Youth Centers, and a new community horticultural center. Of the 65 implementation actions recommended, approximately 21 of the projects have funding from dedicated sources such as the Neighborhood and Community Parkland Fees or the Conservation Trust Fund. These projects total approximately $31.9 million or 29% of the total estimated cost. Funding for many of these projects will be appropriated annually during the city budget process. The plan also recommends the use of grants or matching funds from partnerships to offset many of these projects, costs. Revenues will eventually be generated from the development of new recreation facilities, but no dollar amount has been determined at this time. No debt financing is identified for any project, although many of the projects have been identified as potential items to be funded through a new Capital Improvement Program. Table 5.1 Implementation Actions lists specific actions and projects, when they should occur, what City department is responsible for their implementation, estimated capital costs and potential funding sources. Fort Collins Parks and Recreation Policy Plan 5-2 Table 5.1 Implementation Actions . gg :j:X Z1001 v... B.*� '00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...........i........ Adopt the policies and standards as stated in ✓ Policy Plan ':Si..this IX �Rvll. MEMME -g .......... &11 ..... Develop Fossil Creek Community Park and ✓ PPD TR $10.5 CIP associated maintenance facility. Apply new PM NR million GF design standards. Reserve SW 5-7 acres for fixture recreation center. Develop Southwest Community Park and ✓ PPD TR $10.5 CPF associated maintenance facility. Apply new PM NR million design standards. Reserve 5-7 acres for future recreational needs. Acquire IN -acre 'Northeast' Community V PPD NR $2.5 CPF Park and necessary water rights north of SW million Mulberry, east of County Road 9. Develop "Northeast" Community Park and ✓ PPD TR $10.5 CPF associated maintenance facility. Apply new PM NR million design standards. Reserve 8-10 acres for future recreational needs. Aquire additional land and partnership with V PPD NR $600,000 NAT Latimer County to develop and manage SW CNA community facilities (e.g. picnic, trails, CTF historic and �nvironmentsl interpretation) Pp near the Strauss Cabin. CPF Partnership with I== County and others ✓ PPD SW $1 million CNA to acquire, develop and manage a regional NR CTF park site at Fossil Creek Reservoir. NAT PP Construct a 40-50,000 s.f. multi -purpose V RC PPD $14.6 CIP recreation curter with indoor/outdoor pool FC minion GF in the southern portion of the city, I potentially at Fossil Crack Park. ImplasmAugD"wiftont PPD Park PWiaing and Development PM Parks Makitanence RC Rectvatim NR Natural Resources SW SUMOW&W TR Transportation PL Planning FC Facilities FR Forestry OLNA Open Lend/Natural Awn Funding CTF Sourcm Couswvalim TnW Fund NPF Neighborhood Parkland Fee CPF Community Parkland Fee CIP Capital Improvement Program PP Partnership CNA County Natural Amos Tax NAT City Natural Amos Tax GF Genad Fund PW Park Maintenance Fee 5-3 :Y`i,tr.�3Y ^Fry >'�Spp Y.f'? Y:%9.f•Y v.l$ :4i' <J .�' 9 ;Y�•iT�63•;��•�Y'`gb;y'�.?,> fJ CY �'f••:0�*•?� O'>Cf. :0::W' '� QC}$. C• ov C�' Q , n fi e Ey�S,tr jYF:NRC �` .,�`,.3`,�,+;Y; "\• 'i• 9 , �O i i ... Jf �f` .S Y ? Y+ J , :i , •` • $,� •Y Y• $•• f: C S �. , : <• `3 > ,�,• . off• %? `?' Renovate the existing Old Fort Collins High ✓ RC PPD $2 to S6.6 CIP GF School facility or construct a new 40-50,000 FC million st Youth Center with gymnasium. Replace Northside Aztlan Community ✓ RC FC $7.8 million CIP OF Center with a new 40-50,000 s.f. multi- purpose recreation center in north area of town. Undertake a feasibility analysis to ✓ PPD $20,000 CIP GF determine how to maximize the utilization RC of PR-1 resources. Design and develop a community ✓ ¢ FR PPD $2.5 CIP PP horticultural center. I PM million Pursue development of Gateway Park in ✓ PPD $1.4 million CNA CTF Poudre Canyon. OF Develop a regional recreation plan with the ✓ PPD $45,000 CIP county and neighboring communities to GF efficiently and effectively provide recreation services and avoid duplication. :ac >:: tr• : e,?e,;>:'Yf':•tr •Y :`;;bn 6. o: t6'tr5�: J ;.h+;! ik0 ' �., �#,..i :f', '., FF?o:;.i c:. wy� ' c�`°o L4 > �' d». off "y„ o:iG °' o:'o .R; Y.+tr. itr. r ,'y�"f�f.S. :i '6<' S, iyY :;?O' Y`. cto�`.b:'*. O'�,i'i�4:JTY .J •%r„e,' °'•' o,.9':> J .bd: ':+ • •ie .Ytr :J i q ' F Y�%'?� :o;: .Jp f.Ypy'J c: 3' 33 ci'�''�•��i .0 �6' F �•; 4i*tli ci e i•.: i PPD ry; < $25,000 NPF Prepare management and maintenance plans ✓ ✓ for each of the City's Parks and Recreation RC annually CPF facilities to determine the types and amount PM of additional facility development and NR programming that are appropriate at each. Major upgrades that have been identified during the Policy Plan process include the following projects. Those that are narked with an ' are contingent upon compliance with the Management Plan for that park or facility: - Upgrade City Park Pool with ✓ RC FC PPD $7.1 million CIP GF leisurelshallow areas, water slide and water play areas, and renovate City Park Center including perking facilities as needed.• briplmrsnthig Department PPD Park Planning and Development SW Stonnwater Finding CTF Sourcea Conservation Trust Fund —. CNA County Natural Ames Tax PM Parks Maintenance TR Transportation NPF Neighborhood Parkland Fee NAT City Natural Areas Tax RC Recreation PL Planning CPF Community Parkland Fee OF General Fund NR Natural Resources FC Facilities CIP Capital Improvement Program PMF Park Maintenance Fee —^ PR Forestry OLNA Open Lar"atural Areas PP Partnership 5-4 - No Text ffik X M ... . .A.. . . . . . . . . . - Parks Maintenance Shop and City Park ✓ PM PPD I $125,000 CIP Nine Golf Course parking* GF - Rolland Moore, Lee Martinez and ✓ PM RC $300,000 CIP Rossborough parks parking* PPD GF - Additional rmtroom at City Park* ✓ PM- PPD $100,000 CIP OF - Group picnic shelters at Edom PW ✓ PPD PM $275,000 CPF - Median and streetscape enhancements-, Vf W/ 1( PM PPD $2.4 CIP streetscape beautification FR TR million GF - Upgrade the Farm at Lee Martinez Park ✓ RC PPD $225,000 CIP to meet the requirements of the PM Americans with Disabilities Act and other farm improvements. - Annual park upgrades to meet the 1( PPD $245,000 GF requirement of the Americans with PM Disabilities Act - Conduct Andy to determine the need for ✓ I( RC $3.5 CIP and feasibility of Senior Center FC million GF expansion. Project would include developing the 2-acre site next to Senior Center that is owned by the City. Site would include a pottery studio, gardens and park amenities. - Conduct Andy to determine the need for RC PPD $5.5 CIP and feasibility of expanding EPIC. FC million GF Project would include a studio -size ice fink, a sundecktwading; pool, 2 classrooms and more parking. - Replace Oak Street Plaza and fountain 1( PM $350,000 CIP with new fountain and other GF improvements to make area more beautiful and attractive. - Renovate existing 65,000 st fire station ✓ PM $335,000 CIP at Spring Park into a park maintenance I GF shop with offices. I I Implementing Departrnent PPD Park Plawing and Development PM Parks Maintenance RC Recreation NR Natural Resources FR Forestry SW stormwaier TR Transportation PL Planning FC Facilities OLNA Open Land/Natund Areas Foriding CTF Sources Conservation Trust Fund NPF Neighborhood Parkland Fee CPF Community Parkland Fee CIP Capital Improvement Program PP Partnership CNA County Natural Areas Tax NAT City Natural Areas Tax OF General Fund PMF Park Maintenance Fee 5-5 f % key. ; -e - J�i��`C• tr. e'f> .i f a v,T 1{Y'��,;>+.r �':�v:� `:�,r�'C•...'tr^Y fj � '•:).: v^ �O `�: ' j "#^�trtr Y � f^,: q�' "•:. ^+ca agYJ ti � ps,,�' '• .� {try;. ' ;o- .;.y4 J J �' c; S':i��v,�`�>q�.Qf��tr,��d�+Y'. �+; t)? ^C v;;+ .O'. f. i�'`q +.tr`E;: `. f Vh Si f+ +�pv#' ,$•O'�v f„. �{ � + . ;.;'�.,>quf,,A fT+(:.if� :f,: a <+ +, J �Y; '��^'i fib{•},' '> <4{Y {} �tl?'J :}J;ifa ,?n,'i+Y,�Pjj�(Yi}���+' �}:pp"`,`:'>�h�\tr vnf� ' . ����((?? ����Y /����.}gg� •+> • >'Q: 5� J?C:; )vT�:St' :f) ?��W'.K`$'.q`; ^Ykf C� O '4 < :. }. ` i a. ::O'4' � f i r,'/,:5. f r ;'f,{ . )$: }.,'C.: . :Y: o„a;c; ?: c•. 9^k{:#+ Ja ''L6' t 00:. 9 C'f : .:': °�a, '•ki �, cR9,� i�j ' .� .�fv vc 9i;��Y � +$'` .. .v6j� ' Ff } 'ry" :.W • Y o.#:.� )',q,* ° h S^ ei iB:'p/,Y;. 5gyk :! {.ry, k��i.. $$ ;{i;:+{:j�tr';:{':,{i:' t?:�'.:}:f`i:C'{.v>':i.+.5: ':�"<y;.?Y � n+�: '}`fi>"?} ,��{,�CVY� ti^,r�}`.i�t>�.O:fQ� . � ,Y' fj i^ �i •• :yytrytr tr.4}.a tr 'a C y$i� .('�' { f f{.:i {i:'{{:{6 J,${: J� �y Y�5 J.}��; f) l4 {jti�f{i?•iivfi �§�'.¢' Y��f�. f ) ` �' O. i�»�}j�}`::j YI.}nv:yf4 �{ ::tr:j{;;: n?; + 9k+' 3{i,`y;".' i:. }v� jnv.yi'.:n:. ?. j .a : a tr jx}:.: •�"�'+^ ;�t3rE#°gv v+: o'a^:; +:4y 9c, •..}�a'��.�i..,0��:. ., .. "+}?f �?` b„c3a+;:{. £i'k:'�.'`)'�}tr3�" :)' ,`c�'',:kti�'J E<'�,6`,{;_{;.�•i. > :CC' +'k`Y.S i�: �'i,'. •;n ) ¢ i o:,• ro }'y {t£>>:Cc';':' � ^5?�(:.p}idy<y`:?::: `%..#£i?:; j:`:..::{:{{a •P^: ? Ov O itr yy �, f+. ;',C$• j �.tr a'vi} J/��,tr .()'{' �::)•j C;i{Y A. n�':h O$': a"[� :'.v,�:ip;{{i'Rvi} .O fi,$' � of C Wtr'. ¢C )� �O,`.{�. � ,�f*Y � ) :Oitr�>' W':�'.�f..� f +i'y"Y':A. ny' ?%f •; n�fr;;{i t}':. :i��Y:�•S.trf:v a{ }+i'�;,$•? tr:{7 ; .O :}?•. a .tr.: f{i:{'"{.•v.ifYtr'}:J::?:;. ,} 6 Life cycle replacemenUrenovation of ✓ ✓ ✓ PM $400,000 GF existing park and recreation assets annually CIP Ballfield renovations at Edora, Lee ✓ PM $475,000 GF Martinez and City parks. CIP Renovations at City Park Lake, including ✓ PM $125,000 GF dredging.CIP Showmobile replacement ✓ PM $100,000 CIP PP .. .. :.. ...: :.: '; n v:'Jn:::.: .i.. •' v . •c. .ftr Y .. tr: tr: /'f :•t0. ...5..,.tr:.. .) :.}?. ..e^ r , r4} .Y . :o•: i .f .0 i`: 'S•:5'.}y:,t. •Y$ t v r . �;, •go.{.:?o-n. h�'6°:': l . 9 `.G••:,:x'S�#, r a . .. $ } a:..:f•; •; ..:.v'04{:.f....v . :. o:: ;..::.:: f.. .: £+�*. .: �.. tr. C.. .: v;': ,9v�:E .. .a S°: .. S.. e:{; ::�n 6 .0.,.;. .{.tr': i^Y:r ?: v f; f.}du:" �:�'.\.. ..p?Yi+{3:i)^t c4:. ;a+:. t:b . E}.trtr.:tr...�.;$::wa: ... {}:}ocj .. ;:i,J:{+: T$..5.: f .:a.. {?oE,..C..v f.a.. ::oi•:..{.. tr: ,..{{.. .f4�� '•{aaY v..a'.{n".', r ...f:::,?z•: .. tr: e: ni.,w.. n.:. :`�:<:?c}'i:3::: + ..l : ...fin:.% �4 /f.:;. rn?`#::.: .vE.:...:0e.) ::+.$' ..+'}' > .n;;.�'� ....tr^:.. :.n A`},,.:: a,?.{...:....:{ ..Y ..:..... :.:a i»}::.v: rf)F;;.�::'GF.:.: v: '6,{: ' ::} tt2�:3:�':�':< )t .. n•. ..%.i. :f..;; +Y.;.tr::.iij:v{{{: ..>.::.:: .. . f�%R3trf.,f;.; o..tr;.n,.a{r<.t ,.F.fi:`.'e•}a. <. ; tr•?:;. •;tr ..:..irc:.fi.?p�:.;.i .; e;.i+oa{ },:}?c ::. .:. v:;.n.:;'}::x' x o:•F<..00i;:}.;; n\d.;tr. ::.:.a...e,f c>°?}o:a i"L?.a}Tt:^:: :v:;cetvtr: o.:R::'o' : ,:.K},}'.. .xc:::,�e{k:o:. ,. y.xa .ix:: ' v f`.k'ci {:::oE::{�:. n: .¢: e:L:.•}. ✓ ✓ ✓ PPD Acquire and develop neighborhood parks in NPF new areas of the city in accordance with neighborhood park policy. Develop management and maintenance ✓ ✓ ✓ PFD <$10,000 NPF plans for all neighborhood parks SW annually RC NR PM Pursue joint agreement with Poudre School ✓ PPD $170,000 NPF District to develop neighborhood amenities at Boltz Junior High School. Pursue expansion of Eastside Park. Current ✓ PPD $1.5 CIP land area falls short of the identified need million GF for the population in this area. Develop Hickory Park and acquire and ✓ ✓ PPD NR $2.4 CIP develop when appropriate 2 park sites in the SW million GF northwest portion of the city to serve existing and new residential development. Develop Ridgeview, Westridge, Miramont, ✓ ✓ ✓ PPD NR $4.6 NPF Case, Cottonwood and Harmony parks in SW million this order of priority. IngAernenthag Department PPD Park Planning and Development SW Stormwater Funding CTF Sources Conservation Trust Fund CNA County Natural Areas Tax PM Parks Maintenance TR Transportation NPF Neighborhood Parkland Fee NAT City Natural Areas Tax RC Recreation PL Planning CPF Community Parkland Fee GF General Fund NR Natural Resources FC Facilities CIP Capital Improvement Program PMF Park Maintenance Fee FR Forestry OLNA Open Land/Natural Areas PP Partnership 5-6 ,rii.r,h. . . . . . . . . . . ...... .... . . ...... .... .. ...... .. ......... ..................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Acquire and develop when appropriate 3 V V PPD NR $2.4 NPF park sites in the northeast portion of the city SW million to serve existing and new residential development. ..............4...... ... ...... . . . . .... .. Extend regional trail to connect to Laporte, V PPD NR $50,000 to CTF Wellington, Loveland, Greeley and Larimer SW $200,000 CNA County trails. I annually CIP Complete Spring Creek and Poudre River V ✓ PPD NR $1 million CTF Trail systems including underpasses and SW CNA undeveloped sections. Acquire the right-of-way and develop Fossil V V ✓ PPD NR $3.5 CTF Creek Trail system. million CNA Evaluate and improve trail linkages between V PPD NR to be CTF neighborhoods and the parks and trail TR determined CNA network throughout the city. linprovelreplace existing trails with concrete 1( 1/ V PPD PM $150,000 CTF and to meet the requirements of the to Americans with Disabilities Act. $200,000 annually g M *W %11 Coordinate with Natural Resources and ✓ V ✓ OLNA $25,000 NAT StDrmwater Department to develop annually CNA management and maintenance plans for natural areas. Continue to implement the Natural Areas ✓ V ✓ 14R PPD $18 million CNA Policy Plan for acquisition of priority areas. SW NAT CIP Continue establishment of open lands along V V V NR TR to be CNA major drainages (Poudre River, Spring PPD PL determined NAT Creek, Fossil Creek) and develop new open SW CIP land systems along Boxelder Creek, Cooper Slough. Implementing Deparhmout PPD Park Planning and Development PM Parks Maintenance RC Recreation NR Natural Resources FR Forestry SW Stormwater TR Transportation PL Planning FC Facilities OLNA Open Land/Natuml Areas Funding Souives CTF Conservation Trust Fund NPF Neighborhood Parkland Fee CPF Community Parkland Fee CIP Capital improvement Program PP Partnership CNA County Natural Areas Tax NAT City Natural Amu Tax GF General Fund PW Park Maintenance Fee 5-7 Develop trails, interpretive paths and other site amenities as outlined in specific management plans ✓ I✓ I ✓ IPPD 110,000 CNA NR I I $100�� I N T Implement a community parkland fee for development of new community parks that Adopted 6/96 PPD are needed to serve new residents of the city. Continue to implement the neighborhood ✓ PPD parkland fee for development of new neighborhood parks that are needed to serve new residents of the city. Adopt funding for deficit on community ✓ PPD parkland needs. Pursue needed upgrades to existing recreation and community facilities. ✓ ✓ RC PM PPD Pursue funding for new community facilities such as ewimming pools, recreation centers, ✓ PPD RC trails, etc. Explore the option of new development impact fees for these facilities. Adjust the recreational fee policy to address user fee support for park facility maintenance. ✓ RC PM Explore alternate finding Sources for ongoing perk maintenance, renovation and ✓ PM replacement, and minor c*W improvements in parks. Provide money to match grants for perks and trails to help City compete better for ✓ PPD $550,000 CIP GF GF grant money. Work with the county, through the Intergovernmental Agreement, to recover ✓ I PM RC PL costa for Parks and Recreation services. "ID ftk p and D"ograaot SW Stamwdar C77 BeMM" COOMTation Tnut Food CNA Canty NaWnl Arai Tax PM Parka Maidmaoce TR •hampntdico NFF Neighborhood Parkland Fee NAT City Natural Aran Tax RC Reaodim PL Plaooioa CPF Coa m nity Pwk and Fa OF Oanacal Fund NR Nahum Ro omaa FC Fadlifia C1P CapiW hVwyemaot Program PMF Park MamUasaw Fee FR Fore*y OLNA Open Laod/NdomlAmu PP Padaaabip i, Appendices 0 APPENDIX A GENERAL MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES FOR CITY -OWNED OPEN SPACES AND NATURAL AREAS October 21,1994 Updated: September 19,1995 Prepared by: The Open Space/Natural Areas Manaaement Team Randy Balok, Park Planning and Development (Team Leader) Rodney Albers, Stonmwater Karen Manci, Natural Resources Kevin McBride, Stormwater Jim Miller, Parks Virgil Taylor, Parks Ralph Zentz, Forestry City of Fort Collins Natural Resources Department 281 N. Collepe Ave. P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 221.8800 For Further Information or To Reauest Additional Copies of this Report. Contact: Karen Mani City of Fort Collins Natural Resources Department 281 N. College Ave. P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 (Phone: 221-6310) The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities, and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call -- 221-6310 for assistance. CONTENTS INTRODUCTION...................................................... 1 MANAGEMENT CLASSIFICATION ....................................... 3 Definitions........................................................... 4 GENERAL MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES .................................. 5 CLASSIFICATION OF SPECIFIC SITES ..................................... 6 APPENDIX: SUMMARY OF COMMENTS RECEIVED ON DRAFT REPORT (40 pp.). Available on request. No Text Chapter One Introduction In 19,45 the City of Fort Collins exceeded a population of 100,000. Like any major milestone, this event has elements of symbolism as well as the force of reality. Some perceptions, such as the view that Fort Collins is still a small town, become difficult to maintain in a city of 100,0f)0 people. Other changes resulting from growth, such as an expanded area of urban development and increased congestion, have a visible reality. Together, these changes have prompted .a broad community dialogue on how to deal with change and make informed choices about the future. The roles of parks, recreation and natural areas are central to this dialogue. Fort Collin Clearly, the City has an exceptional open lands system including parks, trails, recreation facilities and natural areas that is highly valued by the community. As the community continues to evolve, however, new demands and questions about the future direction of the system have emerged. What level of service should the City provide for parks and recreational facilities? At what point does demand for a particular activity become "E�xtraorcinary" and thus require partnerships and private financial support i�rom participants or others to meet additional facility demands? Some segments of the community believe that the current park system should be better balanced to meet diverse community needs, and that greater emphasis should be placed on providing parks that have more amenities, space for unprogrammed play and. accommodations for other leisure - time pursuits. While in contrast, the demand for programmed sports, such as baseball and soccer, are continuing to expand as the population increases. Fort Collins Parks and Recreation Policy Plan 1-1 GENERAL MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES FOR CITY -OWNED OPEN SPACES AND NATURAL AREAS I: kI ile] oPLeA11 [•I:I The Natural Areas Policy Plan (NAPP), adopted by City Council in October 1992, proposed a 5-year action plan to implement the plan's goals, objectives, and policies. One of the strategies of the action plan was to "Implement management and maintenance programs for natural areas that will conserve natural resource values, accommodate multiple uses, be flexible to meet site needs, and minimize ongoing costs." Formation of an interdepartmental team was proposed to develop management and maintenance plans for City -owned natural areas. Staff from five City departments (Forestry, Natural Resources, Parks, Park Planning and Development, and Stormwater) met together to form the Open Space/Natural Areas (OSNA) Management Team to: 1. Provide a forum for interdepartmental communication regarding management of OSNA's, including providing advice and comprehensive review of existing and proposed plans and policies. 2. Develop policies for the management of wildlife, vegetation, and recreation use of OSNA's. 3. Develop specific site management plans. Using a Quality Improvement Model, the OSNA Management Team created the following problem statement: "Open spaces and natural areas are managed without unified, defined objectives, and with limited customer input, causing conflict and confusion." By addressing the problem statement above, the OSNA Management Team seeks to meet various City goals stated through council resolutions and individual departmental missions. A goal of the Natural Areas -Policy Plan is "to create a system of publicly -owned natural areas ... to meet community needs." Parks and Recreation is charged to "acquire parks, trails and open space...", and the Stormwater Utility's mission is to provide drainage facilities in a way that "pollutants may be reduced and the environment enhanced." Forestry's task of managing trees in a variety of settings has obvious benefits to the City and ramifications to the management of City -owned lands. 1 The OSNA Management Team is attempting to optimize the effectiveness of each department's land management efforts to benefit the citizens of Fort Collins. The group recognizes that many OSNA's meet multiple objectives. The team supports the use and management of properties to meet multiple objectives and to avoid conflicting objectives at any particular site. Each property is unique and has individual management needs. However, these properties should fit into an understandable management system, which meets community desires. In response to the above, the OSNA Management Team has sought to: • Define classifications for City -owned OSNA's. • Outline management guidelines for specific classifications. e Place land currently owned and managed by the City into one of the defined classes. Defining classifications is an attempt to identify the public's desires for land they own. The parks system in Fort Collins is widely recognized for its excellence. The public indicates that a system of natural areas is also desired. The classification system outlined — in this document is proposed to meet this desire. Many of the management guidelines for particular classifications are based upon our understanding of community goals. It is important to prioritize -the uses for OSNA's so that appropriate management - methods are used. Without agreement on the OSNA management system that we are building, conflict and confusion can result. Management guidelines were drafted based on -' the proposed classification system. They are intended as guidelines, not requirements, to allow site -by -site modifications, as necessary. Also, experience dictates that flexibility is needed by management agencies in responding to unusual circumstances, such as a threat to human health, fire danger, or pest infestation. Additionally, other levels of government may have some jurisdiction over an area, for example an endangered species using a natural area. Flexibility is needed to respond to such issues. However, the guidelines proposed are "specific enough to define the management practices appropriate for each classification. Guidelines will provide a firm basis with which to respond to the inevitable request for variations in management practices where that request does not fit into overall community values. Lands currently in City ownership were assigned a classification based on the best judgement of staff on the current management of each site. Discussions on the future management of each site can now take place within the context of the OSNA Management System. If the proposed classification does not most the community desires for a particular site, the classification, and therefore the management, can be changed. Site -specific management plans for those that fall within natural areas management classification can --� then be developed accordingly. This will avoid undue conflict over each aspect of individual site management, and focus discussion on the community values for a particular site. 2 To ensure that OSNA management meets the community's expectations, public input and review was an important step in the process of developing the management classification scheme and management guidelines. The OSNA Management Team held a public open house and used several other means to solicit comments from the general public during April -June, 1994. The Team also presented the draft report to appropriate citizen boards for their comments; all boards approved the guidelines. The draft report and public comments were presented to City Council for their comments during their July 26, 1994 session. Over 100 comments on the draft report were received. The list of comments, as well as Team response to these comments, are included in the appendix to this report. Appropriate suggested changes have been incorporated into the final report. The OSNA Management Team will be an on -going, interdepartmental team, which will meet periodically to discuss various management issues that arise. The team will also consult local professionals for the best approach to specific cases. The management classification scheme and general guidelines presented in this report are the first steps toward development of unified, consistent management approaches for City open spaces and natural areas. The team plans to develop site specific management plans for open spaces and natural areas that fall under the category "Natural Areas Management." First priority will be sites classified as sensitive. To date, the Team has completed the "Cathy Fromme Prairie Site Management Plan" and is currently working on the draft "Foothills Natural Areas Management Plan." The Team will seek public input on each site management plan. MANAGEMENT CLASSIFICATION The OSNA Management Team has defined several levels of management approaches to City -owned open spaces and natural areas. The goal of natural areas management is to maintain and enhance sensitive wildlife and plant communities, as well as to protect sensitive geological and archaeological features. However, sensitive natural area sites are not in ecological balance in the urban environment due to lack of predators, confined area of expansion, etc. Best management practice may be to use intervention to simulate natural processes (e.g., limited prairie dog control will likely be necessary to minimize conflict with adjacent property owners and to manage grassland features). The public also needs to be educated about the possible human safety concerns (e.g., possibility of encountering rattlesnakes within the Cathy Fromme Prairie, as opposed to recommending eradicate all rattlesnakes to decrease the chance of a person ever being bitten by a rattlesnake). 3 DEFINITIONS Natural Areas Management: Sites managed as natural areas include all the designated City -Open Spaces, the river and stream corridors, some Stormwater Utility wetland facilities, and other sites receiving little maintenance and having relatively important native wildlife or native plant community value. Sites consist of both native and exotic grasses/other plants, but, in most cases, only native species are used for seeding and planting projects. Mowing is done several times a year along trails and roadways, and along transition areas between natural areas and residential areas. Mowing is also done periodically to control noxious weeds and as a management technique to enhance ground cover (e.g., to help establish native grassland meadows). Herbicides are used on heavy infestations of noxious weeds; biological control (e.g., pest bugs) is used to control infestations of noxious weeds on several of the sites, including sites where rare plants _ exist. Trees and shrubs are only pruned if they pose hazards to people (e.g., near trails and parking areas) or pose a threat to flooding of structures on either City or private property. Exotic, pest trees and shrubs are removed in some areas. The three subcategories under "Natural Areas Management' are: Sensitive: Sites that have sensitive plant or animal species, or geological features, that need special consideration when developing a site management plan. These include sites that support rare plants, unique native plant communities, concentrations of large raptors, rare nesting birds, concentrations of migratory bins species, and key areas for wintering deer, as well as fragile rock outcrops or other geological features that can be impacted by high visitor use. This designation carries with it the understanding that the primary function of management is the maintenance of those sensitive species and features. Urbali: Sites that provide good wildlife habitat, but do not have any particular sensitive plant or animal species or geological features that need special consideration when developing a site management plan. These sites are usually close to, and surrounded by, more developed areas of Fort Collins or have been more impacted by recreational, agricultural, or other human land uses than sensitive natural areas. Sites are often composed of greater amounts of exotic plants than the sensitive areas. These sites may be managed as multiple use areas, but a priority will be placed on maintaining the natural character of the site. Restorative: Sites currently undergoing restoration or sites that currently do not fit into above two categories, but are slated for restoration or enhancement in the future ,so that they will fall into the urban or sensitive category. Current management category could be either greenway or parkland. The restorative category serves as an early planning tool and way to inform adjacent landowners of future intended site management (i.e., "natural area" —less maintenance than "greenway" or "parkland"). This is a temporary classification until, the site is upgraded to another classification upon successful completion of restoration activities. 4 Greenway Management: Sites managed as greenways are usually Stormwater drainageways; some areas adjacent to parks also fall into this category. Vegetation is usually dryland grasses and drought tolerant, ornamental and native, trees and shrubs. Sites are non -irrigated. Sites are usually, mowed 4-5 times per year and herbicides applied to control noxious, as well as non -desirable weeds (e.g., dandelions) if complaints from neighbors are received. Trees and shrubs are selectively pruned for flood, trail, and structure hazards, as well as for species survival; generally, only corrective pruning is done. Parkland Management Sites currently or ultimately managed as parklands include mini, neighborhood, and community parks; undeveloped parklands (purchased for future park development, but currently not developed); cemeteries, golf courses, and parkways. The two subcategories under "Parkland Management" are: Developed Park Sites: Sites managed as developed parks are considered high maintenance and are usually irrigated turf (bluegrass or tall fescue) areas with flowerbeds and ornamental and native trees and shrubs. Sites are mowed weekly. Turf area is aerated and herbicides and fertilizers are used to maintain the turf, which is subject to high use by people. Trees in parklands are on a complete pruning cycle: deciduous trees are pruned every 4-9 years to maintain tree health and form, and pruned, as needed, to remove hazards to people, structures, or water flow. Evergreens are usually not pruned. Undeveloped Paris Sites: Sites that will be developed in the future and receive high maintenance. However, until developed, site maintenance is usually limited to litter removal, some sign posting, noxious weed control and on occasion some crop production and livestock grazing may occur. Typically these areas do not get used extensively by the public and do not require the care and maintenance that developed parks do. GENERAL MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES The OSNA Management Team has compiled a list of general guidelines for various types of management areas (Table 1). These management guidelines attempt to incorporate reasonable and prudent human safety concerns and public enjoyment into the ecological management of natural areas. CLASSIFICATION OF SPECIFIC SITES Designated City -owned natural areas, as defined by the Natural Areas Policy Plan -- (1992), currently fall into a variety of management categories (Table 2). There are currently 71 City -owned natural areas sites. These vary in size from a 659-acre native shortgrass prairie to a 11-acre pond used to store golfcourse irrigation water, which still has wildlife value. City -owned natural areas are distributed throughout the Fort Collins Urban Growth Area; however, most of the sites are located along stream corridors and the foothills (Figure 1). As new sites are acquired by the City, the OSNA Management Team will add each site to one of the management categories. It is not the goal of the Natural Areas Policy Plan, or the OSNA Management Team, to have every City -owned natural area managed as a sensitive natural area. The goal, instead is to identify and work with existing site management needs of these areas. For example, while the Grandview Cemetery needs to remain managed as a parkland to fulfill the site's primary function, this management has not, and does not have to in the future, preclude the site continuing to serve a valuable function of providing habitat for migrant and wintering songbirds. V TABLE 1. MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES FOR CITY4"ED OPEN SPACES AND OTHER NATURAL AREAS ISSUES NATURAL AREAS MANAGEMENT GREENWAY MANAGEMENT PARKLAND MANAGEMENT SENSITIVE URBAN RESTORATIVE LEGAL: Firearms No discharge of weapons Permitted, including to use of any Gam. Pam, crossbows, bows and wows, sCspehots, 88 gun, atr pixie, and Pallet Dunis (City Code #17-101); except use by law enforcement officers, permitted ` aspions use on designated shodang and archery ranges, and use of weapons for special cincrxn starves for a controlled OWW to monam wildlife in with Poke Colorado Division of WAdfife C Humens of Lorimer Recreational Vehicles Motorized None permitted (City Code r4-201, Ord. No. 82, 1988 02); except maintenance wrhicbs, emergency wpipmeK and abotric w issichoks (f e6�� to paved trails and parldands). permitted only If sits is designated for such use. Cwmsseions/Vendom None permitted, except as approved far special functions (City Code #23.5-1); park Permit is required for special functions (City Code 023-201, Ord. No. 62, 1988 06 and f7). _ Where meets rocroatiorwl needs; Parks permit Curfew No use Permittecifrom 11:00 P.m. - 5:00 a.m. as approved for functions (City Code A23-201 Ord. No. 62 198801. Admin. Order No. 1 . Alc"ic Boverages Carrying or drinking or fermented meR container law is not permitted (City Code 017-141 . Distrxbirg the Peace Disturbing the Peace (City Code 017-121), disorderly conduct (City Cade #17-124). and unreasonable noise (City Code /20-22) we not permitted. Glass Bottles/ Containers Gbss beverage bottles or containers are not permitted except where authorized (City Code 023-201, Ord. No. 82, 1988 08). Lftwhy Littering is not permitted (City Code #m17-41 . Is not permitted (City Code #m17-122 . Pollution of Waters -Washing dishes or vehicles or G(nPtvkw of waste materials in any manner that pollutes the waters is not DermkW Code #23-201 Ord. No. 6Z 1988 S10 . Posting Notion Fastening or shovAng cards or other advwtising devices without permission of the City is not Permitted (City Code #17-42 . Vandalism/ Ta Defacing, destroying, and removi n9 signs,, markers, at., is not permitted (City Coda /17-43). Easwrwb Granted for is purposes and franchiseagreements; reviewed by Cttv staff to minimize impact to natural resources of site and recreational structures. Leases Granted under special considerations if they do rat conflict with site nunspennent goals and lands are ad accessible m the pubNc; examples include grazing bases for ma and buddi bases for common' activitles e.. baseball). Enforcement Currently, City Police enforce City Code (including Park Rubs and Regulations); Humene Society of Larirrw County enforces City Code related to dogs and eats at • TABLE 1. MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES FOR CITY -OWNED OPEN SPACES AND OTHER NATURAL AREAS NATURAL AREAS MANAGEMENT ISSUES GREENWAY MANAGEMENT PARKLAND MANAGEMENT SENSITIVE URBAN RESTORATIVE NON-NATIVE PLANTS: Purple Loosestrife Repave and destroy individual plants annually by cutting aboveground Plant material and either digging roots out of the ground or using herbicide to kill louver stems and roots of plant all ofplants are placed in sealed begisand discarded in the landfill. Russian Olive, No additional plantings; No additional plantings; No additional plantings; No additional plantirgs; No additional plantings: Saltoodar, Siberian remove as funding Permits remove as funding permits remove during restoration replace with different species replace with different Elm and replace with native woody and replace with native woody activities. as funding allows. species if damaged. species if appropriate for site species if appropriate for site 1stpriority). (2nd Noxious Weeds Control noidous weeds designated by the Colorado Weed Law and Lorimer County Weed District, using Integrated Pest Management Teehnlquss (IPM). These weeds currently inckude leafy spurge (Euphorbia *auto), Russian Iuwpweed (Centaurs@ repens), diffuse krmpwesd (Cent@urea diffuse), spotted knapweed Codourea meculos@ , and Canada thistle Ciraium arvense . Other Undesirable Controlled using IPM techniques N targeted for particular enhancement, restoration, or Broadleaf control targeted for Broadleaf control targeted in Weeds maintenance orciects. maintenance reductioi . turf areas. WOODY PLANT MAINTENANCE: No native trees or shrubs, or ran -pest non-native tress removed or pruned, except those posing a Selective pruning and Complete pruning and Tress and Shrubs hazardous condition (e.g., branches growing over powerl'nes, fallen tress impeding water flow in removal. replacement cycle channels). PLANT COLLECTION: Downed Wood None permitted maintenance staff to remove from hazardous situation. or C' Code alai-201, Ord. to be in Iate 1995 . None permitted except with approval from the City Forester (woody species) or the OSNA Management Team (ran -woody species) None permitted. for propagating native plants to restore or enhance natural areas or other special purposes (woody species: City Code #27-31; non -woody species C' Code #23-201, Ord. to be in late 1995). L=LANT�ING:: Generally, native species to improve wildlife habitat, restore restive plant communities, and resters Native and nor -native species for aesthetic improvements. disbxbed areas, ss needed. Planting permit for woody species required from City Forests (City Planting permit for woody species required from City Forester Code 027-31); approval for planting non -woody species required from the OSNA Management (City Code #27-31); City approval necessary for Planting of Team (City Code /Y3-201, Ord. to be proposed in late 1995). nonAvoody species. J TABLE 1. MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES FOR CITY -OWNED OPEN SPACES AND OTHER NATURAL AREAS NATURAL AREAS MANAGEMENT ISSUES SENSITIVE URBAN RESTORATIVE GREENWAY PARKLAND, MANAGEMENT MANAGEMENT LIVESTOCK: None, except for educational Grazing Now, except by special permit for vegetative management on selected sites. purposes (e.g., Lee Martinez Farm). WILDLIFE: Generally, beaver are a desirable component of our natural area ecosystem and are only removed Remove to protect ornaments! tress and/or channel water flow. Beaver in cases where protective barriers, or other control methods, are not feasible or effective in protecting desirable features. Removal examples include (1) potential property damage due to flooding. (2) disruption of irrigation water flow, and (3) excessive damage to desirable vegetation or animal populations. Prairie Dogs Maintain existing large Remove unless a small, Remove unless goal of Remove to protect orrstte vegetation. colonies. Remove (1) within controlled colony is restoration includes creating buffer areas Wong bordering designated to provide or maintaining, a large colony. property if City staff educational and research determines this is necessary values. to prevent damage to such property, (2) if necessary for grassland restoration, or (3) if mandated by Larimer County Environmental Health Department for plague outbreak in the colony on the arts. Coyotes and Red Fox Control individual animals preying on domestic animals or critical nesting birds if mandated by CDOW. Skunks and Raccoons Control only if mandated by Larimer County Health Department due to disease outbreak on -sits, or if identified as being a definite threat to a sensitive resource (e.g., round nesting birds). Deer Control if mandated by CDOW for optimal population or resource Mountain Lion and Controlled (capture and relocate) by CDOW if determined to be a threat to the safety of humans or their pets. Bear Norway Rats Controlled as needed, for human health Gesse No active management (including no installation of goose nesting struck ee), under CDOW policy. Control (by hazing or We capture), in cooperation with CDOW, if severe maintenance problern or wildlife or human health J 0 TABLE 1. MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES FOR CITY -OWNED OPEN SPACEB AND OTHER NATURAL AREAS NATURAL AREAS MANAGEMENT ISSUER �y PARKLAND MANAGEMENT Donneft ducks wild0domesdocrows SENSITIVE URBAN RESTORATIVE Oter WairfoMA No adiw rrwwgrrwA ranuoved from populvlkwn an 000asior4 in coop 'a w wih CDOW and Hum" Soci*d Laro w. Raptors (Hawks. Eagles, Owls) Prrrrobtuaaim a �t appa dopxi.a for rt. proMd ' enlwws' and Ir.bitat M appropr* I for WIS Pronroa ienhance hWM Ii Opproprfor efts. Prwrw rigoV wl mm m Uees, whrevr pc@oW daisy tree removal «pnarYrg udi naktlng and brood iwtal nset Uses are Federal laws Native Songbkdo Pmmb knirruoa and ~ hbiat as an chraderklas. Fish Stpokhm Por4 Isks, wl Weam slocift In cooperation with CDOW if apprapdob for reCtOW W «riwwrrwd needs a tle db. Target for epedel profit to alo w r8C 10 m rrl uke «teh popu k*m Fish Habibt Enhruorwd Poisoner Snebes CarNrd tT inoompatbis wM intnded urs a slb faaUaes (s.g., irtfrabitlrrp burtows adjaord to Rernwa. Rerrww. LWAdtzl,wchwWrgKfthftpW) NaHmisamus A &ukn Mosquitoes May bs cm halm d by Lrtrnkr Caudy Envi cnmsfrial MsaMlr Dkprbrwut in to ce a erious lunar «donNatic rrirnal hadh treat due to disk.» autxeak (e pl . E)"o Waffle Corrbd f l-g ba f« epww project Species (e g., bull Natty Species Trget for speciel project in 000psraiisn wit CROW. Now Reftodu lion E Specim TAroatred Specks. P.a. tk, enharros, and protect l IN used by tese species. plus arriwwe, and pnobd habitat tMt hs to Not rtwwaw for toe species. wl Colorado per" b support tune 1 i 1 1 .I 1 i ] z 1 1 ) ) 1 al J ) 1 CITY PLAN and other community dialogues stress the goal of creating neighborhoods where commercial centers, schools, parks and other facilities are easily accessible by pedestrians and bicyclists. The current practice of providing one fairly large neighborhood park in each square mile doesn't address this goal as effectively as smaller and more numerous parks developed in each neighborhood. Natural Areas sales tax and Conservation Trust funds have supported the establishment of a successful open lands program in the City. The County -wide Help Preserve Open Spaces Sales Tax program will provide additional funding for open lands in the City and Larimer County through 2003. Each of these funding services are designated for specific types of open land or natural area programs. Opportunities for broadening the types of open lands the City acquires should be explored, as should opportunities for more joint projects involving both the Park Planning and Development Division and the Natural Resources Department. In the course of preparing an update to the City's 1988 Parks and Recreation Master Plan, these and many other -� community issues were identified. The next chapter (Chapter 2) describes a response to these issues and sets new direction for the continued development of the City's parks and recreation system, including trails, recreation facilities, natural areas and other open land programs. This new direction builds on the strengths of the existing system, retaining the elements that have made the Fort Collins system successful, while also addressing new community needs and issues. The evolution of the plan recommendations can be found in Chapters 3 and 4. Chapter 3 provides an overview and evaluation of the existing system. Needs and issues are discussed in Chapter 4, including a summary of public comment received as well as a comparison of the Fort Collins system with other Front Range communities. Chapter 5 focuses on implementation strategies, particularly financial needs and potential ways of meeting these needs. Fort Collins Parks and Recreation Policy Plan 1-2 ..g ii ISSUES Artificial Prdm Bird !louses, Other Artificial Nest Structures, Bet Houses TABLE 1. MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES FOR CITY-OMED OPEN SPACES AND OTHER NATURAL AREAS SENSITIVE Limited trstelation (due to asse"ft concerns) if necessary to promote, enhance, or protect use of site by endangered specks, threatened species, or Li niibed knlaNation (due 1b aesthetic concerns) If necessary to promote, enhance, or protect use of she by andengered specks. threatened species, or Colorado Sosciss of Cancan NATURAL AREAS MANAGEMENT URBAN Lkf*W inelalation (due to aesthetic conowns) for educational purposes or general habitat ri umernent. Limited lotion (due to assthstic concerns)for educations! purposes or general habitat whwxwnwt RESTORATIVE Limited installation (due to aesthetic concerns), depending on target clsmaification (i.e., "Srnttin" or "Urban" natural areas mariagernent). Li ni6ed Instalation (due to sesthetic concerns). depending an target dessification (i.e., "Sensitive" or "Urban" net" areas managenient GREENWAY No scuts nwnegenent. PARKLAND No actin nw agernent, but slowed by neighbors and special'nterest groups by review. No actin rnanagement, but slowed by neighbors and special interest groups by review. Wkft Fee& None (ofhr than native Plantings) slowed. s mapt with approval of CDOW for special projects No active maragertient; Woos (otter than plantings) provided. (e•g•. specks reintroduction) (City Code Chapter 4 Ord'mence prohibits fsedkg of der. geese. SuppbmaMal feeding is not mmmrrbndr! the CDOW. ducks. raccoons....). SupplanaMal songbird and squirrel feeding slowed by neighbors and speck) interest groups any Aw oaaulmtion with the CDOW. RECREATIONAL USE: In general. Permitted activities we in the category of passim recreation (.a., not team oriented. In general, passive recreation General Use not requiring specialized eWIpr nm% can be dale by one person—e.g., walking viewkg wldlife) is encouraged; same actin except so, 'ow-Isvel actin recreation Is permitted an paved trals (e.g., b0drg). recreation k permitted. but k site and boat'-n within site specific. Nona Permitted (City Code #23-201, Ord. to be proposed in Ists 1995). In general, active recreation is Permitted (i.e., team - oriented, activities requiring specsized equiprnert—e.g.. bombs), trWbee, golf), which Is cite and' -cation Permitted by special Permit for a group event, orgy (City Code #23-2121. i►es No open came m outeids of *ft mted Wft or fire Pits (City Code /9-2[q); burring of refuse or rubbish is prohibited (City Code #12-20). Permit with approval of Poudre Fire and Parks to group events(City'Cale a> Organized Events PNWOpmn Space Use Permit is Cods /23.51 . Dog Wang Al doge rust be an Wash (City Code /4-93). May be restricted to designated tra7s on soma Al dogs must be an Wash (City Code t4-93). Feoss deposited sites to protect natural resources (City Code 023-201, Ord. to be proposed in Wte 1985). Faces by dogs must be remand from sle (City Cola 04-71). J N3 TABLE 1. MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES FOR CITY -OWNED OPEN SPACES AND OTHER NATURAL AREAS ISSUES NATURAL AREAS MANAGEMENT GREENWAY MANAGEMENT PARKLAND MANAGEMENT SENSITIVE URBAN RESTORATIVE Mountain Bildno Restricted to trails and areas deslonated bike use (City Code #23-201 Ord. to be mA in laic 1995 . Roder Skatingf Binding and Skateboarding Restricted to paved trails and designated areas (City Code #23-201, Ord. to be proposed an late 1995). Sledding and Snow Tubinc None permitted (City, Cods #23-201, Ord. to be proposed in late 1995). 7 Permitted only at desi8raded sites and locations within allies. Cross-country Siding Restricted to Wong paved trade and other designated tub (City Coda 023-201, Ord. to be proposed in his 1995)- Ioe Skating None permitted (City Code 023-201, Ord. tD be proposed in late 1995). Permitted ordy at dssigrwted ponds and lakes (Cods #23. 201, Ord. No. 6Z 1988 03 Kits Flying None permlited (City Code m123-201 Ord. tD be proposed in late 190). Permitted. Friabee Throwing N CCode #23 Ord. to be Proposed In late 19951, P itled• Model Airplanes None permitted, unless use is for remote swift work approved by the City (City Code #23-201. Ord. tD be Proposed in late 1995). Permitted only at designated sites and locations wi1Mn sites. Model Bosts None permitted (City Code A23-201 Ord. to be Proposed in labs 1995). Permitted only at designated ponds and lakes. SvAmmkv None permitted (City Code mt< 201 Ord. to be proposed in life 1995). Huryling None permilted (Cfty Code /23-201 Ord. to be proposed in late 1995 . Trapping None permitted, except for special circumstances to trap nuisance wildlife crocnduct research in cooperation with Podce, CROW, and Humane Society of Lorimer (CityCourAy Code m14-120 . Fish Permitted unless posted no fishft (City Code #23-201 Ord. to be proposed in late 1 Ice Fishim None permilled (CRY Code #23-201 rd. tD be proposed In hte 1995 W TABLE 1. MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES FOR CITY-"ED OPEN SPACES AND OTHER NATURAL AREAS NATURAL AREAS MANAGEMENT ISSUES SENSITIVE URBAN RESTORATIVE GREENWAY MANAGEMENT PARKLAND MANAGEMENT Motor Boating None permitted, eacept electric troling motors at wakeless speeds (City Code #23-201, Ord. to be proposed in late 1995). None Permitted, except electric trolling 'rotors at wakeless speeds (City Code #23-201, Ord. to be proposed in late 1995); no private boats permitted on City Park Lake except by permit for a spscad event Code 1f23.54. Canoeing and Other Permitted, unless posted no canoeing or non-mwtorized boats (City Code #23-201, Ord. to be proposed in lets 1995). Permitted, unless posted no Non -motorized Boats canoeing or raHnoiorized Croats; no private boats permitted an City Park Lake except by Permit for a special event (Code #23.5- 1. Paved Teals Constructed to facilitate recreational and alternative transportation uses; placed to avoid impact to Constructed it necessary to As provided in park design. awl"" features Of site. provide transportation Inks to other paved trails. Unpaved Trellis Constructed and marked as trail to facilitate recreational uses; placed to avoid impel to sensitive None provided. As provided in park design. features of site. Use of unmarked, unpaved trai s may be restricted on some an (City Code 023-201 Ord. to be Proposed in late 1995). Sig" Limited (due to aesthetic corcems) signage necessary for regulatory, informational, and Limited signage necessary for As needed in park design. interpretive needs. regulatory and informational needs. Interpretive Limited (due to aesthetic concerns) interpretive features far educational purposes. None provided. As provided in park design. Featwes Fireworks None permitted (A *W 78, City Fire Code). Only as permitted by tiro City Parks and Recreation Department for special events. Vegetable Some Permitted next to As provided in park design. Gardening None C' Code #23 201. Ord. to be in late 1995). ad'sce"t Airc altMot Air Low (<500 feet) flights and landings Permitted only for emergency or land survey situations, unless within takeoff or larding airways As Permitted by the City Bel)" of commercial airport (City Cods 023-201, Ord. to be Proposed in late 1995). Perks and Recreation J A TABLE 1. MANAGEMENT GUIDELJNES FOR CRY -OWNED OPEN SPACES AND OTHER NATURAL AREAS NATURAL AREAS MANAGEMENT 188UE8 GREENWAY MANAGEMENT PARKLAND MANAGEMENT SENSITIVE URBAN RESTORATIVE GENERAL RJUNTENfANCE: Only If needed at or near parkkp bt or paved tell. Norw poAded. As provided in Park design P ovision of Real Raoma Groodwid Fine Wldln ow*olod as nrsndated by Poudre Fin Autwft Controled free could be used for Psrbdc abng Pared trail, roadway Uontapas, soma buffer zwm fmd to nw►bxW Wi "IaPad Perbdc (3-5 *nwlysar). RRspAwffmW t to makfdi� Mawkp wow and for woad cw*d nobratbn and Pookides IPM Tedwd*m are and by tTw CRY. krsecddda are used only for dambft peels (e.g.. Sarno as rrabrrd anal rrwrsgarrmrt plus Mr6bids use for gypsy moth autbrsak). HarWcidos an and on target rrordorn weeds (biokgoM north of used an ' genard broadad earrb A mosmi carrido and areas rm rid iI a tars pkrft). Purpb krossebife, Russian dive, saMoo ard Sbwbn olm. RadwtWdn used to omit targst populmWm of Norway rob arrd pr&b dom PnrNbn of Gww* riot per: pov only tf ruoded at or rmv pw M lot or pared tall. Provided where meals recromew al mods DMMmWdw 'I I m k al sbuckm Rabb araIo if not in cm W wO natural areal)robction goals for sits. Nona. As provided in park-daip4 Non4ddwk d Skrrwures Ranwved unless serves publb good, rsrxsstl m I a al a rrwngerrwrt purposes. As porgy In pork dnWm N dmdo*W MMarYis Protactad a "ft unless moessary in rarnow to protect irmilm , or lb pralds oR-eba sduatlonal bandit (City Code 023-2M, Ord. to be proposed in Into IM). Fawk Son Ised if necessary to prow nstial raaorroes or died rOr mmdmrrI un. Barbed win Nara. As im osaary in prk farms replaced wlh rwrbarbed wks or olhar brroinp nralarid unlen ad)aomnt l rd ua b IQ ) J TABLE t MANAGEMENT CLASSIFICATION OF CITY -OWNED OPEN SPACES AND NATURAL. AREAS (Note: site numbers we rat always sequrrtlal due to 'Amp of few aites or Conbkxatlon of cites sins was but written. SITE NAME SIZE OF NATURAL KEY NATURAL AREA FEATURES NATURAL AREA MANAGEMENT.• SENSITIVE 1. Cathy Fromm Prairie (059 acres) Ksy raptor habitat rare pit. natlwe PraMe. Purls dog may. could support hnwxft owls. 2. Pinrklge Open Space (SM mom) Replor haWlsR rare Owt. nallm dwrWr pile. key wkrlsear r dear, ,, -, fm m" Ill ridge, Precis dog colony, could support bur ow kv owls. md-tefNd hawks nest in phw 3. Mw&M Open Spats (197 acres) Raptor area, nallm shorigran prairie, key winter deer habitat, Ctly 4. CarnpeaulRmwvt* Rkigs Open Raptor area, native slarinrass prairie, key winter dear Frabkat fcoll Spaces 280 scres) rb$m City backdrop, 5. Riwsrberxl Ponds Open Space Fanner osprey release ails, rars plwK key bird andisefterme, complex (219 acres; kakxiss lay migratory bird habiht natant lloodpidn. Mikw and Flatiron Open Spaces) S. Sprfrger Open Space (22 mass) Ran Pleat. key mWelory sanpbid habitat, rare butterfly habibt rmbsal fbodplatn. pobntlal SlormA ter vwtlrd expansioNcrsation alle on degraded area to knprove water 7. Foothills Trail (S miles; Swm*n te erosion, hvwbint geologic features, m" fo*ft pleat inckxies owmn me mmalged by the Cam wAss, high use by mule deer and other foolfwidth. City and right -of ways owned by the City) 9. Resource Recovery Form (30 acres) Boxelder Creak; lower Bcoakler Creek has an racelent mbc of wetlwd, mature cobwmood font and dvub habitat rxxating site far md4WW hawks and Brest homed owls; high uae by > the year nwrls deer and redchm. herd of about 10 white-teMd deer. No pubic access to ails. 10. Water Tr nhm t Faddy Ditch. boll graseland. and wetlands mainly associated with ssepapa (35 acres) from ditch; ails in this Category due to. am. discovery of the Fedwaly Endargared ord deoowred just north of properly; site lealso used by raptors, deer, coyotes, and other footlrils width. No pubic access to ails. 11. Ught and Power's Land North of Key araa for raptors, pardaderly whWi g bdd eagles and fernrgkmm Tramfort Buldng (35 acres) hawks; grasslyd and watlard was; site oleo used by g neaft bids taxes and looldibbils. No mMc access. 67. Prairie Dog Meadow (53 sores) Key rsa for implores. Pwdmbrly wkri ft bald eaglet and hrrugino n hmW; gnalend and wetland area; ails also used by graselend nsstkp birds and 08. Fowl Creak Wetlrds (229 acres) Kay wdwf wk and wdwbkd migratory dopom habitat raptor was, hrmwkg owls soma years; site also used by 9nsslrrd birds. ooyotes, and rabbits. 80 Coyote Rkige ("2 acres) Rare plent, raptor was. m" W wx Ipsss prokle, key wrkxbr deer habilst knOMs ridge. 15 TABLE L MANAGBIENT CLASSIFICATKIN OF CITY4MNED OPEN SPACES AND NATURAL AREAS (Nobs: Site rarnbers we not &Vmys sequrr .. due to addition of new etas or oorrAl melon of sibs sinceirmummnm planweefirstwritlem) SRE NAME OF NATURAL KEY NATURAL AREA FEATURES NATURAL AREA MANAGEMEMr. URBAN 11 Ross Open Space (30 sass) Urban wikib co.k or, grasaI - prknertiy khtroduo.d Pssiurs 9rww, Svft Creak and m6ow wvdmn4 ditch. 13. Fiedw Open Space (11 acres) Urban wldUe corridor, grasalrhd prk.o ly k*oduosd pnwm prsssse. ditch. 14. Prospect Ponds Open Space Pands, fbhYp era, newer corridor. high waierbM uss. 25 sons 15. Archery Range Open Space Pads RMw om. kb near 1-25, brye prt d area highly roskhbksd for 50 aaas use. 10. Salyer Open SPA (24 acres) Rivw cmnkkx. 9 d prkrmtiy khtroduosd psebra greases. ditch with verisly of naUw woody species. 17. Legacy Park Natrral Arne (13 sass) River con kl r, wooded sib with a variety of native plan epsoiss; arrss of 9raso1yd and tlrul>lerhd left unmowad at park sib, some amei wWwdVparndkhg areas; high use by a vwiety of . and ale Site krokdas natural arms portion of Legacy Park and 1994 addlion of 5 mores of rnatrral apes Wad as 2 sibs in IS. Non Shields Pond Open Space Pond, lle hig area. rhwr oorridor, atbi nsral high use by rn%plory (1 o acres) watedowl anddthr webrbids, good mbu d wetland habibtfor recalling WdKbkds. 19. Red Fax Meadows (27 saes) Ok hs% graeolar ' p *m* introduced pasture 9rassim vntian d, Pod, noxious weeds (89slle, spurge) and modo post tress (Russian olw) we dxmdan, reeidrd sand hrd d mub dser, ftK Fheasrht, on gbirde. ponds used by herons and other urbwh wabrbk hL Silo includes Undrlhw Stommebr Detention Ann and oip W Bridges Open Space (Ilebd as 2 Bibs in 21. Mullaney Slomwwrtw Watrnd Cam nweh surrounded by drafted res, used by bbcldhkds and a eons few of her weft birds. 21 HO Pond Sbrtnwalr ChmnN Sp ing Cm* Arthur Ditch, used mostly by urban wlkitib, Russian ollw 15 acres iwasbn Is 23. Tknbwlrs Slorrnwaler Wotle nd Cattel rehash wkh good mix d rnel opsn water habbd, used by red- (10gees) wkhgsd and yalw* maded bla All I , migratory and urban duck, role. hiam and a d other wnllrnd bird 24. Naleon Faun Stomaweler 0 ' am rh Pond end watrd *kW was, used by mostly "Icely urban watrbirds. Pond Gems 25. Su ndons Mh Sknnwdw Nos Slonnwabr beenand rwagetabd gnwlyd with mkc of ihbnduoed saes and na9w 28. Foclhils 0" Sionwnler Consirht water flow in cnnrhel 9raealyd bordrkg rrhihkg aperstah, Charnel 18.ores urban ear dwetland and use n 27. North Ow&W Skwffmv w Wet meadow. cane use by krdeor, urbwh e m q$' ds. Wetland 18 acres 28. Clarendon HM Sionmater Ana Food Creek-Bumuse by Tributary, aorns uby urban wUft travel oonkkm 10 saes for JOK raccoon. 29. Avery Park East 8brrnwreler Pond Pond with cdtal area, drairnegs dhwrhei; high use by urbrh weMfoWl rot acros bks harass 16 TABLE 2. MANAGEMENT CLARIFICATION OF CRY -OWNED OPEN SPACES AND NATURAL AREAS (Nob: Site numbers are rat always sequsrdial due to addition of raw albs or combination of ekes sinceirmiegarm, pion was first written. SITE NAME UM OF NATURAL KEY NATURAL AREA FEATURES NATURAL AREA MANAGEMENT, URBAN 30. Paudne River Bile Trail (S miss of tnei River ca ridor. high to low use by w ild1le deper ift on ca IN aru of Makudes eaeenrnb rtwsged by the adjaosut habibt, which is hi ft variable aong the Va. noidous weeds w City and rightd-ways owned by the problenuato in some rses. 31. SprkV Creek Bile Trail (S mites Streem corridor, rrmodsab te low we by wildlife dsF m A on oordiion of indudes weertrsrb rrwrrgsd by the adjeormt IuabilaC which is highly vwMb Mono the trail. City and rWd-ways owrad by the 32. Les Mw*wz Park Naturd Area River corridor; nub" cottonwood forest, small wdlMnds, orawI -I ;high (48 maw) use by s, gbi I , woodpsckss, owls, and wstlrd birds; good area for rarer butterflies snd other irmeate. 34. Old Fort Colim Hari W Park Riverbank area; ow use by wildlife due to high amourb of rtprap and 2 acres ooncra' rubble' bank is in need of effort 35. Mulberry Water Recirrstion River corridor; mature cattornwods srd w illmn, wooded arse is used by a Facility (5 saw) varisty of so obi►de, woodpeckers. and owls; river and eidechennsl wederds we used sde wK* by waierbM, particularly in late fail to early sptg. Umibd pubic access to ails: scoses small por o sea aorg Mulberry near river srd eke an be viewed from Poudns River Bike Trail. 38. Drake Water Reclamation Facility Pond; river corridor dioh; manes ookorwoods and willows wdlh srceierR (20 saes) urdomory of native shrubs rid patclmse of wvtbrW plants; wooded was is used by a variety of sono A woodpecker*, and owls; river aid wetlands w used mostly by more urban walrbM and waterbirds due to poodri* to trail. Limited pAft access to alb: access river owkbr by bike trail. 70. Hickory Park Natural Area Wooded small ab ver.. part of aid river meander small pond; alb used by (11 acres) a variety of songbirds, woodpeckers, wW owls; pads used by urban ducks' heavy Russian Dive Invasion and pasturegreaskised irmssion. 71. Arapsho Bard Natural Area River corridor; old oravel ponds; ditches; nub" cottonwoods aid wows (278 maw) with sw i ll t underebryof redlve shrubs Wong river; wooded rea is used by a variety of songbirds, wroodpeckars, aid owle; river and wetlarnte w used by reeidart and nAyaEay waterfowl and waterbids. 17 TABLE L MANAGEMENT CLA89 FICATION OF CITY-0WNED OPEN SPACES AND NATURAL AREAS (Not: SMe nrrrban an not dw fpra oogmMil due to addtlon of rww efts or canlMnmtlon of efts skwe wm fir t wrtltn. SITE NAM OF NATURAL KEY NATURAL AREA FEATURES NATURAL AREA MANAOEMENT: RESTORATIVE 37 Sprkv Park moms Nabral Over. dwmW det rbed by dwrom adm projeaL 38. B W Open Space (2 saw) Rfwr ca.kb, have and aseooidod struabrm on pity. li rrd ply tic. pnb/a Wuom nwny otlwr erotic tress shrubs, and forba an alte. 30. Oudov Swrwon Nabrs Arm Acdve odartlon tB" phm cn put of d b 11 eons 40. Udd Nmt rml Arm Rom aoqu bffim vA*i riwrr corridor. part of sit proposed for (25 acres) Stomewatr watlard rmb sm illetwrMion project prmrdY used by rrmbrfowl and 41. Redwkp Marsh Natural Arse port of olls proposed for StorrrwAdw wedwW meWratlon/dstndon project, 8 sass used 43. Woodmrrds 5th Stwn water Smatl cdtd mmrah and opsn water, uple ds befng rsstond m rwtiw Dstntlon Pond mom) grOMOSS. 44. Hanel knpotetlau Skin &,dw . Natlw and arrament l trios and shrubs ptrrbd; grosses reseeded; ChnwUFwmtw ib Sp fie Creek mostly aced by urban sarSk i ,' . c1 acre 51. The Coterie (5 scree) SnuM prafrle dog odony bonded by viwel bonier; ahe urrdergoirrg ne m Hm by Ugh* 3 Power to ratlw graeen and twtlre shr bs is bull a rwbral boilm iF TABLE t MANAGEMENT CLA98MATION OF CITY-0WNED OPEN SPACES AND NATURAL AREAS (NoM. Sib reenbers are not always ssqurrli due io addMon of n w aries or conhh adore of dries skm woo tkst wrribn SITE NAME MM OF NATURAL ARM KEY NATURAL AREA FEATURES GREENWAY M ANAMMENT 46. WMWm Open Spece (2 acres) River corridor. most of aria is praeeI ' the is prkrnrly kmaduosd PooWn gasses, no, 3.4 Umes Per year, two krps bMmwds on aria, torn use d.r mccoorn. 46. Clsrviuw East St vmwdw Seral area of cWM, rest of sib is l m 'lip praeses mowed 3-5tkns DebxrI'm n Ana 1 acre some use by swobkW 47. Fekbroolas Debnlbn Aroo Smal rse of adEel, net of site Is introduced praeees mowed 3fi tinns 1 eon soma use 46. Qual Hollow M Sbnnwa0r Wooded res doM Dbwn Crook Chrrrd through raekJrrUai a ea; some DetrMion Ana (2 sans) oottaaroods and Ruselen al was write an urAw uy of krtraduosd grades nwwad 3-5 *rm per yew, sans use by sorVbkft 49. Wep wAnsi $ mrwatr De m ft About on acre of krrpe ocowm cods, am* motive shrubs, rest of basin is Basin (1 acre) mowed 3-6 tkrres per yew. 19 TABLE L MANAG MENT CLASSffICATION OF CITY -OWNED OPEN SPACE$ AND NATURAL AREAS (Nob: She nunnbers arend awaya smq l l li dw tD odddon d rwv sbq or combknafion d sbe shwommomnom plenweefiretwryAmn.) SRE NAME OF NATURAL ARFA KEY NATURAL AREA FEATURES PARKLAND MANAGEMENT 52. Grandview Colnelory (45 acres) Large. old urban forssk high use by naktar t, mig dwy. and wUr6 ft sorgbkde, due io vwl* d..mU on Wd and dedduars tress; dlbh halves himh use by urban vmhwfowl and sonobkdL 53. Raeahwn Cemetery (5 saes) Rows d nmt re. d * v m ,,; , rnahm base; provides cover and food for owVbkda Gorn the moay oven, pastureland and cr OPI I Of surroundno tiabiML 54. City Park Nine Gdf Courts acne Ditch rooswe fakly high use by..slards and other urban wwWrb M. 55. CoBndele Goff Course (3 sons) Ponds and dltd. noeive mane uee by geese..rnalerds. and other urban. wabrfoiM and 56. Soufirklge Greens Golf Course Pond recolves am* use by games, n Mw*. and oltw urban wabrfowl (4 scree) and wabnbk* Fosel Creek is used as a nomrund ca. kkx for fox, rec000n.andottiersinsli.m.m..els. 57. Cky Park (30 Saes) � �, , gred4wmad owls, and moccons, wand R nwJ* used by.hmM and ofiwr urban duds; Wo is used tm* by a variety d vwiarfo.nA GPWM. pwOmAwtt dwft the wWw 58. CnoW& Park (3 acres) Sprig Creak oonkb nnoedy enraged as prMond, but part of ate is vegabtd wlh nafiw grsassa and nnr.apmd mobs nnabnna area sonns urea by urban birds. 59. Spft Park saes Creak oonida • same use by urban wa**W and W. Edam Park (15 achy Sprig Creek conkb pond; high use of pond by urban duds (nmiwd and wigean, in pwbxdmr), sspeoidy fists fal and erty Spring, own use bluelmonm. 81. Golden Meadows Park (5 achy Lake and dkoh; good use by mipratay dvkg ducks in aping, fakly good we by urban duds at odw *nw sane "by songbirds and other vwdrbirda. 82. OvwWW 4 moms Pond and dkch• sans use by urban ducks and banana. 83. Rolud Moore Park (10 achy Sprig Creak dt* and pond; taky high use by urbrn duds and geese; sane uam by herons and 84. Tmub w. Park (2 saa) Drwh (McCMlarnd Creek) and two ponds; soot use by herons. 9eese. and nNllm 65. Wwron Park 1 awn Pond: mome use and ..Weirl 06. GrowtAr Park 41 acre Pond Sara use and nndards 100 O Chapter Two The Plan Figure 1. Approximate locations of City -owned open spaces and natural areas listed in Table 2. Shaded numbers indicate start/end points of trails (#'s 7, 30, and 31). 21 No Text Table 1 Comparative Level of Service Offered by Front Range Communities for Recreational Facilities APPENDIX B June 1996 ... ........ ... ........................ .......... _... X ............. X". . . ............. ........................... ............... ........... 05*� �� ............... . . .... ................... .......... .... ..:1 A WOMW dx� . ............ ........... ..P ..... ................... ....... 1­...­... . .. .. . . ... . ... .. ....... ..... . ... . .. ..... .. ..... ...... ... ................ I ...... ...... I .. ............. ..... ... ...... .. .............. ......................... F . ... . ........... .. ............ . ....... -5m.- ........ . . ...... .... .. ................ ... . .... .. ................. ............... .................................. .......... ............ .............................. ...... ....... X.X .... . ..... ....... . . ...... ...... ...... .......... ............ ... .............................. ....... ........ ................. ................. ... .... ­­­ ......................... .......... ............ ..... ............. .......... .......... .... ... .... ........ ........ ....... ....... ....... : ":..:: ............ .. ............... ...... .... ....... ...... ............ .. ..... .. ....... ... .................... ...... .......... .... ...... . ... . .... . ..... ........ ...... ............ .............. .... .. .. ...... .. .... .............. ............ .............. ............................. ..... ............... . ...... ....... ...... I ........................................ . .......... ... ... ... ............ ........ ­­­­ .... ...... ........................ .............. ............ ': ........ ... ...... . ......... ....... ..... .... .. ....... ..... . XXX X .... . .. . ....... . ...... . .: ...: .................... ........ ............ . ......... .. . ..... I.- .......... .... .... ...................... . ........... . .. ........ .. .. .... . ........ . .................... ... ............ .......... ............. .......... ... ... . ........... ..... ........... .......... ...... ............ .............. .. .......................... ............. ...................... ............................ ............... ... .... ........ ....... .............. .. .. ........... .. ...................................... - ............ ............................. . ...... ................ ..... ... .... . .................... ...... . . ........... . ........ ............. ........... . ....................... .............................. .............. ............... ...... ................... .............. ......... I.X I ..... .. .... ............. ............... . .............. ....... ........ ..... ZOO. M . .......... ... ";s. V k ............ . ...... ... .......... .......... .. .... IV pw .......... .......... ........... ......... .............................. �.K . ....... .. ................. . ........... .. ...... ........... . ............. Soccer/Foothall Fields A Full size (195'x 360'+) 1:32,046 1:3,500 1:14,863 1:30,000 1:7,892 1:1,714 1:10,430 1:14,349 1:7,458 Other sizes (inc. practice fields) 1:2,289 1:2,333 1X605 1:3,529 174304 0 11,986 1:3.841 172,063 Total 1:6,000 1:2,136 1:4,000 1:5,450 1:3,159 1:2,785 1:1,714 1:1,668 1:6,665 1:3,731 1:1,616 Softball/Youth Baseball Game 1:6,286 1:4,005 1:3,000 1:21,800 1:7,500 1:3,946 1:4,000 1:6,950 1:3,000 1:6,720 1:3,878 FieldsA Practice Softball/Baseball FIds. A 1:6,600 1:2,289 1:14,000 1:5,274 1:5,455 1:6,313 1:3,000 1:7,582 na 1:6,314 1:1,979 Gymnasiums 1:44,000 1:32,046 1:24,000 1:163,500 1:30,000 1:31,569 1:12,000 na 1:60,000 1:49,639 1:48,480 (City or Rec. District) Gymnasiums 1:13,200 1:1,930 1:7,000 na na 1:2,960 1:12,00 na na 1:7,418 1:3,878 (Schools) Tennis Courts 1:2,750 1:1,424 1:1,555 1:2,794 1:2,222 1:1,503 1:1,500 1:5,560 1:2,500 1:2,423 1:2,365 25-Meter/YardPwIs Indoor 1; 132,000 1:21,364 1:21,000 1:30,000 1:12,000 1:41,700 1:43,011 1:48,480# Outdoor 1:33,000 0 1:42,000 1:60,000 1:12,000 0 1:36,750 1:96,960 Total 1:26,400 1:21,364 1:14,000 1:54,500 1:20,000 1:7,892 1:6,000 1:41,700 1:30,000 1:24,651 1:32,320 50-Meter/Yard Pools Indoor 1:132,000 0 1:42,000 0 0 0 0 1:87,000 1:96,960 Outdo" 0 0 0 0 Total 1:132,000 1:42,000 1:163,500 1:94,706 1:108,052 1:96,960 Total 25 & 50-Meter/Yard Pools A 1:22,000 1:21,364 1:10,500 1:40,875 1:20,000 1:7,285 1:6,000 1:41,700 1:30,000 1:22,192 1:24,240 Aquatic Center/Recreation Pool 0 1:64,092 1:42,000 1:65,400 1:60,000 1:47,353 1:12,000 1:83,400 0 1:53,464 1:96,960# Multi -Purpose Recreation Center 1:66,000 1:64,092 1:42,000 0 1:30,000 1:23,677 1:12,000 1:41,700 0 1:39,924 1:48,480* Ice Skating Rink 1:132,000 0 0 1:163,500 0 1:94,706 0 0 0 1:130,069 1:96,960 (privately operated) (incl. I college) (in progress) CU rink not public Developed Community Park 1.5 ac/1000 pop 3.1 ac/1000 pop 2.4 ac/1000 pop 2.3 ac/1000 pop 1.5 ac/1000 pop 1.8 ac/1000 pop 4.2 ac/1000 pop 2.2 ac/1000 pop 1.9 ac/1000 pop 2.3 ac/1000 pop 3.1 ac/1000 pop Developed Neighborhood Park 2.3 ac/1000 pop 2.8 ac/1000 pop 2.4 ac/1000 pop 2.3 ac/1000 pop 2.3 ac/1000 pop 2.5 ac/1000 pop 1.3 ac/1000 pop 1.5 ac/1000 pop 2.1 ac/1000 pop 2.2 ac/1000 pop 2.3 ac/1000 pop Total Developed Neighborhood and 3.8 ac/1000 pop 5.9 ac/1000 pop 4.8 ac/1000 pop 4.6 ac/1000 pop 3.8 ac/1000 pop 4.3 ac/1000 pop 5.5 ac/1000 pop 3.7 ac/1000 pop 4.0 w/1000 pop 4.5 ac/1000 pop 5.4 ac/1000 pop Community Parkland Parkland Standards Community Parks 5 ac/1000 pop 6 ac/1000 pop 5 ac/1000 pop 5 ac/1000 pop na 1,5 ac/1000 pop 6 ac/1000 pop 7.5 ac/1000 pop* 4 ac/1000 pop 5.0 ac/1000 pop 4 ac/1000 pop Neighborhood Parks 3 ac/1000 pop 2 ac/1000 pot) 2 ac/1000 Pop 2.5 ac/1000 not) La 1.5 ac/1000 pop 2 ac/1000 oon 2.5 ac/1000 pot) 2.5 ac/1000 non 2.3 ac/1000 pop 2 ac/1000 pot) 8 ac/1000 pop 8 ac/1000 pop 7 ac/1000 pop 8 ac/1000 pop 4 ac 3.0 ac/1000 pop 8 ac/1000 pop 9.5 ac/1000 pop 6.5 ac/1000 pop 6.8 ac/1000 pop 6 ac/1000 pop currently being *inc. regional parks reevaluated that are similar to CityParkinFort Collins Source: Interviews conducted by EDAWin June 1995. Population figures are from ]994. A Includes school facilities and fields that are used for public recreation programs # Mulberry Pool counted as both 25m pool and leisure pool * Includes Senior Center APPENDIX C K,�s CtL./�KE ~TREE 1='#h�t_�/C�EN VER,�I.�t��X�2-I:'�:�/1.�� �►s7 �-�xx..`l � October 31, 1995 To: Tom Keith, EDAW / HRV, Inc. Virgil Taylor, Parks Division, City of Fort Collins From: Jean Townsend Regarding: FINANCIM, AIXERNATIVES FOit FUNDING PARKS OPERATIONS, MAINTENANCE, CAPrrm.OtrTLAY AND INFRASPRIT('TIIRF MAINTENANCE & RF.i',\IR The City of Fort Collins' responsibilities with respect to operations, maintenance, and repair of parks are increasing more rapidly than its rate of growth, due to a continuing commitment of its citizens to fiend park projects. In addition, there is a sizeable backlog of existing infrastructure which needs replacement and repair. For these reasons, the City anticipates that its current financial practices are inadequate to meet these responsibilities and seeks new or expanded ways of financing. This memorandum summarizes the City's current financial policies with respect to financing parks, open space, trails, natural areas, and landscaped medians, describes techniques used in a sampling of other communities, and proposes a series of eight additional financial techniques for further consideration and, deliberation. The analysis is presented in the following sections 1.0 Introduction, Purposed & Summary of Findings ..................................... 2 2.0 Financing for Existing Parks, Trails, Open Space, Natural Areas and Landscaped Areas ...: 3 3.0 Current Financial Policies & Practices ............................................ 4 4.0 Funding Issues............................................................... 7 5.0 Experience of Other Communities .............................................. 11 6.0 Funding Alternatives for Further Consideration .................................... 12 Appendix A: Case Examples - Parks Financial Practices ................................ 17 Appendix B: Resident - Non-resident Fees -Sampling of Colorado Municipalities ........... 27 1.0 INTRODUCTION, PURPOSE & SUMMARY Overview. This memorandum presents a series of viable finding alternatives for Fort Collins to consider for -� financing its on -going park operations, maintenance, and minor park capital requirements. While existing financing arrangements are adequate to finance day -today operations and maintenance requirements for the current inventory of parks, open space, trails and landscaped medians, they do not generate sufficient revenues to finance the growing deferred infrastructure needs, the continuing minor park capital regurements, and future operations and maintenance costs associated with new facilities. In addition, revenues from Choices '95, the Natural Areas tax, the Conservation Trust Fund / GO Colorado, and the parkland fee program enable Fort Collins to add to the inventory of projects to be maintained. The adoption of the forthcoming Parks Master Plan Update will propose an additional set of park Iecommendations, which if funded, will also add to the on -going costs of operations and maintenance. ^ This analysis focuses on current financing needs and provides some perspective on future financing needs. Future financing needs associated with the fcrd=mmg Parks Master Plan Update are not quantified because the details are still in process. For purposes of this report, when the phrase "park upkeep" is used, it is intended to include costs associated with maintenance, operations, life -cycle capital requirements, and minor capital outlay, it excludes costs associated with land acquisition, park development and major improvements typically financed with debt or earmarked source of revenue. Statwww of The Problem The City's current financial practices and policies with respect to park upkeep are well thought-out and quite reasonable. The "problems" are three: # 1. Current Funding is Inadequate. There are substantial costs ($9.8 million) associated with currently needed infrastructure replacement and restoration improvements associated with the current inventory of parks. Funding for these improvements began in 1993 but current financial practices and finding levels are .. inadequate to catch-up with current needs. #2. Demand is High. The inventory of parks, landscaped medians, open space, natural areas, and trails is -� increasing substantially due to the strong commitment of Fort Collins voters to tax themselves for these improvements phis the additional revenues forthcoming from State lottery sources. Existing plus new park facilities will need to be maintained. The rate of increase in park upkeep costs associated with anticipated ^+ increases in parks, landscaped medians, open space, natural areas and trails is about 8 percent ammally excluding inflation, this increase is out -pacing the rate of population and employment growth by a substantial margin. #3. New Customer Needs. Customer survey results indicate that the public wants more amenities molder parks like shelters, picnic tables, bedtes, restrooms, drinking fountains, etc. Currently, there is no capital finding source to purchase and install these additionally requested items. Summary of Findings. Eight types of financial techniques are presented for the City's consideration and deliberation. Each technique would be an addition to or a modification of the City's current financial practices. The techniques are summarized below and presented in firther detail at the conclusion of this memorandum. -2- SUMMARY OF FINANCING TECHNIQUES FOR CONSIDERATION 1. Make four types of adjustments to current user fee policies and practices. 2. Increase the parkland impact fee to endow a maintenance fund. 3. Increase the sales tax rate for a period of time sufficient to fund the deferred maintenance park projects. 4. Apply some lodging tax revenues towards park maintenance to finance the facilities used by participants in statewide and regional toumaments.(Altematively, increase the lodging tax rate.) 5. Create a tax -advantaged non-profit foundation dedicated to the upkeep of selected facilities. 6. Create a tax -advantaged endowment to generate sufficient revenue for the upkeep of selected facilities. 7. Enhance the use of docents and volunteers to reduce city costs. 8. Consider establishing a utility for parks upkeep. While each financial concept has positive attributes, none are perfect. Most likely, a combination of financial policy changes will serve the City best. 2.0 FINANCING FOR EXISTING PARKS, TRAILS, OPEN SPACE, NATURAL AREAS Fit LANDSCAPED AREAS This discussion includes the City's financing arrangements for open space, natural areas, trails, landscaped medians, mini-, neighborhood -and community parks. The Parks Division is responsible for the maintenance of each. The table that follows summarizes historic and budgeted Parks Division expenditures for park operations, maintenance, and capital outlay. The 1995 budget calls for park expenditures to total about $3.1 million. • Over the last four years for which there are audited figures (1990 through 1993) park maintenance expenditures increased only 1.3 percent annually. • The 1994 budget included a substantial increase, due primarily to an expenditure of $338,270 for capital outlay; the 1995 budget also calls for a relatively substantial expenditure in capital outlay ($454,480). PARKS DIVISION OPERATIONS, MAINTENANCE & CAPITAL OUTLAY EXPENDITURES & BUDGETS Budget Category 1990 Actual 1991 Actual 1992 Actual 1993 Actual 1994 Rev. Budget 1995 Req. Budget Personnel Services $1,310,475 $1,398,871 $1,496,440 S1,546,010 $1,631,156 $1,675,766 Contractual $521,678 $561,103 S562,792 $548,921 $690,747 $712,780 Commodities S173,920 S183,887 $230,992 $201,756 $244,666 $235,201 Capital Outlay $164,959 $20,981 $1,117 $52,741 $338,270 S454,480 Transfers/Other $0 SO $o $0 $25,000 $25,000 Total: S Total: % S2,171,032 $2,164,844 (0.3%) S2,291,341 5.8% S2,349,428 (1.7%) S2,929,839 24.7% $3,126,727 6.7% Source: City of Fort Collins Budgets -3- 3.0 CuRmNr FINANCIAL POLIcIEs AND PRAcrICEs Overview. From a budget and management perspective, the Cultural, Library and Recreational Services group consolidates three departments which provide leisure and recreational opportunities; the departments are Cultural Services & Facilities, Library, and Parks & Recreation The Parks Division within the Parks and Recreation Departrnent maintains and operates parks, trails, open space, park and recreation facilities, arterial street medians, city building landscaping. The table that follows describes the primary ways that components of the park operations, maintenance, capital outlay, infrastructure replacement and restoration, major capital improvements and land acquisitions are financed in the City. • The primary sources for funding major capital improvements are currently the Natural Areas dedicated sales and use tax, the Choices '95 dedicated sales and use tax, developer impact fees, the Conservation Trust Fund (Colorado Lottery) and the Parkland Fund. • The primary sources for funding park upkeep are revenues from the General Fund (for parks, medians, and existing open space), the Conservation Trust Fund (for trails) and the Natural Areas sales tax (for future natural am). The primary sources for funding infrastructure requiring replacement and repair has been the General Fund, through an allocation to the Parks Division (since 1993) or, historically, through a fund transfer to the Capital Projects Fund. CURRENT, PRIMARY SOURCES OF FINANCING FOR PARKS TYPE OF MAJOR CAPITAL "UPKEEP" = OPERATIONS, INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT IMPROVEMENTS MAINTENANCE, & MINOR CAPITAL REPLACEMENT & OUTLAY RESTORATION Trails Conservation Trust Fund Conservation Trust Fund General Fund transfer to Revenues Revenues and General Fund the General Capital allocation to the Parks Division Projects Fund Open Space Conservation Trust Fund General Fund allocation to the General Fund allocation to Parks Division Park Division Natural Areas Natural Areas 0.25% sales & Tax revenues during last year will General Fund allocation to use tax for five years be used to fund an endowment for Parks Division maintenance Neighborhood Parkland Fee Fund General Fund allocation to the General Fund allocation to Parks Parks Division Parks Division or General Fund transfer to the General Capital Projects Fund Community Bond issues, repaid with General Fund allocation to the General Fund allocation to Parks pledged sales tax revenue Parks Division Parks Division or General Fund transfer to the General Capital Projects Fund -4- CURRENT, PRIMARY SOURCES OF FINANCING FOR PARKS TYPE OF MAJOR CAPITAL "UPKEEP" = OPERATIONS, INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT IMPROVEMENTS MAINTENANCE, & MINOR CAPITAL REPLACEMENT & OUTLAY RESTORATION Mini Parks Parkland Fee Fund General Fund allocation to the General Fund allocation to Parks Division the Parks Division or General Fund transfer to the General Capital Projects Fund Golf Courses Golf Enterprise Fund Golf Enterprise Fund Golf Enterprise Fund Municipal Cemetery Fund General Fund allocation to the Cemetery Fund and Cemeteries Cemetery Fund; Perpetual Care General Fund allocation to Fund the Parks Division Landscaped Street Oversizing Fees & General Fund allocation to the General Fund allocation to Medians Private developers Parks Division the Parks Division or General Fund transfer to the General Capital Projects Fund City Funds Involved in Operations & Maintenance Upkeep. There are seven funds that have some responsibility in operations and maintenance upkeep. They are the General Fund, the Recreation Fund, the Capital Projects Fund, the Conservation Trust Fund, the Parkland Fund, the Golf Fund, and the Cemetery Fund. The key responsibilities of each fund regarding park upkeep are outlined below. CITY FUNDS THAT HAVE RESPONsien IES FOR MAINTENANCE & OPERATIONS UPKEEP FUND GENERAL PURPOSE PARK UPKEEP RESPoNsIam TIES General Fund This is the operating fiuid of the City. It provides The CLR service area includes the Parks revenues for services such as administration, police, and Recreation Department. The Parks transportation, parks, recreation, library. Funds are Division of this department maintains Amneled though 6 service areas including Cultural, parks, trails, open space, landscaped Library and Recreation (CLR) Services. medians and landscape around municipal buildings. Cemetery Fund This special revenue fluid provides coordination of The Parks Division manages the on -going all operations for the tow City -owned cemeteries. maintenance of the cemeteries. Primary revenues are from the sale of lots, cemetery fees and General Fund transfer. It is within the CLR service area. Recreation This is a special revenue fiuid which accounts for Revenues are generated by activity fees, Fund revenues (user fees and General Fund transfers) and drop -in fees, concession operations, and expenditures associated with recreation programs in facility rentals. By policy, revenue from the City. these fees is to cover all direct recreation program and facility costs. This revenue, plus support from the General Fund to cover community good costs, balances the find each year. -5- CITY FUNDS THAT HAvE RESPONSIBILITIES FOR MAINTENANCE & OPERATIONS UPKEEP FUND GENERAL PURPOSE PARK UPKEEP RESPONsiamiTms Golf Fund This enterprise fund functions at only a slight net This enterprise fund finances all costs loss, when expenses include debt service and associated with golf course upkeep. depreciation; operations and maintenance costs are fully financed with golf fund revenues; forecasts show a break-even position. Capital This fund receives revenues from the three dedicated The Parks Division maintains some Projects Fund 0.25 cent sales and use tax, General Fund transfers, capital projects purchased through the bond proceeds, and other city funds. Projects funded Choices'95 CIP, open space purchased include those for the Choices'95 Capital through the Natural Areas Plan and its Improvement Plan, the Capital Street Maintenance on -going capital improvements. The Program, the Natural Areas Plan, and other on -going Natural Areas Plan is designed to programs addressing minor street and pedestrian generate revenues sufficient to fund a improvements. Stewardship Fund to maintain natural areas purchased herein. Conservation This fund receives revenue from the Colorado State The Parks Division uses General Fund Trust Fund Lottery and applies revenues towards the acquisition revenues to maintain open space and trail and development of opens space and trails. Since the acquired and developed with State Passage of the Natural Areas sales tax, this fund has Conservation Trust Fund revenues. State been used more specifically for trails. revenues may not be used for maintenance. Parkland Fund This fund receives revenues from the Parkland Fee The Parks Division is responsible for the and applies revenues towards acquisition and on -going upkeep or parks developed with development of neighborhood parks and related Parkland Fees. capital improvements. Recreation User Fee Policy. All recreation user fees are collected and fiumeled into the Recreation Fund. For perspective, total user fee (activity fees, recreation drop -ins and rentals) revenues for 1994 were $2,172,505. The current recreation user fee policy was adopted in September, 1990 after careful study and policy analysis by City staff and Council. The intent of the recreation fee policy is to cover those program costs directly experienced by program users; other indirect costs for maintenance and capital are to be covered by the General Fund through tax revenues. User fee schedules are based on the costs of individual programs. The policy states that these fees may be changed only if program costs increase or if users want an increase in service. The net effect of this carefully -crafted policy is that user fees cover 100 percent of the program portion of the Recreation Fund budget, which is equivalent to 57 percent of the Recreation Fund budget or 43 percent of the City's estimated direct and indirect costs to deliver recreation services. None of the user fee revenues are funneled into park upkeep - The Recreation Fund is divided into two components: a Program Portion, which is supported by user fees and charges, and; a Community Good Portion, which is supported by the General Fund. • The Program Portion comprises costs of providing and activity or maintaining a facility that are part of the B M. users' direct experience. Types of eligible costs include activity costs, such as hourly, seasonal and contractual employees staff, materials, equipment, and transportation and facility costs, such as minor repairs, custodial equipment, utilities, building supplies. Services associated with these costs include leagues, class instruction, drop -in activities at pools, ice arena, gymnasium and farm, trips and tours, special events, concession operations and facility and equipment rental. The Community Good Portion of the Recreation Fund comprises costs associated with the centralized management of the Recreation Division and the deficit portion of program costs that cannot be recovered through fees. Services associated with community good costs include all full-time salaries and office requirements associated with staff in management, planning, public relations, recruitment and training, citizen response, and general financial support of those unable to afford full fees for programs. Two reserve accounts have been established within the Recreation Fund to supplement user fee revenues. They are a Scholarship Reserve and an Operation Reserve. • The Scholarship Reserve is a source of funds available to support people who cannot pay full price for services. It is structured to total three percent of the Program Portion of the Recreation Fund. It has been phased in over a four-year time period, 1990 to 1994. Replenishing the reserve to its planned ceiling is an on -going annual cost to the General Fund. • The Operating Reserve is available only if current revenues cannot support current expenses. The objective is to maintain this account at seven percent of the Program Portion of the Fund, excluding one- time capital purchases and lease -purchase payments. Based on the 1994 budget, this would be about $298,000. The reserve was initially established by the General Fund and maintained by retained excess fund balances in the Program Portion of the Fund. 4.0 FUNDING ISSUES Overview. The City's current financial practices and policies with respect to park upkeep are logical and equitable. The "problems" are three: #1. Current Funding is Inadequate. There are substantial costs ($9.8 million) associated with currently needed infrastructure replacement and restoration improvements associated with the current inventory of parks. Funding for these improvements began in 1993 but current financial practices and funding levels are inadequate to catch-up with current needs. #2. Demand is High. The inventory of parks, landscaped medians, open space, natural areas and trails is increasing substantially due to the strong commitment of Fort Collins voters to tax themselves for these improvements plus the additional revenues forthcoming from State lottery sources. Existing plus new park facilities will need to be maintained. The rate of increase in park upkeep costs associated with anticipated increases parks, landscaped medians, open space, natural areas and trails is about 8 percent annually excluding inflation; this increase is out -pacing the rate of population and employment growth by a substantial margin. #3. New Customer Needs. Customer survey results indicate that the public wants more amenities in older parks like shelters, picnic tables, benches, restrooms, drinking fountains, etc. Currently, there is no capital funding source to purchase and install these additionally requested items. -7- f p 4 E4 Infrastructure Replacement A Restoration Improvements. Annually, the Parks Division staff conduct a comprehensive analysis of infrastructure improvement needs to replace or restore an existing facility, structure, feature or equipment to its original currently required condition, purpose and efficiency. In 1994 constant dollars, these steeds totaled S9.8 million; $6.1 million in replacements and $3.7 million in renovations. A description of needs by type of improvement and by type of park is summarized below. PARKS INFRASTRUCTURE REPLACEMENT 8t RENovAmoN NEEDS IMPROVEMENTS BY TYPE IMPROVEMENTS BY PAm TYPE Asphalt $2,109,820 Cemetery S962,847 Buildings $736,311 Community Packs S3,058,496 Courts $595,673 A.D.A. $219,470 A.D.A $219,470 Facilities $343,067 Fields $692,812 Mini Parks S293,377 Irrigation $762,658 Neighborhood Parks $2,359,793 Playgrounds $1,348,863 Open Space S118,464 Structures $431,613 Trails $1,168,589 Trails $1,164,154 Trees S1.267.500 Trees $1,267,500 Total (1994 Dollars) S 9,971,603 Water S458,229 Other S4.500 Total (1994 Dollars) $9,791,603 Source: Fort Collins Parks Division - 1995 Report (Costs in 1994 Dollars) City staff estimate that these improvements are needed over the next 30 years (1995 to 2024) for the current inventory of parks. The list does not take into account needs associated with new parks, trails, open space or natural areas which will be added to the City's inventory during the next 30 years. Staff have estimated infrastructure needs over the next five years (1996 through 2000) will average $412,776 annually, excluding consideration of inflation. For future years, the City has made a commitment to fund infrastructure needs from the General Fund at a level of about $200,000 annually. This will cover less than one-half of the need. Increasing Inventory of Parks, Trails, Open Space, Natural Areas and Medians The City is increasing its inventory of parks, trails, open space, natural areas, and landscaped medians in six different ways. 1. The parkland fee for new residential development is used to fund neighborhood park development. Residential building permits have averaged 1,008'. 2. The Choices '95 schedule of capital improvements includes six significant park and recreation improvements. This capital program is funded with a 0.25 percent sales and use tax which extends from 1990 through 1997. 3. The Natural Areas capital improvements program, funded with a 0.25 percent sales and use tax which extends from 1993 through 1997, is exclusively for natural areas. This program is unique in that it will fund a maintenance fund, tentatively called the Stewardship Fund. ' Residential building permit activity: 1990 = 728; 1991 = 785; 1992 = 994; 1993 = 1,173; 1994 - 1,462. -9- 4. The Conservation Trust Fund may be used to finance open space and trails acquisition, development and maintenance. Given the Natural Areas programs emphasis on purchasing natural areas, the CTF fund will be used in the next few years to finance new trails. With the increase in available funds at the State level from Croat Outdoors Colorado, GO Colorado or GOCO, revenues flowing to this fiord will increase. 5. As development continues, new arterials with landscaped medians will be built. The street oversizing fee funds construction of landscaped medians but not maintenance. 6. The General Capital Improvements Fund has included park projects in the past and may include park projects again, particularly when two current earmarked sales and use tax revenue sources expire in 1997. The two tables that follow provide an order -of -magnitude perspective regarding the additional inventory of parks, trails, open space, natural areas and landscaped medians which may be developed. The fast table describes the eight primary revenue sources which contribute to the City's inventory of parks; the second table provides some general measure of the anticipated magnitude of increase in park upkeep costs, without inflation. REVENUE SOURCES CONTRIBUTING TO ADDmoNs To: PROGRAM PhsTORic Acrvny GENERALIZED FORECAST: 1995 -1999 Parkland Fee The City uses its $813 fee per new If the City averages the volume of residential dwelling unit to finance development of development it experienced in the last 5 years neighborhood and mini -parks; (1,008 units annually) revenues will total maintenance is funded in the Parks $819,500 annually with no change in the fee Division with General Fund revenues. In schedule. At an average acquisition and 1993, parkland fee revenues totaled development costs of $85,000 per acre, about 9 $811,657; in 1994 revenues are estimated acres of neighborhood parks could be acquired at S 1.1 million. The City currently and developed annually. This amount of park maintains about 230 acres of neighborhood development is more than what would be required and mini -parks. to maintain a 2-acre-per-1,000 population standard for neighborhood parks. Choices'95 In March, 1989, voters approved a 0.25 All park and recreation improvements will have percent sales and use tax for an 8-year been purchased by the end of 1995. period (1990 through 1997). Revenues are for $19.1 million in improvements including STS million in park and recreation improvements. All six park and recreation improvements are complete or will be complete in 1995. Natural Areas In November,1992, voters approved a This is structured to fimd land acquisition and 0.25% sales and use tax rate increase for maintenance of natural areas purchased with five years (1993-1997). Plans are to Natural Areas sales and use tax revenues. 1995 acquire between 2,000 and 3,000 acres of Natural Areas sales and use tax revenues are natural areas and fund an endowment estimated to total $3,145,590. The Parks (Stewardship Fund) where interest will be Division will manage the maintenance of new sufficient to maintain the natural areas. To natural areas date, the City has acquired 1,920 acres. -9- REVENUE SOURCES CONTRIBUTING TO ADDITIONS TO: PROGRAM HISTORIC AcnvrrY GENERALIZED FORECAST: 1995 - 1999 Conservation This fund receives and spends revenues The City forecasts lottery revenues at $550,000 Trust Fund from the Colorado State Lottery for capital annually. This revenue stream would allow projects related to acquisition and development of approximately I to 2 miles of development of open space and trails. paved trails, depending on land acquisition costs Currently, the City maintains about 15 and competing needs for other trail improvement miles of paved trails and 5 miles of projects. unpaved trails. Street Oversizing The City currently maintains about 39 The Parks Division anticipates that about 1 acres & Landscaped acres of landscaped medians. of landscaped medians is developed annually. Medians Citywide Capital This fund is financed with General Fund This fund will not likely add substantially to the Improvements transfers. Expenditures average about $1 inventory of parks, open space or trails during the Fund million. While there have been numerous next few years, due to use of other earmarked park projects funded through this program, sources of revenue for these purposes. recently projects have been for streets, pedestrian access and building repair. Historically, the City has used this revenue source to develop community parks. Citizen Initiative There is a proposed citizen initiative to The bond issue language suggests that funds will increase the sales and use tax by 0.25% be available to manage and maintain these between July 1995 and June 2020 for facilities through creation of a separate trust fund. several specific sets of improvements. Forthcoming The City adopted a Parks Master Plan in A Parks Master Plan Update is forthcoming in Parks Master 1989 and has been following its 1996. Details are not available yet. Plan Update recommendations. ANTICIPATED MAGNITUDE OF INCREASE IN PARKS UPKEEP COSTS FACILITY TYPE CURRENT UNITS AVERAGE ANNUAL INCREASE IN: UNITS UPKEEP COSTS PER UNIT (1994DOLLARS) TOTAL UPKEEP COST (1994DOLLARS) Neighborhood Parks 210 acres 10 acres $3,355 per acre $33,550 Community Parks 308 acres 40 acres $3,162 per acre $126,480 Mini -Parks 20 acres 4 acres $6,315 per acre $25,260 Trails Built with CTF 15 miles paved 5 miles unpaved 1 mile/ paved $8,201 paved per mile $352 unpaved per mile $8,201 Natural Areas 1,920 acres 300 acres $57 per acre $17,10013 Landscaped Medians 39 acres 1 acre $3,864 per acre $3,864 TOTAL $214,455 ° This cost will be co -funded through an endowment established with Natural Areas sales & use tax revenues and the General Fund. Source: Parks Division, February, 1995. -10- 5.0 EXPERIENCES IN OTHER COMMUNITIES To supplement this analysis, an abbreviated survey of how seven municipalities finance their park operations, maintenance and capital expenditures was compiled. The cities surveyed include Aurora, Boulder, Colorado Springs, Denver, Westminster, Portland and Seattle. The results of each survey are presented in Appendix A; the discussion that follows highlights some key findings. While no other program is precisely comparable with the City of Fort Collins, it is useful to understand other city practices so that we can frame Fort Collins' financial practices in perspective. User Fees for Parks. Four of the seven cities surveyed (Boulder, Colorado Springs, Portland & Seattle) incorporate costs associated with park maintenance and capital outlay in their use fees; Aurora, Denver, Westminster do not include maintenance and capital outlay costs in deriving user fees. For example, for athletic field usage, Colorado Springs imposes a maintenance fee on an hourly basis plus a charge for use of the athletic fields. In addition, Colorado Springs imposes a "capital account surcharge" of $7.50 per player plus $25 per team; these funds are used to acquire, develop and maintain athletic fields. Two cities surveyed (Boulder and Portland) are actively engaged in a multi -year program to re -structure user fees so that users pay for their full share of usage, including maintenance, renovation and indirect administrative charges. In -Rind Services. One city, Portland, has been successful in encouraging private athletic associations, such as soccer and softball, to invest in and use their own field equipment (goals, line chalkers, etc. ) instead of using city -owned equipment and manpower. This arrangement keeps their fees low and reduces city labor and capital outlay. Differential User Fee Schedules. Seven Colorado Front Range cities were surveyed to determine whether they charge a higher user fees rates to non-residents; they were Boulder, Broomfield, Denver, Englewood, Longmont, Thornton and Westminster. Six of the seven cities impose a higher user fee rate for non- residents. Appendix B highlights a sampling of user fees from each community. Regional Tournaments & Festivals. Portland, Seattle, and Boulder are particularly aggressive in making certain that regional athletic events and festivals pay for their fully -burdened cost of using city facilities. Portland uses a point system to measure how much of the annual replacement and repair should be assessed to sponsors of festivals and concerts. Boulder charges 150 percent of its fully -burden costs to regional events. Impact Fees. Most of the Colorado cities that we surveyed impose impact fees for park development; some use fees for land acquisition as well; Denver is considering the imposition of a park development fee in its new development areas. Neither Portland nor Seattle impose impact fees. No city has attempted to use the impact fee tool to endow a maintenance fund or a replacement/repair fund for parks. Endowments Three cities surveyed use endowments to a significant extent. Boulder has a general Park and Recreation Foundation which is a conduit to receive and expend tax -advantaged gifts for park and recreation needs. Colorado Springs and Seattle has several park -specific tax -advantaged giving programs or endowments. Earmarked Tax Revenues for Park or Open Space Improvements. Outside of impact fees and voter - approved bond issues, only Boulder, Colorado Springs and Westminster have a source of tax revenue dedicated for parks improvements. Boulder and Westminster have a dedicated sales tax rate, similar to Fort Collins. Colorado Springs collects a per -player and per -team fee for active sports field upkeep. While Denver dedicates lease revenues from its long-term agreement with the Winter Park Recreational Association to parks the funds are for maintenance. 6.0 FUNDING ALTERNATIVES Conlinaadon ofEvisd Practices: Existing practices are to use a General Fund allocation for maintenance of park, median, trails, and existing open space. The City intends to use a portion of the Natural Areas sales tax revenues to build a maintenance endowment for natural areas purchased with Natural Areas sales tax revenues. _ jParks Division expenditures, excluding capital outlays, are expected to increase at an annual rate of 6 percent between 1990 and 1995. A 6 percent increase is generally equivalent to a 3 percent increase in real growth excluding inflation. Park improvements requiring upkeep are increasing at an annually rate of about 8 percent, excluding inflation. In addition, the City has a significant inventory of unfunded infrastructure needing replacement and/or repair. MERrrs & LimrrAmoNs - CONTINUAmoN OF Ewsi7NG PRAcncEs + Minimal analysis time. - Insufficient city revenues to meet needs if City + No disruption to current financial practices. intends to finance the substantial inventory of deferred maintenance needs - Existing sources of revenue are not commensurate with facility usage. Adjustment to Current User Fee Policy. Consideration of several adjustments to the City's existing user fee policies are presented for deliberation. • Non-residents could be charged for the program portion and the community good portion of the Recreation Fund. The logic is that non-residents have not paid for the community good portion of the service, since they are not city tax payers. This policy change would indirectly benefit the Parks Division because it would free some General Fund revenues. • Non-residents could also be charged for their pro-rata share of park upkeep, associated with usage of the facilities, since they do not pay city taxes. Currently, all tax payers finance park upkeep, based primarily on their assessed valuation and their purchase of taxable retail sales items. There is no relationship between park usage and paying for park upkeep. It may be reasonable to adjust the user fee schedule such that all users would pay for a larger portion of services rendered, including the full Recreation Fund budget, their pro-rata share of park 7 upkeep, and indirect administrative costs. The equity in this technique is that general taxes could then be used only for services which cannot be assessed, such as administration, police protection, and planning. Those who are not park users would pay less for parks. _ • Non -local tournament sponsors could be charged for the fully -burdened cost of park facilities; their charge could include a proportional share of direct and indirect costs associated not only with the Recreation Division, but also costs associated with park upkeep, police and traffic services, and general administration. — -12- MExrrs & LwTATioNS - INCREASING UsE[t FEES I + User pays; non -user is relieved of payment - Time-consuming staff work to calculate and + Non -local sponsors may not object to a change in administer fees. policy. - Even if user fees cover 100% of associated costs, this leaves passive parks, open space and trails to be funded with General Fund revenues. Specific Project Endowment During the last revenue year, the Natural Areas sales tax revenues will be used to fund an auiown=1 for perpetual upkeep of the natural areas purchased under the program. This concept could be extended to other specific projects or types of improvements, such as trails. For illustrative purposes, if a foundation were endowed at $500,000, this may generate interest earnings of $37,500 (7.5% annually) which should be sufficient to maintain approximately 12 acres of parks. Impact Fee for Endowing a Maintenance Fund Currently, the parkland fee includes funds only for acquisition and development of neighborhood parks. It excludes funds for maintenance because an impact "fee" cannot legally be used for gemral city maintenance requirements. One idea to consider would be to increase the impact fee to fiord an endowment specifically for the perpetual maintenance of the improvements (neighborhood parks) created by the new development activity. To avoid double payment for park maintenance by residents of new housing, it would be critical to segregate funds for "new" neighborhood parks from the General Fund, which would continue to be used to maintain existing neighborhood parks. MERITS & LmQITAnoNs - ENDowiNG MAINTENANCE FuNn + Growth pays its way more fully. - Challenging legal issues. + Existing residents & businesses are relieved. - Residential developers may feel as if they are being + Maintenance costs associated with existing singled out and raise objection. neighborhood parks could be capped at current levels plus inflation. + A new source of revenue. Increasing Sales & Use Tax Rate Currently, the City's local sales and use tax rate is 3.0 percent. In 1995, each 0.25 percent sales and use tax will generate approximately $3,146,590 if groceries are exempt; this revenue source increases annually with inflation -based increases in taxable retail sales. The City could propose an initiative to increase the sales tax another 0.25 percent for 4.5 years to fully fund the backlog of deferred maintenance park projects. Once these projects were complete, a sales tax increase of 0.05 percent should be sufficient to finance routine capital outlay at an annual expenditure level of $600,000. MERITS & LmurATroNs - INCREASING THE SALES TAx RATE + Places some of the burden on non --local visitors, - Requires voter approval. some of whom use the city's parks. - Challenging to solicit voter approval for projects that + Predicable and sizable revenue stream may have low popular impact from an image or + Increases with inflation. visual perspective. -13- Lodging Tax. The City currently imposes a lodging tax of 3 percent; lodging operators charge overnight w guests the 3 percent sales tax plus the 3 percent lodging tax for a total 6 percent tax on each lodging room charge. Currently, about 75 percent of the lodging tax is earmarked for the Convention and Visitors Bureau and 25 percent for the Cultural Development and Programming. It may be reasonable to consider allocating a portion of lodging tax revenues to the Park Division and to the Recreation Division consistent with room nights which they helped generate through usage of their facilities. The City of Fort Collins hosts softball, hockey and swimming tournaments and competitions throughout the year. As an illustration, there are 32 adult softball tournaments each year which average 2 days each. Using the figures presented below, we estimate that these events generate about $1,243 annually in lodging tax revenues and $13,814 annually in sales tax revenues. The Recreation Division collects $32,000 in rental revenues to cover its program costs. The Parks Division incurs an estimated cost of $47,404 to host the tournaments. ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLE - ADULT SOFTBALL ACTIVITY Working Assumptions: Revenue to City of Fort Collins: Number of Events 32 Rec. Division Rental Revenue $32,000 a #of Teams 640 Lodging Tax: $1,243 # Days per event 2 Sales & Use Tax - Natural Areas $1,151 # of fields occupied 9 Sales & Use Tax - Choices'95 $1,151 Sponsor Revenue ($150 per team) $96,000 Sales & Use Tax - Other $11,512 Estimated Attendees ■ 26,315 Non -local attendees (35%) 9,210 Parks Division direct costs associated with Overnight attendees (3.5%) 921 employment and supplies, plus overhead & Overnight visitor expenditures per day $95 depreciation on equipment $47,404 o Day Visitor expenditures per day $50 Lodging expenditures($45 x 921) $41,445 Note: Recreation Division expenses are in Meals & other expendit'rs ($50 x 9,210) $460,500 addition to the $47,404. ■ Attendee = one person for one day; includes local (65%) and non -local (35%). o Estimated by the Recreation Division o Estimated by Parks Division. MERITS & LIMITATIONS - EARMARKING LODGING TAX REVENUES + Minimizes burden on residents and businesses - Not a new revenue source. + Out-of-town park users pay for portion of park - Takes revenue away from Convention and usage. Visitors Bureau and Cultural Development and Programming. Tax -Advantaged Non -Profit Foundation. Fort Collins might consider the creation of a Parks Foundation which would accept donations and dedicate revenues to the upkeep of selected or all city parks, trails and open space. Some communities have found this to be particularly successful if a specific, high -image park, entry treatment, or open space is featured and funds are specifically dedicated to this facility. Under Colorado law, a local government may establish a supporting foundation to solicit and receive gifts and grants from individuals, corporations, other private foundations and the federal government. The -14- foundation can be established such that gifts and grants are exempt from federal income tax pursuant to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, §501(cx3). Such a foundation would also qualify to receive charitable contributions that are deductible for income, estate and gift tax purposes. In addition, the supporting foundation may qualify to receive funds under federal programs which are available only to §501(cx3) organizations. Since "gifts" are excluded from the spending and revenue limitations of the TABOR Amendment, this concept may be particularly attractive if Fort Collins approaches TABOR Amendment constraints. MERITS & LIMITATIONS - ESTABLISMNG A PARKS FOUNDATION I + Provides a vehicle for affluent, civic -minded citizens to contribute something of lasting value. + Creates a vehicle to solicit federal funds which are available only to private, non-profit foundations + A new source of potential revenue. + Exempt from TABOR Amendment constraints. - Time-consuming endeavor to establish and operate. - Might not produce substantial revenues; at least at first. - May be useful only for special, high image facilities. A supporting foundation which actually provides a governmental service may not qualify as a §501(c)(3) organization. Some legal interpretation is needed. Docents & Volunteers. Several communities have found that an investment in establishing a continuing program to recruit and use docents and volunteers has either reduced costs or, more often, enabled the community to provide better quality services for a longer duration than without the program. Since use of docents and volunteers is exempt from TABOR Amendment limitations, as it is a gift, the concept might merit special consideration if the City approaches TABOR limits. Fort Collins already has several outstanding illustrative applications of this program through the Fort Collins Museum and the Fort Collins Library. Utility. The term utility has two different connotations, depending on which portion of the Colorado Revised Statutes are applied. • Local Government Utility. Cities have the authority to create, franchise or license utilities under C.R.S. §31-21-101 to 201. While this statute is typically used to franchise electric, gas and telephone services, it has also been used by the City of Fort Collins to create a street utility. • PUC-Regulated Utility. A local government may become a utility under the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) whenever it provides service outside of its corporate boundaries. The PUC's statutory authority is contained in C.R.S. §40-2-108. Local Government Utility (CAS. §31-21-101 et seq) One intent of forming a utility might be so that the City can impose a utility fee or charge for usage. This is analogous to an electric system, which finances its on- going operations and maintenance with monthly service charges. By imposing a utility fee or charge, cities are able to relieve their General Fund of one financial burden, thereby freeing revenues for other purposes without a tax increase. Fort Collins has used the concept of a local government utility in a creative way. In 1985, the City established a Transportation Utility Fund and charged property owners a monthly maintenance fee, which was calculated using land use, trips generated and front footage. Fees were collected for three years (1985 through 1987); the fee appeared as an additional entry to the City utility bill. Between $500,000 and $1,000,000 was collected annually. The City was sued in 1987 by plaintiffs claiming the monthly maintenance charge was really a tax and, as a tax, was imposed incorrectly. The City won the law suit at -15- the Colorado Supreme Court level. In March, 1992, the City rescinded its Transportation Utility Fund ordinance and passed 0.25 percent sales tax earmarked for street maintenance. PUC-Regulated Utility. In some situations, when local governments provide services outside of their corporate boundaries; they come under the regulatory authority of the Colorado Public Utility Commission. For example, cities providing transit services outside of their corporate boundaries are regulated by the PUC. A PUC regulated utility must complete an application and file an annual report. The PUC's primary interest is that the public is being served fairly. From a practical perspective, PUC's review of rates for governmental utilities is cursory because most rates are substantially subsidized by local governments. The most stringent requirement appears to be associated with insurance, since local governments' statutory liability ceiling is applicable only within its corporate limits. There are no additional financial authorities that come with being a PUC-regulated utility. If the City were to build a park or recreation facility outside of the corporate boundaries and charge a fee, it would not come under the regulatory authority of the PUC. The City Attorney believes that it is not necessary to form a utility to impose a "special service fee." MEluTs dt LimrrAT[oNs - ESTABLIsH NG A PARKS UTILITY + Once established, a utility becomes a separate, - Time-consuming endeavor to establish utility operation that is less reliant on General Fund from a staff perspective. revenues. - This would be a new fee; may trigger citizen concerns. - Creation of a parks utility does not provide new authorities to the city. -16 APPENDIX A: CASE EXAMPLES - PARKS FINANCE POLICIES This appendix summarizes a series of telephone interviews with parks directors regarding policies and practices to finance park on -going operations and maintenance. The cities interviewed were Aurora, Boulder, Colorado Springs, Denver, Portland, Seattle, and Westminster. CITY OF AURORA - PARKS FINANCING Contacts: Christine Grimaud, 695-7160 Linda Strand, Conservation Trust Fund On -Going The Parks Department does maintain parks and landscaped medians. Aurora Operations & uses General Fund revenues to fund operations and maintenance. The Parks Maintenance Department has not had a problem in receiving funds its needs. Infrastructure The City uses Conservation Trust Fund revenues for replacement capital. In Replacement & 1992, there was a bond issue on the ballot for recreation center renovations and Renovation improvements to several parks; it failed. Use user fees to No finance operations and maintenance? Use Impact Fees No to Endow a Fund for Maintenance? Use endowments The City has a "tree of life" program under which people can donate a tree in a or contributions deceased person's name. The program is not advertised or used extensively. for funding park upkeep? Use docents or The City recently hired a volunteer action coordinator and has just begun to volunteers? initiate a program. -17- Chapter Two A. Introduction This chapter presents the recommended policies and projects for the next ten to fifteen years. The recommendations are based on the analysis of community needs and inventory of existing conditions described in Chapters 3 and 4. The discussion in this chapter begins with the foundation for the development of the plan -- a comprehensive statement of goals and policies. This discussion is followed by recommended parkland standards, park classification standards and criteria for the acquisition of parklands and other open lands. Finally, recommended actions for the continued growth and development of the Fort Collins Parks, Recreation and Open Lands system are presented B. Summary Recommendations The Policy Plan recommends developing a balanced park system of recreation areas, parks, natural areas and trails. Balancing the system does not necessarily mean equal and cannot be applied The Plan increase to 7 acres/1,000 people, with 4.5 acres/1,000 population for community parks and 2.5 acres/1,000 population for neighborhood parks. The increase of the parkland standard, combined with better management practices in the parks, will provide more non -programmed or passive play areas. More emphasis is placed on making neighborhood parks usable and accessible for the neighbor -hoods they serve. The provision for several smaller parks, one to two acres in size, is emphasized within each square mile for new areas of the community. This is in conformance with Fort Collins Parks and Recreation Policy Plan 2-1 CITY OF BOULDER - PARKS FINANCING Contacts: Shirley Sedecky, Administrative Assistant, Parks Department, 441-3400 Michael Sullivan, Open Space, 441-3440 On -Going General park upkeep is funded through the City's General Fund. Operations & Maintenance Mountain Parks & Trails: In November, 1994, Boulder residents voted to reinstate a 0.15% sales tax for the next 25 years. Tax revenues are earmarked for mountain park development and maintenance. Most of the City of Boulder's trail system in within its mountain parks. Infrastructure Boulder has a dedicated 0.9 mill levy for park capital projects; some of these Replacement & funds are available for replacement and repair of infrastructure. Renovation Recreation Facilities: Boulder imposes a 250 surcharge on every admission to its recreation centers and its outdoor pools to cover replacement and repair. Golf- Boulder imposes a surcharge of $1.50 for 9-holes and $3.00 for 18 holes of play for refurbishment of its course and clubhouse. Use user fees to Boulder is in the first year of a five year program designed to structure user fees finance operations throughout the City so that each fee schedule fully recovers all direct and indirect and maintenance? costs for services rendered. Currently, user fees for non-residents average about 25% higher than fees for residents. Soccer Fields: Recently, the local soccer association approached City Council seeking nine sand -based soccer fields which cost 3.5 times more than dirt soccer fields. Staff could not justify the expenditure with General Fund revenues. The association agreed that through a substantial increase in user fees, it would fully fund the construction and on -going (high -cost) maintenance of the fields. Regional Tournaments: For major events, such as the Jose Cuervo Volleyball Tournament the former Coors Classic, and the Kinetic Connection, Boulder imposes user fees that cover 100 percent of its direct and indirect costs to host the event (including operations, maintenance and replacement costs) plus 50 percent. There has been no objection to the fee schedule among paying tournament sponsors. Use impact fees to Boulder imposes a park development fee; revenues are available for both land endow a acquisition and park development. maintenance fund? -I8- CITY OF BOULDER - PARKS FINANCING Use endowments Boulder has a Park and Recreation Foundation, which is a conduit to receive and or contributions to expend tax -advantaged gifts for park and recreation needs. The fund has been finance operations active for a while but is being re -energized with a new and active Board. The or maintenance? Foundation has about $360,000. Use docents or Through its volunteer coordinator, Boulder maintains and encourages an volunteers? I extensive volunteer program focused around an adopt -a -park program. CITY OF COLORADO SPRINGS - PARKS FINANCING Contacts: Marvin Harris, 719-578-6856 On -Going Primarily General Fund Operations & Maintenance To reduce labor costs, the City encourages teams to purchase chalk liners and "do their own" field preparation. The City will drag the field but is encouraging teams to do their own lines; their is a reduction in fees for team chalking rather than City chalking. Similarly, The City is encouraging youth soccer associations to purchase their own portable goals rather than have the City install and remove permanent goals. This concept doesn't work well for the adult association. For Outside tournaments, CS charges a per -hour maintenance fee plus a charge for use of the field. This enables park maintenance to break even. They collected about $25,000 in 1994. Infrastructure The primary current source for capital investment for parks is the Conservation Replacement & Trust Fund.; Colorado Springs receives about $2,000,000 per year. Renovation The City initiated a "capital account surcharge" of $7.50 per player to acquire and develop active sports fields plus.$25 per team. These revenues go into a reserve account within the Parks Division. In 1991, voters passed a phasing out of the City's 0.5% sales tax which was earmarked for capital projects. The 5-year phase out schedule is: 0.4% in 1992, 0.3% in 1993; 0.2% in 1994; 0.1% in 1995 and 0 in 1996. Since fewer dollars are available each year, parks expects effectively no future revenues from this source. -19- Cm OF COLORADo SPRINGS - PARKS FINANCING Use user fees to For outside tournaments, the Parks Division charges a fee for use of fields finance operations and maintenance? Use impact fees There are no impact fees for parks. Developers are only required to dedicate land. to endow a The City has an "excess" of raw land waiting to be developed. maintenance fund? Use endowments At the Garden of the Gods park, the City recently built a visitor's center on or contributions privately -leased land and has leased the facility to a private concessionaire. One to finance component of the concessionaire's lease agreement is a commitment to remit operations and $75,000 per year to the City for maintenance of the park. This money will go into maintenance? a fund, earmarked for maintenance of this park. Colorado Springs has active tax -advantaged giving programs, including "Friends of the Garden -of -the -Gods Park", "Friends of North Cheyenne Canyon Park", the "Living History Museum and others. The City maintains 30 different gift trust accounts for donor use. Use volunteers Colorado Springs has active "adopt -a -park" and "adopt -a -median" programs or docents? which use volunteers. The market value of volunteer programs, at minimum wage levels, is $800,000 per year. -20- CITY OF DENVER - PARKS FINANCING Contacts: Ron McKitrick, Park Operations: 698-4901 Mark Flarity, Parks Finance: 964-2560 On -Going The General Fund finances on -going operations and maintenance. Operations & Maintenance Denver now requires private landscape companies that install landscaping in medians to provide a one to two-year full maintenance contract. This gives Denver information regarding future maintenance costs as well as time to go to City Council to obtain future funding for maintenance. There have been some administrative problems with some contractors who see the commitment similar to a as a warranty of plant materials and not a full -service maintenance requirement, including snow removal Infrastructure Denver uses its Capital Improvements Fund, which receives revenues and Replacement & Conservation Trust Fund revenues and its employee head tax. Renovation The City recently renegotiated its lease agreement with the Winter Park Recreational Association; under this new lease, the City will receive $2,000,000 annually. These revenues will be used for maintenance. The City does not have the resources to compile a list of deferred infrastructure replacement and renovation requirements although the request has been made by City Council. If such a list were compiled, the total would be in the tens -of - million dollars. Use user fees to No user fee revenues flow back into the operations, maintenance or infrastructure finance operations replacement budget. and maintenance? Use impact fees to Then are no park development fees at this time. However, the City is endow a considering the imposition of a fee in the Gateway area. maintenance fund? Use endowments There are no endowments established for perpetual maintenance. or contributions to finance operations and maintenance? Use volunteers or Denver has docent programs which fund and provide volunteer staff for docents? specialized facilities such as the Denver Zoo, the Natural History Museum, the Art Museum and the Library. Denver recently hired a volunteer coordinator and has started an "adopt -a -trail" program. Then are no "adopt -a -park" programs. For safety reasons, Denver believes that it is not appropriate to have volunteers maintain street medians. CITY OF PORTLAND - PARKS FINANCING Contacts: Jim Gardener; Operations Division, City of Portland 6437 SE Division Street, Portland, OR 97206; 503-823-1608 Rich Gunderson, Recreation Manager, City of Portland 1120 SW 5th; Suite #1302; Portland OR 97204; 503-823-6131 On -Going The City is working towards a goal of having adult user groups finance their Operations & full share of parks maintenance; youth user groups will continue to be Maintenance subsidized. The City intends to charge not only for direct maintenance but also for renovation, and a fair pro -rats share of administrative expenses. A cost of service study is underway; this study will provide base data upon which to restructure user fees. Currently, user groups finance about 60 percent of total maintenance and renovation costs of the parks and facilities that they use. At Waterfront Park, which is a major park used for concerts and festivals, the City imposes a user fee which may range from $35 to $6,000 per use section plus a rehabilitation fee, which is based on actual costs. The rehabilitation fee is calculated on a point system; points correspond to number of people attending, number of vehicles used for set-up, propane cooking requirements, etc. This fee arrangement has been in place for 5 years and works well and without complaints Infrastructure There is no dedicated revenue sources to finance capital projects. (Oregon Replacement & does not have a sales tax.) However, voters just approved a $58.5 million Renovation bond issue to finance parks; debt service will be repaid with an increase in property taxes. Since 90 percent of the revenues will be used to finance infrastructure renovation and replacement, and 10 percent will be used to finance new facilities, the Parks Department anticipates that the operations and maintenance costs may remain flat or go down slightly, relative to current conditions. Use user fees to User fees are used to finance maintenance and renovation costs. A typical fee finance operations for an outside field is $4 per hour per field. (See discussion above.) and maintenance? The City used to charge higher rates for non-residents; when the Department experienced staffing cutbacks in the 1980s, it abandoned the differential fee structure to save time. At that time, resident rates were increased so that the Department did not lose revenue. Use impact fees to There are no park development fees. The City recently considered the endow a maintenance imposition of street and utility fees but met substantial opposition. fund? -22- CITY OF PORTLAND - PARKS FINANCING Use endowments or There are several endowments for maintenance of specific facilities. For contributions to example, the Rotary Club finance the development of playground facilities for finance operations handicapped children and endowed a fund with $75,000 for the perpetual and maintenance? upkeep of the facility. (Handicapped equipment has relatively high maintenance requirements, since it must remain in flawless working order at all times.) There are some programs where individuals can contribute money or an improvements, such as a park bench or tree, in memory of a deceased person, but the City does not encourage this because most givers want to give a particular improvement at a particular facility. Use volunteers or Portland uses volunteers, such as Boy Scouts, and prisoners extensively. docents ? This effort works well for specialized facilities such as the City's rose gardens, and works less well for routine maintenance and clean-up. Other Remarks Financing Sports -Oriented Major Capital Improvements. To the extent Offered possible, Portland intends to have athletic associations participate in the financing of future sports -oriented improvements. For example, the City is currently considering constructing of an athletic complex (Delta Park), which will have 5 softball fields in a spoke arrangement plus 3 out fields plus 8 soccer fields, batting cages, restaurant, rest rooms and other complimentary facilities. Current plans are for the City to finance between one-third and one- half of the facility and the softball association to finance between one-half and two-thirds of the facility. The City would provide the land, retain revenues, and provide on -going maintenance. The City intends to schedule 90 percent of its adult softball and soccer league activity at Delta Park and use neighborhood ball fields for youth softball and soccer only. -23- CITY OF SEATTLE - PARKS FINANCING Contacts: Curt Green; Parks Department; City of Seattle; 100 Dexter North, Seattle, WA 98109;206-684-6371 On -Going In 1968, the citizens of Seattle joined forces to pass a major bond issue for Operations & parks. These citizens understood the significance of on -going maintenance Maintenance requirements. At the same time that this vote was passed, these citizens ^ approached to State expand enabling authorities of cities in Washington to have a local option sales tax. These citizens are still around and they continue to press for sufficient funds for park maintenance. —' Twenty years ago (1975), the Seattle budget office established a practice that whenever a new park was developed, that the Parks Department was expected to submit a stand-alone line -item addition to its operations and maintenance budget to finance the additional facility; in subsequent years, this addition becomes part of the baseline budget. This practice continues and works well. The Department is not expected to cover maintenance costs with existing resources. In addition, the Budget Office maintains a practice of presenting to City Council the on -going costs of operations and maintenance when they are -^ deciding whether or not to build a new facility. About 75 percent of the budget is financed with general tax revenues, which " are primarily sales and property taxes. About 25 percent of the budget is financed with user fees. This includes 18 percent which is user fees from special facilities such as the zoo, aquarium and swimming pools. The Engineering Department maintains landscaped medians; even those that the Parks Department "owns." _. Infrastructure There are no dedicated sources of revenue for capital investments. Replacement & Renovation Over the last 10 to 15 years, the Parks Department has been losing ground in financing major maintenance improvements. However, this condition is —� changing. The City has recently established a Cumulative Reserve Fund to finance major replacement and repair needs throughout the City. Revenues are from fund consolidations and "excess" fund balances. This consolidation - and sweep of "excess" revenues netted about $36,000,000. Within the Parks Department, financing on major replacement and repairs will increase from a historic level of $2,000,000 per year to $9,500,000 per year for the next sever years. This increased level of expenditure should _ substantially decrease the inventory deferred maintenance. Use user fees to A part of user fees paid by athletic leagues does go towards maintenance, but finance operations these fees do not cover 100 percent of the maintenance costs. and maintenance? Golf and the marinas are exceptions; these are self-sustaining. -- -24- CITY OF SEATME - PARKS FINANCING Use impact fees to There are no development impact fees. fund an endowment for maintenance? Use endowments or Beach Maintenance Trust Fund. Seattle has 21 miles of shoreline. There is a contributions to Beach Maintenance Trust Fund of $2,000,000 which is dedicated to maintain finance operations beaches. and maintenance? Discovery Park. In one instance, Seattle METRO wanted to expand its sewer treatment facility within a major waterfront park, Discovery Park. The citizens took METRO to court. In a settlement, METRO was required to put up $25,000,000 to endow the perpetual maintenance of the park - Use docents or There is a tremendous use of volunteers at the zoo and aquarium. volunteers? There is a volunteer coordinator in each of three districts. This person manages the adopt -a -park program and volunteers at the recreation centers. -25- CITY OF WESTMINSTER - PARKS FINANCING Contacts Richard Dahl, Manager of Parks Division; City of Westminster, 4800 W. 92nd Ave.; Westminster, 80030-6399; 430-2400 x 2202 On -Going General Fund revenues are used to finance parks on -going operations and Operations & maintenance. The Parks Division also finances maintenance of landscaped Maintenance medians out of its General Fund. The median maintenance program costs about $80,000 annually. Westminster is interested in privatizing its roads rights -of -way, similar to the Fort Collins program. Infrastructure Westminster manages its park development, park enhancement, and Replacement & infrastructure replacement and repair through its Parks Capital Construction Renovation Program. Four sources of revenue are funneled into the Capital Construction Program: the City's attributable share of the Jef3Co Open Space revenues, Conservation Trust Fund revenues, revenues from the 0.25% sales tax for open space and park improvements and the park development fee. The sales tax dedicated to open space and park development was approved in November, 1990 for a for a five-year time period (1991 - 1995), and was approved again in November, 1994 for a second five-year time period (1996 - 2000). Improvements are scheduled wherever they are most needed. Westminster probably has millions of dollars of unfunded infrastructure needs, but the needs are not specified at this time. One good example is the drainage systems within many parks which are approaching 30-years in age. In addition, in citywide image -creating program, now underway, citizens are developing a strong interest in substantial, landscaped entry treatments. The Parks Division is working to increase awareness of the on -going operations and maintenance consequences of one-time capital improvements. Use user fees to No user fees are used for park operations, maintenance, development or finance operations infrastructure replacement and repair. and maintenance? Use impact fees to There is a park development fee imposed on new development. Revenues are fund an funneled into the Capital Construction Program. Revenues from new endowment for development are not necessarily spent in the neighborhood where new maintenance? development occurred; revenues are spent where they are most needed from a citywide perspective. Due to extensive new development, the City has ample raw land for future park development. Use endowments Westminster does not use endowments to fund park needs. There is no tax or contributions to advantaged giving program. finance operations & maintenance? Use of volunteers Westminster's volunteer programs tend to be for one-time events. There are no or docents? continuing programs such as an "adopt -a -park" program. -26- APPENDIX B: RESIDENT - NON-RESIDENT PARK/RECREATION FEES A Sampling of Colorado Municipalities SAMPLING OF RESIDENT & NON-RESIDENT PARK & RECREATION FEE SCHEDULES RESIDENT NoN-RESIDENT Fort Collins ID Card n/a n/a 20 punch -card $32.00 $32.00 30 punch -card $45.00 $45.00 Boulder ID Card (annual) $5.00 n/a 20 punch -card $58.00 $73.00 Annual Pass $338.00 S422.00 Broomfield ID Card (annual) S5.00 S5.00 1 month pass $25.00 $30.00 Denver ID Card (annual) $5.00 $20.00 Wash Park Weight Room Pass $20.00 year $20.00 year Wash Park Pool Pass S30.00 year $60.00 year Englewood ID Card (2 years) S2.00 n/a 30 punches (w/locker) $59.00 $69.00 6 month pass S1.10.00 $140.00 Longmont ID Card n/a n/a 5 punch -card S9.50 S9.50 10 punch -card $18.00 $18.00 20 punch -card S32.00 S32.00 Thornton ID Card (2 years) $5.00 $7.00 20 punch -card $48.00 S64.00 Annual Pass S225.00 $350.00 Westminster ID Card (2 years) $1.50 n/a 15 punch -card S27.00 S42.00 Annual Pass S140.00 $210 Source: Coley/Forrest, Inc. field investigation, February, 1995 .27- No Text the recommendations from CITY PLAN. One larger neighborhood park (8 acres minimum) will be developed to accommodate recreational sport activities for each square mile or service area if the population density warrants. Neighborhood parks should also be co -located with regional stormwater drainage ways or detention basins and/or schools when possible. Neighborhood parkland fees have been adjusted to conform with the community parkland fee structure - five fee levels based on housing square feet. Trails will continue to be developed through the Conservation Trust Fund and grant opportunities. Additional trail/path connections will be developed between neighborhoods, parks and the main recreational trail system. Development of the regional trail systems to Loveland, Timnath and Windsor remain a priority for the City. Natural areas will continue to be purchased according to the Natural Areas Policy Plan. In addition, more "vacant" lot natural areas for creative outdoor play should be developed in the core area of the city. Implementation and funding are critical to the Policy Plan and are outlined in detail in Chapter 5. The new Community Parkland Fee will help develop community parks after one of the existing community parks has been developed. The Plan recommends that Fossil Creek Park be the first to be developed (within the next 2-5 years). Development of Southwest Community Park and land for a new northeast community park should be developed in 5-10 years. Funding for Fossil Creek Community Park is recommended to be financed through the next Capital Improvement Program. The new Community Park Fee will fund the southwest and northeast community parks. The Policy Plan only makes recommendations for the next 10 years but has made some assumptions of needs through the year 2015 based on the estimated population and demands outlined in CITY PLAN. The Plan recommends that the City develop a new multipurpose community center within the next 5-10 years and renovate the existing Northside Aztlan Community Center. No other major changes are recommended at this time in funding strategies. C. Goals and Policies Goals and policies are essential to the preparation and implementation of any plan. They establish a direction for development of the plan and provide a basis for evaluating the progress of implementation. Policies are not requirements or directives that must be followed in every circumstance. The following list contains selected goals from the adopted Community Vision and Goals (April 1996), followed by policies that directly relate to parks, recreation and open lands. Fort Collins Parks and Recreation Policy Plan 2-2 No Text DIZI DO C1 0 TARN FROM 19% FINANCIAL POLICIES C. Recreation Fund Fee Policy The following fee policy for the Recreation Fund was adopted by Resolution 90-132 on September 4, 1990. The goal of the policy is to provide for a more equitable distribution of the costs of recreational programs between program users and General Fund tax dollars. Costs associated with the Recreation Fund shall be defined as either: 1) Program Costs; or 2) Community Good Costs. 1. Program costs are directly associated with the activities and facilities used by the citizens, and include the following: • part time staff • materials • equipment • participant transportation • and costs directly associated with conducting activities • minor repairs • custodial equipment and supplies • building utilities • specialized items • other operations and maintenance costs directly associated with operating facilities Fees should cover the cost of the direct program experience and facilities used. However, fees may be established in accordance with the market value of the recreational services provided. The fees charged will not exceed the cost of providing direct services to program users. 2. Community Good costs are those costs that are necessary to provide a program but are not directly experienced by the user. Such costs include the following: • full time recreation staff • office operation costs such as telephone and computer charges 11 • training costs • dues and subscriptions • insurance • office supplies and equipment • other costs not directly experienced by the users The General Fund shall cover "Community Good" costs. General Fund will also cover deficits in programs that cannot recover all their costs through fees. Generally, these include programs designed for special populations where it is not feasible to cover the total cost of participation, or programs, like youth sports where Council policy requires a fee discount. Because costs that are defined as "Community Good" costs are supported by the General Fund, they are subject to the same operational guidelines as established for other General Fund budgets. Revenues collected by the Recreation Division that exceed expenditures in any given year are used to fund designated reserves. • Designated for Operations - to be maintained at 7% of the program costs portion of the fund, .� excluding one-time capital items and lease purchase payments. This reserve will only be used to cover revenue shortfalls. r • Designed for Scholarships - established to pay fees for participants who are unable to afford -- full fees for programs; targeted at 3 % of the program cost portion of the fund, but the level .� of funding is determined by the Recreation Manager, based on tentative plans for future needs and the availability of net resources. • Designated for Buildings and Improvements - to be used for one-time improvements and upkeep of recreation facility infrastructure. The reserve level is determined by the Recreation Manager, based on tentative plans for future needs and the availability of net resources. • Designated for Life Cycle/Capital Needs - to be used for one-time improvements and upkeep of equipment or for one-time purchases over what was budgeted to maintain safety and improve service delivery. The reserve level is determined by the Recreation Manager, based on tentative plans for future needs and the availability of net resources. • Designated for Programs - to be used for the start-up of new or the expansion of existing recreation activities and services which require additional revenue. No Text No Text Goal 1. Our community will have a balanced system of open lands, natural areas, recreation spaces and parks, including trails and urban streetscapes. 1.e Policies La. The City shall maintain a ratio of 7 acres of developed parkland for every 1,000 people in the city: 2.5 acres of neighborhood parkland and 4.5 acres of community parkland. Lb. At a minimum, one neighborhood park shall be provided in every square mile section (or portion thereof) of the city that is predominantly residential and be sized and developed according to the population and fees which have been generated in that area. l.c. Neighborhood parks will be located within walking distance (1/4 to 1/3 mile) of the neighborhoods they are intended to serve and co -located with schools where possible. 1.d. Parks shall provide for a variety of experiences and be balanced to accommodate active sports facilities and provide an attractive setting for walking, picnicking, gardens, sitting, relaxing and other non -programmed uses. No more than 40% of a park shall be dedicated to programmed sports facilities, and in most cases the area dedicated to programmed sports should be less. Community parks should be located within or near areas that are, or are expected to be, heavily populated. 11. Community parks should be located adjacent to natural features, bodies of water or historic sites. l.g. The park system shall also include special use facilities designed to accommodate a particular type of use. Examples may include a community sports complex, regional park, or community horticultural center where the balance of uses normally found in a community park is not required and the focus of the facility is developed for a specific use or location. l.h. The City shall provide community centers and recreation facilities for the citizens of Fort Collins including groups with special needs. 11 The City will provide a balance between adult and children, public and private and specialized and generalized needs for recreation areas and facilities. Fort Collins Parks and Recreation Policy Plan 2-3 1.j. The City will encourage landscaping of parks and other open lands with appropriate native or drought resistant varieties of vegetation along with attractively developed "green" areas to provide a balanced and pleasing cityscape. Lk. The City will consider enhancing prominent connecting streets to include circles, medians or other special places to give identity and calm traffic. Tree -lined streets and boulevards with inviting, landscaped walkways, parkways and attractive medians designed with drought tolerant materials and grasses will be developed in the community. 1.1. The City may utilize appropriate opportunities to develop public access along stream and irrigation ditch corridors for providing additional trail linkages throughout the community. 1.m. Parks and natural areas will be connected, where appropriate, by pedestrian and bicycle trails, easements, or by greenbelts such as streams, drainageways and irrigation ditches. The City will strive to develop unpaved paths parallel to the paved trails where possible and appropriate. 1.n. The location, design and construction of trails shall avoid or minimize impacts to environmentally sensitive areas and be designed and constructed to avoid sensitive natural features, habitats and other areas that may be impacted by trail construction or recreational use. 1.o. Art in public places will continue to be an expression of the creativity and sense of artistic value of our community. Goa12. Our community will have a compact land use pattern within a well defined boundary. Policies 2.a. Develop small neighborhood parks and green spaces throughout the city to provide both recreation and nonrecreational open lands. 2.b. Utilize parks as an asset in the redevelopment of downtown and contiguous residential neighborhoods. 2.c. There will be a pedestrian -oriented neighborhood center — a school, park, plaza, commercial area or other neighborhood facility — that gives each neighborhood a unique identity and a place for informal social activity, recreation or public gatherings. Fort Collins Parka and Recreation Policy Plan 2-4 2.d. The arrangement of land uses within neighborhoods will allow residents to walk and bicycle to parks, schools, work, shopping, places of worship, transit stops and other nearby neighborhoods. 2.e. Improve access from existing neighborhoods to the City trail system, where appropriate. Goal 3. Important natural areas will be preserved and protected. Policies 3.a. Establish a system of publicly -owned natural areas to protect the integrity of critical conservation sites, protect corridors between natural areas, preserve outstanding examples of Fort Collins' diverse natural heritage, and provide a broad range of opportunities for educational, interpretive and recreational programs to meet community needs. 3.b. Development will be integrated into the natural landscape by directing redevelopment away from sensitive areas and by applying innovative planning, design and management practices when it occurs in close proximity to sensitive natural areas such as buffering and mitigation. 3.c. The City will administer a strong program to acquire and manage important natural areas that preserve wildlife habitat and native landscapes while providing opportunities for education, scientific research, nature interpretation, art, fishing, relaxation, wildlife observation, hiking and other appropriate activities. 3.d. The City will continue to develop effective partnerships with the County, other governmental organizations and the private sector for the protection and preservation of natural areas. 3.e. Develop and maintain a data inventory on local natural areas to aid the City and the public in decisions about these areas and management of publicly -owned lands 3. f. Our community will actively protect, manage, and enhance the Poudre River, the foothills, natural stream corridors and other waterways as natural ecological systems, important wildlife habitat, and accessible recreational areas. Fort Collins Parks and Recreation Policy Plan 2-5 Goal4. Development will pay its fair share of the cost to provide needed public facilities and services. Policies Goal 5. Recreation fees should provide for an equitable distribution of the costs of recreational programs between program users and general fund tax dollars. Policies 4.a. Annually evaluate the parkland development fees for their adequacy See Recreation Fee Policy Appendix D to achieve park needs. 4.b. Increase fees as the cost of service increases. 4.c. Funds generated from the Parkland Fees shall be spent as follows: (1) acquisition and development of neighborhood parks in those areas of the city that are contributing to the Parkland Funds. (2) Acquisition and development of community parks required to serve newly -developed areas of the city. 4.d. In predominantly residential areas of the city that are developed, the City will strive to provide additional parkland through redevelopment, partnerships with the school district or improving existing stormwater facilities. Funding for these improvements will be from parkland fees collected in these areas or from other sources. 5.a. Seek to recover 100 percent of direct and indirect costs from "for profit' users of Parks and Recreation facilities. Goal 6. To derive the greatest value for its investment in infrastructure, the City will assure critical maintenance of existing capital facilities, gradually remedy deficiencies in existing facilities over time and provide facilities to serve new growth. Policies 6.a. The City will continue to fund general operation and maintenance of parks and recreation facilities through the use of the General Fund. The City will seek to recover costs from users of facilities. 6.b. The City will annually analyze the hard and soft costs of building and operating new facilities and will report to City Council any significant changes from the initial cost estimates proposed with the new facilities. Fort Collins Parks and Recreation Policy Plan 2-6 Goal 7. The plans and policies of the City, adjacent municipalities, Colorado State University, Poudre School District, Thompson School District and Larimer County will be closely coordinated. Policies 7.a. The City will create partnerships to provide a balanced park system and achieve common goals with public entities such as Poudre School District, Thompson School District, Colorado State University, local and regional governments and non- profit organizations. D. Parkland Standards Parkland standards are a useful yardstick for establishing tangible levels of service standards and measuring a community's progress in meeting those standards. In effect, parkland standards are an expression of the level of importance a community places on parks. Although no precise formula exists for establishing parkland standards, several factors should be considered including the following: • The existing amount of parkland provided within the community and how it is perceived by residents. • The amount of parkland provided in other communities. The amount of land required to accommodate public demands for different types of recreational uses. 1. Existing Level of Service Although Fort Collins has previously adopted a policy of providing 4 acres of community parkland per 1,000 population and 2 acres of neighborhood parkland per 1,000 population, the City actually has either over or underachieved the standard in many areas of the community. On a citywide basis, the City is providing approximately 3.1 acres of community parkland per 1,000 population and 2.3 acres of neighborhood parkland per 1,000 population, for a combined total of 5.4 acres per 1,000 population. The shortage in community parkland is being felt by residents. Since Rolland Moore Park was constructed in 1984, there have been no new community parks built, while the population has grown by nearly 30,000 people. Because many sports groups have expressed demand for recreational facilities over the years, the amount of programmed sports that can be accommodated in community parks has been maximized. Similarly, there is a growing demand for unprogrammed space and amenities for other leisure time pursuits for the general community. This has been identified as an issue by City staff, the public and appointed and elected officials. Clearly, the amount of community parkland that the City is currently providing is not meeting the needs of the community. Fort Collins Parks and Recreation Policy Plan 2-7 Neighborhood parks have also been impacted by the demand for sports fields. The City has been building larger neighborhood parks than what would be warranted by a 2 acre per 1,000 population standard in order to accommodate programmed sports fields and because city residents like big parks. The four large neighborhood parks constructed in the past ten years are large enough to provide a level of service of between 2.8 and 5.3 acres per 1,000 residents in the surrounding neighborhoods that they serve. City residents like these larger parks; however, they have expressed concern that the parks are dominated by sports groups and therefore not often. available during sports seasons to neighborhood residents during the most popular leisure times — evenings and weekends. 2. Standards and Level of Service Provided by Other Communities One indication of how well the City is presently doing in providing parkland is to compare Fort Collins to other Front Range communities. Table 2.1 compares nine communities that range in size from 12,000 population to 327,000 population. In 1995, the average population of the communities was 97,244, which is very similar to Fort Collins. Rolland Moore Park Fort Collins Parks and Recreation Policy Plan 2-8 Table 2.1 Comparative Level of Service and Parkland Standards in Selected Front Range Communities :>n `'i v' i '`' '}if} "$Xj: $FvL.O':}��+,. $J ^ F ' � •}�;': ¢YF. �}•<}J::f'�2:i�::Q:$vF:;'.•i � •8•' o �'$"' ?iRR�iF#' 'S`2` ?N4: '•S:>��%.�$�' :8:f;'�'.t°�F' L %�A ion' �j..J.., . ..F ii�'i.9:,��g: c>..,:•?�5, : : ty �{ <; v�'i. .A J :�f:O.:n si• ..y"^<vf �F:n�}:45Isj<: ,trv. ' y y q A� ♦, Castle Rock (pop.12,000) Neighb. 1.3 Neighb. 2 Community JZ Comm. -A Total 5.5 Total 6 Loveland (pop. 42,000) Neighb. 2.4 Neighb. 2 Comm. ZA_ Comm. -5 Total 4.8 Total 7 Longmont (pop. 60,000) Neighb. 2.1 Neighb. 2.5 Comm. 1�9 Comm. Q Total 4.0 Total 6.5 Thornton (pop. 60,000) Neighb. 2.3 Neighb na Comm. J.a Comm. JA Total 3.8 Total 4 Greeley (pop. 64,092) Neighb. 2.8 Neighb. 2 Comm. 3A Comm. __jk Total 5.9 Total 8 Westminster (pop. 83,400) Neighb. 1.5 Neighb. 2.5 Comm. 2,2 Comm. 75 Total 3.7 Total 10.0 Boulder (pop. 94,706) Neighb. 2.5 Neighb. 1.5 Comm. La Comm. 1.5 Total 4.3 Total 3.0 Lakewood (pop.132,000) Neighb. 2.3 Neighb. 3 Comm. 1.5 Comm. 5 Total 3.8 Total 8 Colorado Springs (pop. Neighb. 2.3 Neighb. 2.5 327,000) Comm. 2.2 Comm. _ Q Total 4.6 Total 7.5 ��O¢�� A .. 4:i v{}••Jr�i..�.}ni}" .,f:.:.: �v'•:f•..... .. $.. H.: vn{4'iiiR\O.i}4:.$}i}((} •,�?Y:'Jf k:l\{. ,. Jv vn:Jv:;'.:<:Y :: }::i*••n }:$.':: ):F: Yi! v'. .. i{.tr4. ',4.: ..0... ..:i.:::'.. fif::.i ,. �ii '. �h:: O.:}.:}.{. ,.: >F •:t: i' Or :Y.i::4e$;}4$l:$$'{:$:': `{:::::f'::Yf:i';$:Y::$:J'y'i$ ':C":'4':' � i:4i%n •.tr;,.4:. .v.{;.�}.iy, :O:ii'4;::$?.::4 $$$:"}:: .�Y {:r:::Y..:O':w J,v.: ;'.:i::.: •v'i:}fn"vi{M::4.:;:. .... ,..0: •4':LfQ.f•J:X:.;.i.;a.:}^.:A.:}$$$� {e 'O '::J.}i'.i'.� :::4.i} "4:� `¢�j;F vo:Y}<. ' '�.:: •Y �':::4i{::'n`::vx"'�!:i}":.j(�F'':jy�� "•.Y:i::{,ni:'•.»:;?:.JJ:J^.f.J:.{.:$.'c`:$.'is$.'^::$:.::wi.:ti:.C::k $C:::in:0$yii:: {J,}'.,:+�:,fn<,$:S:;:oi6::+$::i:• '::i •:f::4::i i'f:R.i^'.:,'!;. 'n .,, .v.,.f.n ,.........'t}. n.::. �.:. Lf:$.. n,. :,.. f...n.nn.. :;�4. .: ,.. .,v.. ti:0'::i�d:J is vv :•:fww::. ....... ....... t:{i niJ� ^4:J:::4:E �4::. .. M1�i.'.Y:$i J'{4•::J}:v..v}:: y::::: }}: :::�..,:�.,.Y�.$:�::{{}.:�:i{.i::'+..}n: n$::$^:: J'Jy: i<��.. ..,4,.}:L¢': $:\k:'{'$�,pv �}� v'��{ ;+.:J:F..: '"`: .O,'.'•'M :trl::0 Y4'. fY ' }ii•.};<,.{ {n:.,:.Y$'��.:$:F� °: a,. �''F:a9!.xF.%: }��� '$F'+F`::��{J��+,C, 4Yi.44'$, ,t;::Y' ...{,.trR.:C: $Yis {'y'' 'nc'"{ii{:}`��::��: J%. 4. i.. •. O'• "'fYv':: :Yi4"4•Y: j4':: � '. ::J .,.: ,.`•�.�,•..'•... ,�M :9$f �`C?�',�i,'b:' i.;'. �' � .:' ' '6i:$'�i,. �}�4i�i;�,:iO:.Cpv:v,:,'4.: 4`p ivl Y. J\:: yf :vJ: •.:.,:.i'v.J :vv'J:: .:.'�":j{ {'F.;$;4}Y.; `.�f}}C;'.+LiL`n'+{`• .4�.. Q:'le.f.}: tr4y.. :tr,. ::.4 ''Ni.J O. 4�:�'i yi. F)�:nC":O.S{;W. {Y:'i: {.i... ♦ �f. . j�':�i��J}}�.:$}if i+}.:}{i:�:+iFi�ti:O.<;::$::',+`n,"i: :.YE::YJicE:`ct:f::;:c;JJoo� ;'l:, •.c'}:E:..,.4:2xj2::.'.:':.:'F°.��.ax.�24::'1i*',:��.��.d�`A`}k'':i��:::'•:^.�:3'.•' <.J:q:. ::{,i i£:5;3,':#`.°,'C:;R8$'k. FY,n:i. Fort Collins Parks and Recreation Policy Plan 2-9 Although some variation is shown on the table, the majority of cities surveyed provide between 1.5 and 3.1 acres of community parkland per 1,000 population. All communities are behind in achieving their standards for community parkland, which typically range from 4 to 6 acres per 1,000 population. The average amount of community parkland provided is 2.3 acres per 1,000 population. In comparison, Fort Collins is providing 3.1 acres of community parkland per 1,000 population, which is among the highest levels of service offered. Most of the communities interviewed felt that they were seriously lacking enough community parks. For neighborhood parks, the majority of cities surveyed provide between 2.1 and 2.5 acres of neighborhood parkland per 1,000 population. Communities are much closer to achieving their standards for neighborhood parkland, which typically range from 2 to 2.5 acres per 1,000 population. The average amount of neighborhood parkland provided is 2.2 acres per 1,000 population. Similarly, Fort Collins is providing 2.3 acres of neighborhood parkland per 1,000 population. 3. Land Required to Accommodate Community Needs a. Community Parks To ensure that parks are attractive to all city residents, new initiatives should be implemented to maintain a balance between programmed sports facilities and other community activity areas such as gardens and water features; family and community gathering places; areas for free play, walking, fishing, kite -flying, skateboarding, etc.; and other leisure time activities. Based on analysis of parks that have appeal to a broad user base, the amount of area devoted to programmed sports facilities in new community parks should be limited to no more than 40% of the total park area, including necessary parking and support facilities such as concessions. For comparison purposes, Rolland Moore Park has approximately 40% of its area devoted to programmed sports facilities, while City Park is only 19% programmed. Rolland Moore Park was designed with an emphasis on softball and other sports facilities at a time when there was a shortage of these facilities in the early 1980s. Achieving a balanced park system also requires that a design of a park does not isolate the non -programmed area on the perimeter and that adequate buffers between programmed and non - programmed areas are achieved. In addition, management and programming are essential. Managing a park for hours of operation and the number of events scheduled will enhance the park users' experience. The amount of new community parkland needed in the next 10 to 15 years is a combination of the amount needed to serve existing residents (currently there is a 92-acre deficit based on the existing 4 acres per 1,000 population standard) and Fort Collins Parks and Recreation Policy Plan 2-10 that which is needed to provide parks for future residents (projected to be an additional 35,000 people by the year 2005). Meeting these needs requires developing Southwest and Fossil Creek Community Parks. The City also needs to begin planning for an additional 80 to 100-acre community park in the northeast portion of the city. Developing three new community parks would result in a level of service for the entire city of approximately 4.5 acres per 1,000 population, which is slightly higher than the existing standard of 4 acres per 1,000 population, and substantially higher than the 3.1 acres per 1,000 population level of service that is currently being provided. Increasing the standard is necessary if the City desires to provide balanced parks and a level of service for sports facilities similar to current levels. A higher community parkland standard will also reduce the pressure to place programmed sports fields for adult use in neighborhood parks. b. Neighborhood Parks The facilities constructed recently in neighborhood parks have been influenced by the lack of community parks. As mentioned earlier, comments from the public suggest that many residents of the city would like their neighborhood parks to be less intensively used by sports programs, especially in the evenings and on the weekends, which is when most neighborhood residents want to use their parks. The neighbors would like a more peaceful and solitary experience, as well as the opportunity to use the facilities for family or neighborhood group functions. Based on this, the City should evaluate neighborhood parks, reduce the number and intensity of programming of sports fields in neighborhood parks, and increase the amount of land area devoted to other neighborhood uses. Timely development of community parks would help ensure that the need for sports fields is still met. The proximity of neighborhood parks to residents should also be improved. Current policy states that one park should be located within each square mile of the city, making the park a 1/2 mile or more away from many homes, especially in subdivisions with curving streets. As the CITY PLAN goals state, neighborhood parks should be located so that residents can walk and bicycle to them (page 16, Community Visions and Goals 2015, 4/Z/96). This translates to a distance of approximately 1/4 mile from each home. This means that there should be more smaller parks distributed throughout residential areas. Not all parks should be small, however. There remains a need to accommodate sports fields for youth practices and games, as well as other facilities and amenities that may be desired by the neighborhood such as free -play areas, basketball courts, tennis courts, water features, restrooms, picnic shelters and playgrounds. It is therefore recommended that as a guideline and where appropriate, one park within a Fort Collins Parks and Recreation Policy Plan 2-11 Fort Collins Parks and Recreation Policy Plan EDAW, Inc. December,1996 square mile shall be larger than the others (approximately 8 acres) to accommodate the larger space needs for these activities. These parks should be located adjacent to schools and drainageways where possible to increase the overall park area and enhance the park appearance. Drainageways within parks should be used to maintain or enhance the natural elements of a park and protect environmental values. The 1- to 2-acre smaller parks will be primarily turf areas with walking paths, plazas, picnic tables, benches, gardens and other features designed to provide places for all ages to enjoy the outdoors. They shall not be programmed for organized sports. Because of the cost of providing and maintaining restrooms, these shall only be included in the larger neighborhood parks described above. Combined, all neighborhood parks in each square mile (or portion thereof in the case of incomplete sections) shall total approximately 2.5 acres per 1,000 population. The proposed 2.5 acres per 1,000 population standard is higher than the existing standard of 2 acres per 1,000 population, but less than the amount of parkland that has actually been developed in neighborhoods over the past decade (between 2.8 and 5.3 acres per 1,000 population). The neighborhood parks that have been constructed recently have been sized larger to respond to the demand for sports facilities, since they cannot be accommodated in existing community parks. There have also been opportunities to develop adjacent storm water detention areas as additional neighborhood parkland. The 2.5 acres per 1,000 population is based on the acres needed to build one larger park (approximately 8 acres) as well as provide several other small parks (1 to 2 acres) around the rest of the neighborhood, for a total of 12 acres. A typical one -square mile section in Fort Collins currently has between 4,400 and 5,200 people. Twelve acres of parkland divided by 4,800 people results in a 2.5 acres per 1,000 population standard. 4. Summary The City of Fort Collins shall adopt parkland standards of 2.5 acres per 1,000 population for neighborhood parks and 4.5 acres per 1,000 population for community parks. E. Classification Standards and Guidelines Classification standards provide space, site and program requirements and guidelines for parks, open lands and trails. Five classification categories are proposed specifically for the City of Fort Collins: • Neighborhood Parks • Community Parks • Park Preserves • Natural Areas • Trails Fort Collins Parks and Recreation Policy Plan 2-12 The term "programmed sports facilities" is referred to in the following text and other places within this document. The definition is as follows: Programmed Sports Facilities — Single or multiple fields, courts or other facilities that are typically used for organized group practices, games and/or tournaments such as baseball, softball, football, soccer and field hockey fields; volleyball, tennis and basketball courts; recreation centers; swimrning pools; horseshoe pits; and skateboard parks. 1. Neighborhood Parks The purpose of a neighborhood park is to provide a stage for individual and group recreational activities. The park shall be a common area for neighbors of all ages to gather, socialize and play and to provide relief from the urban environment. They should be centrally located and easily accessible, preferably via a walkway system or trail that minimizes the need to use automobiles to get to the park. Level of Service Standard: The total amount of n ighborhood parkland shall be based on a 2.5 acres per 1,000 population standard applied to the anticipated build -out population in each square mile of service area. The acreage needed in areas smaller than one square mile (incomplete sections) shall be adjusted according to the anticipated build -out population level and distribution. Neighborhood park playground Service Area: In developing areas, and where feasible and desirable in existing areas, neighborhood parks shall be distributed throughout residential areas so that they are no more than 1/4 to 1/3 mile away from residents. The maximum service area is 1/2 mile for any one neighborhood park. Size: A larger park shall be provided in full mile sections (approximately 8 acres, but sized according to anticipated build -out population) ro accommodate sports fields. Where feasible and desirable, one or more smaller 1- to 2-acre mini -neighborhood parks shall be provided to allow better access to parks for neighborhood residents. Fort Collins Parks and Recreation Policy Plan 2-13 Location: Where possible, neighborhood parks shall be located adjacent to an elementary or junior high school near the center of a large residential neighborhood, adjacent to detention ponds or drainageways and/or adjacent to a trail system. Co -location of these uses creates a greater sense of spaciousness, reduces the amount of land that must be purchased for parkland, minimizes duplication of facilities, and allows a wider mix of public values to be achieved. The savings in land acquisition costs may then be applied to improvements on these other properties. Local or collector streets should be adjacent to at least two sides of the park Residential development should face the park with a maximum of 50% of the park perimeter sided by rear lot lines. Typical Facilities: Neighborhood parks should not have a standard design. The parks will vary in size, topography and vegetation; site designs shall take advantage of these characteristics. A mixture of facilities shall be provided that are suited to the site and the social - recreational preferences of surrounding residents. Parking and restrooms may or may not be desirable. Irrigated turf shall be limited to high use areas such as around playgrounds, group use areas and playfields; where appropriate, naturalized areas shall be integrated into the basic design of neighborhood parks to provide a natural experience and protect natural resource values at a neighborhood scale. Larger neighborhood parks shall not have any more than 40% of their area devoted to programmed sports facilities such as soccer and baseball fields. The sports fields in neighborhood parks shall be designed to standards to serve as youth (e.g. Youth Baseball) game fields and shall not include lights. The smaller 1- to 2-acre parks will not be programmed for sports. Management plans will be developed for all neighborhood parks to determine what additional facility development (if any) they can accommodate without compromising their character and enjoyment by the neighborhood. The following is a partial list of facilities that may be suitable for neighborhood parks: • Youth sports fields • Volleyball, tennis, street hockey, shuffleboard and basketball courts • Childrees play area • Unstructured play turf area • Fitness course • Gathering areas, amphitheaters and plazas • Picnic shelters, tables and benches • Native vegetation areas • Walks and bike paths • Floral displays • Water features • Environmental, historical or cultural interpretation • Community gardens • Restrooms • Small off-street (<20 car) parking areas Fort Collins Parks and Recreation Policy Plan 2-14 2. Community Parks Community parks serve as the focal point for community -wide activities and, as such, are intended to provide either the facilities or intensity of activities that would be inappropriate for neighborhood parks due to noise, lights or vehicular traffic. Natural resource areas such as water bodies, streams and wetland areas should serve as focal points when available, and views of the mountains or other scenic areas should be optimized. Irrigated turf shall be limited to only the high use areas such as sports fields, open play areas and playgrounds, and adjacent to parking lots and group picnic areas; naturalized areas shall be C integrated into the basic design of each park in a way that provides opportunities to enjoy natural elements and protects natural resource values. Management plans will be developed for all existing and new community parks to determine the appropriate mix of facilities that can be accommodated without compromising their character and enjoyment by the community as a whole. Management Plans will be used as a tool to review and adjust existing park programming to achieve the balanced park system policies outlined in this plan. Community parks are intended to serve as larger neighborhood parks for the immediately adjacent neighborhoods, but they also serve larger overall community needs. ity Park Level of Service Standard: The total amount of community parkland in the city shall be based on a 4.5 acres per 1,000 population standard. Service Area: The service area is approximately four square miles, however, a community park also serves lake the needs of people who live throughout -,he community. Community parks shall be distributed throughout the city so that most residents have a community park within 1 to 1 '/� miles of their homes. Size: The size may range from 40 to 120 acres depending upon the distribution of population, availability of large park sites and the need to accommodate recreation Fort Collins Parks and Recreation Policy Plan 2-15 facilities. Optimum park size is 80 to 100 acres. The park size will increase if special facilities such as swimming pools and recreation centers are included. Location: The location of community parks is somewhat dependent upon the park size and level of programming desired. Where possible and desirable, the City will locate community parks adjacent to detention ponds, drainage areas, and other open lands to take advantage of the greater sense of spaciousness created by adjacent public lands. Park design will provide adequate buffer areas between intensive use areas (e.g. ballfields) and sensitive natural areas to ensure protection of environmental values and provide appropriate opportunity for public enjoyment of natural features. Special use facilities, such as a sports complex, may be most appropriately located in a commercial or industrial area of the community to minimize impacts. All community parks shall have good access from an arterial or collector street. Typical Facilities: Because of a larger, more diverse user base, and ability to accommodate more activities, community parks provide a wider variety of recreational opportunities than neighborhood parks. Community parks shall have no more than 40% of their area devoted to programmed sports facilities, such as soccer and baseball fields, and associated parking and other support facilities. Some of these facilities will typically include lights for night play. The following is a partial list of facilities that may be suitable in a community park: • Facilities listed under Neighborhood Parks • Regulation sports fields • Swimming pools • Special event areas • Ice skating areas • Large free play areas with improved turf • Large group picnic areas and gathering areas • Performance plazas • Water features/fountains • Horticultural displays and community gardens • Environmental, historical or cultural interpretation centers • Multi -purpose recreation centers • Skateboard facilities 3. Park Preserves Park preserves are opportunities to collaborate between the Park Planning and Development Division, Natural Resources Department, Larimer County or other public agencies to protect natural, cultural, or historic resources of community -wide significance, while also providing opportunities for nature - oriented outdoor recreation. The character of each park should be based on the natural resources present with the great majority of each site preserved or restored to its natural condition. Small turf areas may be provided in the highest use areas. Fort Collins Parks and Recreation Policy Plan 2-16 Level of Service Standard: None Service Area: The entire community Size: Variable, depending on the resource being preserved. Location: Variable, depending on the resource being preserved. Typical Facilities: Types of uses may include trail use, picnicking, fishing, non - motorized boating, outdoor amphitheater and classrooms, historic and environmental interpretation, and other nature -oriented activities. Park preserves may also include recreation and cultural facilities if sufficient land is acquired. 4. Natural Areas often intermingled or contiguous to natural areas, such as occurs at Lee Martinez Park. For these reasons, this plan also addresses natural areas, highlighfing, those areas where the interface between parks, recreational use and natural areas is most direct. The Natural Areas Policy Plan focuses the City's efforts toward acquiring natural areas. The Natural Areas Policy Plan addresses the protection of important wildlife habitats, rare plant communities Poudre River A strong relationship between parks and natural areas has existed in Fort Collins for many years. The current natural areas program has evolved from earlier purchases made by the Parks and Recreation Department which resulted in protection of properties such as Pineridge and Riverbend Ponds natural areas. Parklands also strongly contribute to natural resource protection goals at many locations within the community and are and other natural resources and provides opportunities for appropriate public uses such as hiking, photography, nature study and other appropriate uses. To date, implementation of the Plan has emphasized the acquisition of larger parcels near the edge of the urban growth area. Although these important efforts should continue, additional emphasis will be placed on neighborhood -scale open lands and joint projects that combine natural area protection with opportunities for environmental education and recreational use in a natural setting. Perhaps the best description of "neighborhood -scale" open lands can be found in the Natural Areas Policy Plan (pg. 3-3). "Natural 'play areas' for Fort Collins Parks and Recreation Policy Plan 2-17 children are also important... The most attractive natural play areas have been found to be 5 minutes from a child's home, and to have water (preferably with frogs and crayfish), trees to climb and secrecy (e.g. dense bushes and tall grasses)" (pg. 3-3). Examples of joint projects, which would involve the Park Planning Division and the Natural Resources Department, using joint funding, were previously discussed under "Park Preserves:' The City has three management categories for natural areas as outlined in the General Management Guidelines for Natural Areas. The General Management Guidelines address the management considerations for all natural areas while specific management plans determine what type of public access and how the site will be managed for people and the environment. Sensitive: Sites that have sensitive plant or animal species or geologic features that need special consideration when developing a site management plan. These include sites that support rare plants, unique native' plants communities, concentrations of large raptors, rare nesting birds, concentrations of migratory bird species, and key areas for wintering deer, as well as fragile rock outcrops or other geological features that can be impacted by high visitor use. This designation carries with it the understanding that the primary function of management is the maintenance of those sensitive species and features. Urban: Sites that provide good wildlife habitat but do not have any particular sensitive plant or animal species or geological features that need special consideration when developing a site management plan. These sites are usually close to and surrounded by more developed areas of Fort Collins or have been more impacted by recreational, agricultural, or other human land uses than sensitive natural areas. Sites are often composed of greater amounts of exotic plants than the sensitive areas. These sites may be managed as multiple use areas providing limited recreational opportunities, but a priority will, be placed on maintaining the natural character of the site. Restorative: Sites currently undergoing restoration or sites that currently do not fit into the above two categories, but are slated for restoration or enhancement in the future so that they will fall into the urban or sensitive category. Current management category could be either greenway or parkland. The restorative category serves as an early planning tool and way to inform adjacent landowners of future intended site management (i.e., "natural area -- less maintenance than "greenway" or "parkland"). This is a temporary classification until the site is upgraded to another classification upon successful completion of restoration activities. Fort Collins Parks and Recreation Policy Plan 2-18 ..r 5. Trails Trails are off-street recreational systems that provide an inviting, car -free environment for bicycling, jogging, walking, skating and equestrian use where appropriate. They may also accommodate some commuter bicyclists if the route efficiently links to major employment centers or popular destinations. The trails may be paved or non -paved, depending upon the users' needs and desired recreational experience. The City shall be responsible for _. the maintenance of only those` trails that are part of the community - wide trail system as shown on Map 2.1. When not located "� ` within a greenway or larger open space property, a minimum 50' right-of-way shall be provided to allow adequate room for the trail and some natural environment adjacent to the trail. All graded slopes shall be revegetated and measures taken to control storm water run-off, root invasion and erosion. a. Paved Multi -Purpose Off -Street Trails Users: Walkers, joggers, recreational and commuter bicyclists, skateboarders, roller skaters and equestrians. Location: Preferably near drainageways or other linear features, connecting parks, natural areas, recreation facilities and major destination nodes. Trail system design will avoid or minimize impacts to environmentally sensitive areas and will be in accordance with na tura I area and park manage- ment plans. Trails may be adjacent to roadways for short distances or separated by a minimum 12' � 77 Fes,. , buffer for longer r distances. Spring Creek Trail Width: 10' (50' right-of-way minimum). Surface: Concrete, or an acceptable hard surface. Fort Collins Parks and Recreation Policy Plan 2-19 b. Non -Paved Multi -Purpose Trails Users: Walkers, joggers, mountain bikers and equestrians where appropriate. Location: Preferably near drainageways or other linear features. May be parallel to but separated from paved trail system. Placed to minimize or avoid impacts to environmentally sensitive areas. Width: Varies. Surface: Compacted natural surface or crushed gravel. c. Trailheads Users: Trail users, picnickers. Location: In parks, natural areas or adjacent to major roadways; maximum 1 mile apart. Good visual quality of the site and safe access from adjacent roadways should be major siting considerations. Size: Variable, but kept to a minimum to reduce impacts to natural resources. Sized according to demand based on anticipated trail usage. Facilities: Parking for cars, bikes and horse trailers (where appropriate), drinking water, restrooms, picnic tables and shade or shelter. F. Park System Recommendations 1. Introduction The City of Fort Collins has done an admirable job in providing for the parks, recreation and open lands needs of its citizens. As identified in the 1991 and 1994 surveys, a significant majority of people are satisfied with the number of parks and the facilities that they contain. They are also satisfied with the maintenance of those facilities. The Natural Areas Plan and Natural Areas Sales Tax have begun to address the community's increasing demand for larger land conservation programs. The surveys and public involvement associated with development of this plan did, however, point out some perceived facility needs and changes that are needed in the amount of unprogrammed space that is provided in parks. These facts and other information from the survey of organized recreation groups, and the parkland and facility needs discussed in Chapter 4 were used to develop a comprehensive list of recommendations for parks, natural areas and trails. Map 2.1 represents the Master Plan. Fort Collins Parks and Recreation Policy Plan 2-20 The following sections present a detailed discussion of recommended improvements. These recommendations are organized by type of facility, using the following categories: • Neighborhood Parks • Community Parks • Park Preserves • Special Community Facilities • Natural Areas • Trails • Miscellaneous Improvements and Management Plans In addition, a section at the end of this chapter contains recommendations on how the City should respond to the demands for more recreational facilities. 2. Neighborhood Parks Achieving the parkland standard of 2.5 acres per 1,000 population in newly developing areas will require developing approximately 110 acres of neighborhood parkland by the year 2005. This is based on the addition of 35,000 more people to the city in this time frame. On the surface, this need would largely be met by developing the 97 acres of neighborhood park sites that have already been acquired but not developed. However, meeting the actual need is complicated by the fact that the distribution of the parkland is not equal throughout the city. Some areas are notably lacking in neighborhood parks, while others have an overabundance. In addition, many of the major growth areas in the southern tier of the city would be served by the development of sites that have already been acquired; growth in the northeast sector of the city and in some areas near the edge of the Urban Growth Area will require the acquisition of additional park sites. Historically, neighborhood parks have been located one per square mile and average between 8 to 20 acres in size. Mini -parks (those less than 2 acres) were discouraged to limit maintenance costs. This plan recommends that neighborhood parks be acquired and developed according to the standard of 2.5 acres per 1,000 population in the area they serve. Budgets for acquisition and construction should approximate the amount of parkland fees collected from the service area. Locational criteria should be modified, as stated earlier, to allow for development of several smaller parks (mini -parks) per square mile to make them more accessible to the neighborhoods they serve. In older areas of the city, or in existing county subdivisions that are anticipated to eventually annex into the city, there may not be sufficient parkland development fees generated to totally fund the neighborhood park In these areas, alternate funding methods should be defined. Fort Collins Parks and Recreation Policy Plan 2-21 No Text The following projects are shown on Map d. Pursue expansion of Eastside Park 2.1. Prioritization of these projects is Current neighborhood parkland (4.7 addressed in Chapter 5 - Implementation. acres) falls short of the 11.7 acres targeted for the population in that a. Acquire and develop neighborhood parks in new areas of the city including providing several smaller parks instead of one large park Nine new areas are conceptually shown on the Master Plan including three in the northeast, one in the west and five in the southern portion of the city. b. Develop existing neighborhood park sites when the area is at least 50% developed. This will provide for an adequate public participation process during design and collection of some neighborhood parkland fees for the park's development. Where feasible and desirable, adjust the park size and developments to match the land needed to serve the neighborhood at 2.5 acres per 1,000 population. There are presently eight neighborhood park sites that are owned by the City but not yet developed. c. Pursue joint agreement with the City Stormwater Department and the Poudre School District to develop neighborhood amenities at Boltz Junior High School. Current neighborhood parkland (1.4 acres) falls short of the 13.3 acres targeted for the population in that area. area. 3. Community Parks The City currently owns two undeveloped community park sites. Both need to be developed soon to fulfill existing demands and respond to anticipated growth in the city. The —_ following projects are shown on the Master Plan, Map 2.1. Prioritization of these projects is addressed in Chapter 5 - Implementation. a. Develop the 99.5-acre Fossil Creek Community Park site. b. Develop the 103-acre Southwest Community Park site. c. Acquire and develop an 80- to 100- acre park in the northeast quadrant of the city near Vine Drive and Cooper Slough. The park site is conceptually shown on the Master Plan. Because of its relatively large size (80 to 100 acres) and the desire to locate the park at an exceptional site that incorporates natural or scenic features, the site must be targeted for acquisition well in advance of development or the opportunity to acquire it may be lost. Fort Collins Parks and Recreation Policy Plan 2-22 4. Park: Preserves Three park preserve projects are indicated on the Master Plan. These areas have special qualities that should be conserved and made available for enjoyment by the public. The following projects are shown on the Master Plan, Map 2.1. Prioritization of these projects is addressed in Chapter 5 - Implementation. a. Fossil Creek Reservoir Regional Park. The 1988 Parks and Recreation Master Plan, the 1992 Larimer County Parks Master Plan, and this plan identify Fossil Creek Reservoir as a regional park. Developing this property provides an opportunity Str, to collaborate between the City's Park Planning and Development Division, Natural Resources Department, Larimer County, and the Colorado Division of Wildlife to protect natural resources of community -wide significance while also providing opportunities for nature -oriented outdoor recreation. aUss ( 'I ype! of uses could include trail use, picnicking, fishing, non -motorized boating, outdoor amphitheater and ciassrooms, and other nature -oriented activities_ The exact character of this park has nc,t been defined but could also include regicnal recreation and cultural facilities if sufficient land is acquired. b. Strauss Cabin Park. The Strauss Cabin is one of the most significant historic resources in the Fort Collins a,ea. �hh�- cabin site is adjacent to the Poudre River and is owned and niallnaged by Larimer County. A, large natural area south of the cabin r,vas recently purchased by the City. The City should acquire additional land (estimated 30 abin acres) adjacent to these properties and develop picnic areas and trails with historic and environmental interpretation so that the community can enjoy the resources that are present. The majority of this site would be pr--served or restored to a natural condition. Small turf areas and a play/recreation area may be provided in the highest rise areas. Fort Collins Parks and Recreation Police Plan 2-23 c. Gateway Park. The City, Larimer b. Multi -Purpose Recreation Centers. County and several other groups have The City of Fort Collins is below the been studying the feasibility of average level of service offered by -- developing a public park at the old similar communities in the Front - Water Treatment Plant #1 near the Range for multi -purpose recreation mouth of the Poudre Canyon. The site centers. In 1994, 44% of the people is 440 acres and is envisioned to be surveyed who had an opinion primarily a natural park with trails, thought that the City did not have ^ picnic areas and enough drop -in facilities for youth, environmental/historic educational 53 % thought there were not enough opportunities. Development of the gymnasiums and 54% thought there park is expected to be a collaborative were not enough workout exercise process between many agencies. facilities. Space for dance, fitness and ^ other general interest classes is also 5. Special Community Facilities insufficient. It is recommended that the City provide at least one The City has identified needs for three additional full -service types of facilities that warrant special recreation/community center with an mentioning: swimming pools, multi- indoor and outdoor pool, purpose recreation centers gymnasiums and youth center and a horticultural center. A youth center features in the near future. The is a specific type of recreation center that Northside Aztlan Community Center ^ is discussed under b. below. should also be replaced with a larger multi -purpose facility in the northern a. Swimming Pools. The City's portion of the city. ^ swimming pools are some of the most popular facilities for residents as c. Community Horticulture Center. A evidenced by participation numbers local non-profit organization, and the estimated 28,000 residents Community Horticulture Center, who use the pools. In 1994 a survey Inc., has been working with the City was conducted. Of those people who to make a community horticulture had an opinion (those who didn't center a reality. The facility is — checked the "No Opinion" box), 48% envisioned to include a thought the City did not have enough greenhouse/conservatory on a site of outdoor swimming pools. In total, an at least ten acres that will offer indoor pool and at least one additional opportunities for relaxation, outdoor pool should be constructed inspiration and education about within the next ten years. Pools may plants and environmental be constructed as part of a Multi- approaches to horticulture. ^ purpose Recreation Center, discussed Volunteers will play a major role in below. the construction and operation of the Fort Collins Parks and Recreation Policy Plan 2-24 , .. facility. The City should explore a public/private partnership to develop the facility. 6. Natural Areas The City's Natural Areas and Open Lands programs have received tremendous support from the community. The framework for the majority of the open lands areas was established in the 1988 Parks and Recreation Master Plan, the 1992 Natural Areas Policy Plan and the 1995 plan for the region between Fort Collins and Loveland and the City Plan in progress. Additional emphasis should be placed on implementing the Fossil Creek Regional Open Land program and on continuing efforts to protect the foothills and the remaining open lands between Fort Collins and Loveland as indicated on the Master Plan map. Together the Natural Areas Policy Plan and the Parks and Recreation Policy Plan should continue to support the acquisition of natural areas for the community and should provide for public access, including trails and parking for areas open for public use, where appropriate. a. Continue protection, through acquisition, easements or other methods of protection for lands along major drainages (Poudre River, Boxelder and Fossil Creeks, and Cooper Slough). b. Pursue conservation of natural areas, agricultural lands, and lands along the foothills and other remaining open lands between Fort Collins and Loveland, giving priority to the foothills and lands surrounding Fossil Creek Reservoir. c. Pursue opportunities to provide neighborhood -scale natural areas. d. Pursue opportunities for conservation of buffer areas, gateways, and community separators as shown in the Structure Plan and the Northern Colorado Regional Plan. 7. Trails The City's trail system is enormously popular. The great popularity of the trail system has raised a number of issues, some of which are noted below: • Opportunities for leisure walking and solitude are increasingly limited. In some areas, spur trails or additional trails should be created for the exclusive use of walkers. • In a few areas of the community, access to the City trail system is difficult, requiring the crossing of major streets or lengthy travel to get to a trailhead. Now that much of the basic trail network has been established, greater emphasis should be placed on improving accessibility from existing neighborhoods and parks. Fort Collins Parks and Recreation Policy Plan 2-25 Although many people prefer a trail located close to a river or a stream, recreational trail use can adversely affect wildlife and other natural resources. The need to carefully locate trails and manage their use is very important. • Renovations and replacement of existing trails should be evaluated for their environmental sensitivity. Where environmental concerns or resource conflicts are identified, trails should be relocated to less sensitive areas. The framework for the majority of the trails was established in the 1988 Parks and Recreation Master Plan. Remaining needs focus on completing the Poudre River and Spring Creek Trail systems by closing the remaining gaps and extending them through the Urban Growth Area (UGA). New emphasis should be placed on implementing the Fossil Creek Trail system. Additional needs center on improving access to the primary trail corridors and enhancing the quality of these areas through restoration efforts. a. Extend the Poudre Trail to the east and west to the edges of the UGA. b. Complete the Spring Creek Trail. c. Develop the Fossil Creek Trail system. d. Extend the regional trail to connect to Laporte, Loveland, Wellington, Windsor and Larimer County trails. e. Improve linkages between neighborhoods and the primary trail network throughout the city, using irrigation ditches/canals and drainageways where possible. Trail location and design will avoid or minimize impacts to environmentally sensitive areas. 8. Miscellaneous Improvements and Management Plans -* City staff has identified various upgrades, renovations, and replacements that are needed at existing facilities. The types of improvements range from adding parking lots to renovating and expanding pools and recreation centers. In most cases, implementation of these improvements shall be preceded by the development of management plans for the parks they affect to ensure that the new facilities fit within the long-term vision for the park Feasibility studies should be conducted to determine if expansion of existing recreational facilities, such as the senior center, is possible. Specific projects are listed in Chapter 5 - Implementation. Fort Collins Parks and Recreation Pohcy Plan 2-26 9. Responding to the Demand for Recreation Facilities Historically, the Park Planning and Development, Recreation, and Maintenance divisions have been in a reactionary position in determining how many ballfields, soccer fields etc. to provide. The following are recommended actions: Provide baseball, softball, football and soccer fields that can be accommodated within planned community and neighborhood parks in a balanced manner as described previously. The amount of programmed area and types of facilities that are contained in each parks management plan should not be exceeded. The parkland acreage standards allow for a level of service for sports fields that is similar to what is currently provided. • The City's role in specialized sports complexes and facilities is to provide for services at the 1996 level of service. Partnerships should be explored with private organizations to meet extraordinary demands such as has been expressed for soccer, baseball, softball and ice skating. Work with Poudre School District to maximize public use of their facilities including gymnasiums and athletic fields. This may include renovation or redevelopment and joint maintenance agreements. • Recreational leagues should receive priority for programming over competitive level activities. The number of weekend tournaments should be reduced to allow for local use of all facilities. Adult activities currently scheduled in neighborhood parks should be moved to community parks as new community parks are developed. Address additional needs for facilities to accommodate special uses such as community dog run areas, criterium courses for in -line skating, bicyclists, runners, in -line hockey rinks, and other emerging needs. Demands for these and other facilities will be monitored by the City, and recommendations will be developed to address these special needs. The intent of this plan is to have the flexibility to accommodate a variety of uses as additional park areas are developed. Specific decisions on where and how to accommodate these uses will be made as plans for new parks are developed, with the ultimate decision depending on available funding and the ability of the park site to accommodate a particular range of uses. Fort Collins Parks and Recreation Policy Plan 2-27 &.2 I © FORT COLLINS PARKS & RECREATION POLICY jVLAN Master Plan Map 2.1 Trails 0900 Existing Off -Street Trail * * o & Proposed Off -Street Trail MRXX Proposed On -Street Trail Link Open Lands / Natural Areas Existing Natural Areas High Priority Open Lands Community Facilities Existing Community Parks Existing Community Facility Proposed Community Center Develop Community Park Site Acquire and Develop Community Park Site Proposed Park Preserve Neighborhood Facilities Existing Neighborhood Park Develop Neighborhood Park Site(s) Acquire & Develop Neighborhood Park Site(s) September 1996 �1 2 mi. EDA W © FORT COLLINS PARKS & RECREATION POLICY PLAN Master Plan Map 2.1 Trails • * • • Existing Off -Street Trail 0000 Proposed Off -Street Trail BON■ Proposed On -Street Trail Link Open Lands / Natural Areas Existing Natural Areas High Priority Open Lands Community Facilities - Existing Community Parks Existing Community Facility Proposed Community Center Develop Community Park Site Acquire and Develop Community Park Site Proposed Park Preserve Neighborhood Facilities Existing Neighborhood Park .r Develop Neighborhood Park Site(s) Acquire & Develop Neighborhood Park Site(s) SeMmbar 1M EDAW Chapter Three Existing Resources Credits City Council Ann Azari, Mayor Gina Janett, Pro Tern Alan Apt Chris Kneeland Bob McCluskey, Jr. Will Smith Charles Wanner Parks and Recreation Natural Resource Advisory Board Marilyn Barnes Rebecca Chavez Sylvia Cranmer Rich Feller (Former) Lance Freeman Jessica MacMillan Mary Ness Delmar Price Eric Reno (Former) Roger Tarum Diane Thies, Chair City Staff John Fischbach, City Manager Steve Roy, City Attorney Carrie Daggett, Assistant City Attorney Mike Powers, Director of Cultural, Library and Recreational Services Marty Heffernan, Assistant to the Director of Cultural, Library and Recreational Services Janet Meisel, Park Planner and Project Manager, ASLA Advisory Board Jan Behunek Philip Friedman Tim Johnson (Former) Linda Kirkpatrick Katy Mason Craig McGee William Miller Phil Murphy, Chair Kelly Ohlson Ed Secor Lisa Steffes (Former) Craig Foreman, Civil Engineer Randy Balok, Park Planner Jean Helburg, Recreation Manager Virgil Taylor, Manager of Parks Tim Buchanan, City Forester Tom Shoemaker, Natural Resources Director Karen Manci, Environmental Planner Jackie Darner, Secretary III Jackie Rael, Administrative Aide III Fort Collins Parks and Recreation Policy Plan i-i No Text Chapter Three A. Introduction An inventory of existing recreation resources in the Fort Collins area was conducted to establish a framework for development of the master plan. The City's parks, recreation facilities, trails system, open space, natural areas, golf courses and other properties were inventoried and their existing conditions noted. Facilities provided by other jurisdictions including the Poudre School District and federal, state and county governments were also inventoried. Neighho Specific private recreation facilities were not identified, as the City has limited involvement with them and, for the most part, are considered supplemental to basic services that the City traditionally provides. Existing Resources the Parks and Recreation functions of the City's Cultural, Library and Recreational Sery ices (CLRS) area. 1. History of Parks and Recreation Services The history of the parks and recreation systt,m in Fort Collins dates back. to the early 187t►s when the residents of the rhood vol The remainder of the chapter describes the inventory of existing facilities. Before doing so, it is appropriate to briefly describe the history of parks and recreational services and organization of town set aside Washington Park and Lincoln Park, the current sites of City Hall, the Police Station and the. Library and Museum. Both parks have changed significaritly over the last loyball dame century but still prole isle passive "green space" for area residents an,1 the community to enjoy in this rapidly-g-rowing community. As the town continued to grow in the 1900t , residents fell it was important to preserve large open 4 nds for the community. City Park was established in 1907 as the first comn-runity bark, providing large meadows for picnics around Sheldon Lake and areas for ballfields and the fairgrounds. Fort Collins Parks and Recreation Policv Plan 3-1 By 1906, a Parks Commission had been established to improve the municipal parks. Prior to this time, the City Council managed and administered the parks. From 1906 until 1956, only one small park was acquired and developed in front of the old Fort Collins High School. During this era, most of the focus was on developing and improving City Park, including the outdoor swimming pool and community center. In 1949, the Fort Collins Recreation Commission was established to further recreational activities and facilities in the community. In 1955, the first Parks and Recreation Director was hired to administer parks and recreation programs with the Parks and Recreation Commissions. In the early 1960s several neighborhood parks were acquired and developed, including Indian Hills, Avery, Buckingham, Spring and Old Fort Collins Heritage parks. The formation of a separate department for Parks and Recreation occurred in 1966 when the two previous commissions were merged into a consolidated department. The new department was administered by H.R. Phillips and a new volunteer Parks and Recreation Advisory Board was appointed by City Council. The new Parks and Recreation Department increased the number of full-time employees from two to nine, and part- time employees from 160 to 196 in the period between 1956 and 1971. The budget for the department more than doubled from $53,000 to $120,000. The administration of the department had moved from volunteer workers to salaried employees, and with this change, the park system was more professionally managed. In 1963, a prominent landscape architect from Denver, S.R. DeBoer, was hired to formulate the fast Parks and Recreation_ &n. The Plan explained the role of parks and recreation in the city and offered many suggestions for new parks and recreation facilities in Fort Collins. A similar comprehensive study was completed in April 1973, by William Dwain Miller, Planning Parks for Urban Growth: Fort Collins A Case Study. Together these two plans provided valuable information on recreational preferences and needs as well as analysis and research on the physical environment in our community. The foundation for the current parks and recreation system is based on these previous studies and on the efforts of several organizations that supported the preservation of open space and parks in the mid-1970s. The Poudre Greenbelt Association and the Environmental Task Force of Designing Tomorrow Today were instrumental in advocating the preservation of open lands and in the development of trails and parks in the 70s and early 80s. In 1974, the Open Space Plan was adopted as an element of the City of Fort Collins Comprehensive Plan. Several open space areas were acquired in the late 1970s including Maxwell, Pineridge and Riverbend Ponds. Fort Collins Parks and Recreation Policy Plan 3-2 Most of our park and recreation system has been developed in the last 25 years. In the early 1970s, the City acquired and developed over 11 parks, and in the last 15 years the City has added an additional 10 parks. Three community parks were developed: Edora (1971), Lee Martinez (1976) and Rolland Moore in 1984. Several recreational facilities were also constructed during this time including the Mulberry Pool, Northside Aztlan Community Center, The Farm at Lee Martinez Park, Edora Pool Ice Center and the new Senior Center, which opened in 1995. Most of the trail system, which includes the Poudre River, Spring Creek and Foothills trails, was built in the last ten years. The City's fast adopted Parks and Recreation Master Plan was approved by City Council in February 1988, and established the goals and policies for parks and recreation for the community. The goals and objectives of this plan are based on several previously -adopted elements of the City Comprehensive Plan including the Open Space Plan (March 1974), the Goals and Objectives (August 1977), Land Use Policies Plan (August 1979), Eastside Neighborhood Plan (March 1986). By 1988, the City had 33 parks, four of which were developed community parks. The community parks totaled 308 acres. The remaining 28 neighborhood and mini -parks totaled 237.37 acres. The combined acreage in 1988 was 545.37 and the population estimate was 85,000, yielding 6A acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. The City now has 43 parks, including two undeveloped community parks, and more than 21 miles of trails. The combined acreage for all parks, including the undeveloped land, is more than 836 acres. Today the Parks and Recreation Department employs 105 full-time workers and averages 1,500 part-time, seasonal, hourly or contractual workers annually to manage and administer the parks, recreation, natural areas and trail system. The City has also expanded the natural areas program to more than 4,000 acres. Funding for the majority of these parks and facilities began in 1968 when the neighborhood parkland fee was established at $40 per new dwelling unit. Today there is a revised neighborhood parkland fee as well as a parkland fee. Both fees vary depending on the size of the dwelling unit. The neighborhood parkland fee ranges from $495 for a 700 square foot dwelling to $1,191 for a dwelling containing more than 2,201 square feet. The community parkland fee ranges from $540 for a 700 square foot dwelling to $1,308 for a dwelling unit containing more than 2,201 square feet. Trails and natural areas are currently funded through the Conservation Trust Fund and the Natural Areas Sales Tax programs. Fort Collins Parks and Recreation Policy Plan 3-3 CLRS Administration — This area provides executive direction, supervision, management and coordination of the Parks and Recreation divisions, as well as for the library and cultural functions. Within the divisions of Parks and Recreation, there are 78 permanent employees and over 1,500 seasonal, part- time, temporary and contractual employees. It is responsible for the evaluation of all service area operations, preparation and administration of the service -area budget, management of capital projects, and the administration of all services, programs and facilities. Administration coordinates with other City departments, City management, other public and private organizations, and the general public in the formulation of policies and procedures for recreation activities and park development. In addition, Administration provides direct staff support for the Parks and Recreation Board, a 9-member City Council - appointed citizen board that advises Council on all matters regarding Parks and Recreation, with the exception of golf and cemeteries. Park Planning and Development Division — This division is responsible for evaluating, acquiring, planning and developing various types of properties including parks, trail rights -of -way and natural areas. The Planning and Development Division prepares the department's long-range acquisition plans and is also responsible for coordinating development of specific parks including preparation of park master plans and administering construction activities. The Division also reviews development plans by the private sector for commercial and residential development to assure that Parks and Recreation needs are addressed. Recreation Division — The Recreation Division maintains nine municipal recreation facilities and provides instruction, drop -in activities and league activities for all ages in swimming, sports, arts and crafts, dance, general interests, fitness and ice skating. The Division also facilitates specialized programming for older adults, developmentally disabled and youths. Another major Division responsibility is coordination with numerous groups including civic groups, the private sector, Poudre School District, and numerous sports and recreational organizations for use of public facilities. The Division also coordinates and develops short and long-range plans for recreation in the city. Golf Division — This Division is responsible for operation and maintenance of City Park Nine, SouthRidge and Collindale golf courses. All City Park Nine, SouthRidge and Collindale revenues are applied to the Golf Fund which is administered by the Division. The Golf Fund is an Enterprise Fund, which means 100% of all Golf Division expenditures are paid by golf revenues. The Division is advised on most golf matters by the Golf Board, a 7- member City Council appointed board. Fort Collins Parks and Recreation Policy Plan 34 ,'A Parks Maintenance Division — The Parks Maintenance Division is responsible for operation and maintenance of the City's public parks, medians, streetscapes, trails, natural areas, cemeteries, and the grounds adjacent to public buildings. The Division also provides maintenance support for other divisions and departments within the city and several agencies outside the city. The Cemeteries (Memorial Gardens) section directs, supervises, coordinates and maintains the activities, buildings, grounds and records of Grandview and Roselawn cemeteries. Natural Resources Department— The Natural Resources Department is in the Community Planning and Environmental Service (CPES) area of the city and has the lead role in implementing the Natural Areas Policy Plan. They also have the lead role in other open lands conservation programs and are responsible for identifying and maintaining the inventory of sensitive natural areas in the community and acquiring or protecting those lands. The Natural Resources Department also provides environmental input into the design and management of trails, trailhead parking areas, parks and other open lands. Members of the Natural Areas staff serve on an interdepartmental team which is responsible for developing management plans for all natural areas. Forestry Division — The Forestry Division is responsible for management of the City's urban forest resource. One of the Division's major objectives is a planting program that ensures the future existence of the City's trees by the annual planting of as many or more trees than must be removed due to death or hazardous conditions. In addition, a major objective is to provide a rotational pruning, maintenance and removal program. The Division also provides technical assistance and support to the public and staff relative to trees and landscaping and serves as an information resource in this area. B. Municipal Parks and Recreation Resources 1. Introduction Parks and Recreation services extend well beyond the city limits of Fort Collins. Larimer County and Poudre School District residents outside the city limits, as well as visitors to the area, regularly benefit from the use of recreational facilities, parks, trails and golf courses that the City provides. These facilities and services have, in the most part, been built and sponsored by City of Fort Collins tax dollars and fees. Larimer County has contributed over $225,000 to the City through the Intergovernmental Agreement to develop parks within the Urban Growth Boundary that also meets the needs of Larimer County residents. The City of Fort Collins Parks and Recreation system is comprised of 42 parks (10 are presently undeveloped), 24.4 miles of paved recreational trails, over 45 natural areas, 9 recreation Fort Collins Parks and Recreation Policy Plan 3-5 facilities and 45 holes of golf. Map 3.1, Existing Conditions, shows the location of these facilities. A service radius for each municipal park is shown on Map 3.1. Community parks have a service radius of one mile, neighborhood parks 1/2 mile, and mini - parks 1/4 mile. These service area guidelines are consistent with the City's policy of providing neighborhood and mini -parks within walking distance of residential areas where possible, and a community park within each four or five square mile area of the city. Community parks also serve as neighborhood parks for nearby residents. A comparison of these service area guidelines to existing residential areas shows that a majority of city residents have at least one neighborhood park within 1/2 mile of their homes. There is, however, one area within the existing developed area of the city that is not being served in accordance with these guidelines. This area is generally bounded by Drake Road on the north, Timberline Road on the east, Horsetooth Road on the south, and College Avenue on the west. Proximity to community parks is less consistent. Large areas in the southern portion of the city are located more than a mile from a community park This shortage will be partly offset when Fossil Creek Community Park is developed, but several existing and planned residential areas south of Drake Road will remain slightly more than a mile from a community park The City owns natural areas, managed by the Parks Division, that total more than 3,900 acres. These sites are also shown on Map 3.1. As shown on this map, the City has acquired significant areas along the foothills that preserve the. city's scenic views to the west. These areas are used for walking, hiking and other nature - oriented activities. Significant natural area parcels have also been acquired along the Poudre River and Spring Creek; a majority of these areas are linked via the Poudre River Trail and Spring Creek Trail, respectively. Augmenting the City's open lands system are several City -owned properties including the Resource Recovery Farm (340 acres) and Grandview and Roselawn cemeteries. City -owned and operated golf courses (Collindale, SouthRidge, City Park Nine) also contribute. Other properties that augment the City's open lands network are the CSU Environmental Learning Center (now more than 200 acres) located on the Poudre River, and the CSU Foothills Campus. The Foothills Campus totals 1,695 acres, much of which is designated as open space in the Campus Master Plan. Fort Collins Parks and Recreation Policy Plan 3-6 2. Inventory of City Facilities and Resources a. Parks A detailed inventory of the City's parks and recreational system is shown in Table 3.1, Fort Collins Parks: Inventory. This table lists the number and types of various facilities within each park along with acreage, development status and other comments. The City's 32 developed parks include 4 community parks,16 large neighborhood parks and 12 mini - neighborhood parks for a total of approximately 536 acres. The four developed community parks — City, Edora, Lee Martinez and Rolland Moore — total 308 acres. The 16 larger neighborhood parks total 210.5 acres. Mini -neighborhood parks account for the remaining 17 acres. Ten park sites are undeveloped. Eight of the 10 undeveloped sites are neighborhood parks (total 93 acres) scheduled for development in the future. Fossil Creek Park and Southwest Community Park, undeveloped community parks, are 99.5 and 103 acres in size, respectively. N new community parkland fee will fund a portion of one park and all of the second starting July 1996. A specific schedule for development of these community parks is outlined in Chapter 5. Conceptual master plans have been prepared for both parks. As noted earlier, Table 3.1 shows the distribution of specific facilities within each park The City currently has 10 lighted and 10 unlighted softball/ baseball fields. All lighted softball fields are located in community parks. Two lighted and all unlighted fields are used for youth baseball games. Soccer/football fields are located in both neighborhood parks and community parks. The number of fields within a park can vary depending on the actual size of the fields (junior or regulation). The largest concentration of soccer/football fields occurs at City Park with 8 mini and junior size fields; Rolland Moore Park has 3, Edora Park has 5. Beattie, Greenbriar, Overland, Troutman and Warren parks (which are neighborhood parks) each have two full-size fields. Many other neighborhood parks also have soccer fields of various numbers and sizes. City Park and Edora Park have adequate design and parking capacity to accommodate soccer team play. The fields located in Rolland Moore Park and several neighborhood parks, however, do not have adequate parking areas resulting in traffic congestion problems during programmed use of the facilities. The park system includes a total of 41 tennis courts located at 12 individual parks. Twenty-five of these courts are lighted. Lighted courts are usually located in community parks, the only exception is Warren Park The old Fort Collins High School has 4 lighted courts which are programmed by the City. The lighting and court surfaces need upgrading at the high school due to age and resulting inefficiency. Fort Collins Parks and Recreation Policy Plan 3-7 FORT COLLINS PARKS: INVENTORY TABLE 3.1 Volley- Basket--' MaintJ Comments Dev. Undev. Softball/, Soccer/, Tennis' ball ball Water Play- Picnic Rest- Storage Acres Acres Baseball Football Court Court Corot Feature Area room Bldg. 001MUIliiTir PABxs City Park 85.18 .1111, 2L 6 junior 31, Lake • • • • Fitness stations; horseshoes; pool; boats; 2 mini recreation centers; shelter, studio Edora Park 65.41 2L 5 mini 61, Spr Crk • • • • Fitness stations; EPIC; trails; lighted horseshoes; disk golf Fossil Credo Park 99.50 Lee Martinez Park 89.56 2L 4L 3L Poudre • • • • Shelter payed trail; fit Hess stations; farm Rolland Moore Park 68.00 4L 1 full 81, 4 5NL Pond • • • • Platform tennis; trails; shelter.; BMX; Park Avery Park 17.93 1 1 junior I I I 1NL 1 Pond • •I • I I. Beattie Park 10.00 2NL 2'unior 2NL 1NL • • • Combination schooU ark Blevins Park 7.25 lfull • Combinatioaschool/ payed trail Bu Park 5.75 1NL 1NL Poudre • • • Shelter, river access Case Park 1 15.00 1 3NL I I II -I I Joint cityTSD park at new FCHS Golden Meadows Park 11.50 2NL Pond 1 • • I I bnener; nmess srauons; pavcu uau; nau tw saw Greenbriar park 22.08 2NL 2 full 1NL 1NL Pond • • • • Shelter Harmony Park 10.20 Hickory Park 10.00 Landings Park 8.00 1NL 1 full 2NL 1NL Channel • • Shelter, platformtrnois Legacy Park 8.4 1 Poudre • • Horseshoes; shelter, Port -a -Toilet Library Park 4.59 • • Museum; libraty, shuffle board Miramont Park 11.90 Old Fort Collins Heritage 13 1 full Poudre • • Northside Aztlan Center, bike trail Park Overland Park 15.00 1NL 2 junior 2NL 1NL Pond • • • • Shelter, natural area Ridgeview, park 10.00 Rogers Park 8.65 1 full 1NL • • • Shehm barn Rossborough Park 15.80 1NL 1NL • • Shelter fitness trail Spring Park lj . 2,IL 1 Junior S Crk • • • Restroom in fire station d• shelter Troutman Park 19.54 2 junior 2NL 1NL Pond • • • 3 T-ball fields; soccer Warren Park 1 26.00 1 1 1NL 2 full 41, 1 Pond • • • Adjacent to Warren Lake r D-U: Developed or Undeveloped ' Lighting Status of Sports Fields: L- Lighted, NJ, Non -Lighted 'Soccer fields: full size 65 x 110 yds & 75 x 120 yds; junior 40 x 80 yds; mini 30 x 50 yds 1 1 Ji 1 1 1 ) l FORT COLLINS PARKS: INVENTORY TABLE 3.1 Pvv. I A I Softball/' I Soccer,' I Temria' I bell I ball I Water I Play- I Picnic I Rest- I Storage n Baseball Football Court Cost Court Feature ground Area room Bldg. Alta Vista Park .63 1NL • • Creekside Park 3.00 Trail; shelter Eastside Park 1.9 • • • Combination school/park; 1 T-ball field Freedom Square Park .54 1NL • High School Park 2.80 • Gazebo Indian Hills Park 2.00 Arboretum Jefferson Sheet Parkway .75 • Leased railroad property_ Leisure Park .92 1NL • Romeo Park .15 • • Spencer Park .50 • Historic milk house Washington Park 1.16 lNL • • Woodwest Park 2.7 • • Practice backstop and horseshoe pit Total Mini -Paris 17.05 0 Total NelmlL Parlm 227.53 97.3 Total Parlm 535.68 299.8 ` D-U: Developed or Undeveloped = Lighting Status of Sports Fields: L- Lighted, NL- Nan -Lighted 'Soccer fields: full size 65 x 110 yds & 75 x 120 yds; junior 40 x 90 yds; mini 30 x 50 yds Acknowledgments The 1996 update to the Parks and Recreation Policy Plan could not have been completed without the assistance and expertise given by the consultants of EDAW, Inc. The Park Planning and Development staff wishes to thank Jana McKenzie and Tom Keith. The Park Planning and Development staff would also like to thank those citizens who worked on the Citizens Advisory Committee whose expertise, valuable opinions and commitment of time greatly assisted in the update of the 1996 Policy Plan. Fort Collins Parks and Recreation Policy Plan i-il The City provides 6 outdoor sand volleyball courts; 4 are located at Rolland Moore Park, and Legacy and Warren parks each have one. Twenty-one outdoor basketball courts have been developed by the City Parks and Recreation Department; 3 courts are lighted at Lee Martinez Park The largest concentration of courts is at Rolland Moore where there are 5 unlighted courts. All of the developed and undeveloped community parks have a water feature that is an important element of the park Rolland Moore and City parks both have large water bodies that serve as focal points. Edora and Rolland Moore parks have Spring Creek, and Lee Martinez Park has the Poudre River, both of which serve as valuable amenities within these parks. In addition, the proposed Fossil Creek Park includes Portner Reservoir (a 20-acre pond), while Southwest Community Park contains a segment of Spring Creek Many neighborhood parks either have ponds or a water course within their boundaries. Playgrounds and picnic areas are located in nearly all developed community and neighborhood parks, except Beattie and Blevins parks, which do not have developed picnic areas because they are associated with schools. Wooden playground equipment at several parks has been replaced in recent years with more durable metal structures that require less maintenance. Restrooms are located in all of the community parks and in 9 neighborhood parks. Mini -parks do not have restroom facilities due to their small size and limited service radius. The City provides 3 outdoor racquetball courts and 4 platform tennis courts; all 3 racquetball courts are located in Rolland Moore Park Two platform tennis courts are located in Landings Park and 2 are located in Rolland Moore Park b. Recreation Facilities The Recreation Division manages and operates 9 recreation facilities — City Park Center, City Park Outdoor Pool, Mulberry Pool, Edora Pool Ice Center, Northside Aztlan Community Center, Senior Center, Farm at Lee Martinez Park, Pottery Studio and Rolland Moore Park Racquet Complex. The newest facility, Fort Collins Senior Center, was funded through the Choices 95 process and opened in 1995. The Downtown Community Center closed in 1995 after staff and programs moved to the new Senior Center. The Recreation Division programs these facilities for public recreation. A brief description of these facilities is provided below. City Park Center was built in the 1940s. It houses a large dance floor and restrooms on the second floor. An elevator and new stairway were added to the building in 1991 along with upgraded electrical service. The ground level is used by the Recreation Division for storage. The Fort Collins Parks and Recreation Policy Plan 3-10 second floor is scheduled primarily for dance and exercise programs and youth classes. The facility is also rented on weekends by local dance clubs. Mulberry Pool (formerly Fort Collins Community Pool) was opened in 1975. This facility contains a 25-yard 6-lane pool; diving well; and a wading area with a frog slide, raindrop waterfall and turtle squirt; an in -deck 8-person spa; locker rooms; seating for about 250 spectators; and a classroom. A full range of aquatic programs are offered, and the Poudre School District rents the facility for its high school swim team practices and meets. $1,900,000 was spent in 1992 with funding from Choices 95 to replace the HVAC system, lighting, the roof and pool; in addition, an elevator was added, and the facility was totally repainted and recarpeted. Staff offices and the reception area were moved and expanded, and an assisted change room was added. Edora Pool Ice Center (EPIC) opened in 1987. This facility was funded through a citizen -initiated 1/4 cent five-year sales tax extension. Operational upgrades and remodeling projects have occurred each year at this facility. The main pool filters were replaced in 1995, the cooling tower was replaced in 1996, and the ice arena dasher board system will be replaced in 1997. This 83,000 square foot facility has two pools, including a 50-meter x 25-yard lap pool; diving well with 1-meter and 3- meter boards; a wading pool and warm therapy pool; an indoor 85' x 200' ice arena; seating for about 1,000 spectators in both the ice and pool areas; hockey change rooms;, locker Swimming at EPIC rooms; a weight room; 2 meeting/ classrooms; and a concession stand. Swimming and ice skating activities of all kinds are scheduled at this facility along with an annual ice show, hockey tournaments, figure skating competitions and swim meets. The boys' and girls' state high school swim meets have been held at EPIC since 1988. Poudre School District rents space for swim team practices and meets. Swim team, the adult and youth hockey associations, and the figure skating club also rent the facility for their programs. Fort Collins Parks and Recreation Policy Plan 3-11 Northside Aztlan Community Center opened in 1978 and was the first recreation center in Fort Collins. The facility contains a gymnasium, weight room, game room, classroom, kitchen and locker rooms.. The facility is used for drop -in activities for all ages, City - sponsored youth and adult leagues, workouts and recreation classes, youth boxing and wrestling, Senior Chuckwagon noon meal program, Ancianos (Hispanic older adults) activities, trips, tutoring, SHARE program site, educational classes, special events, meetings and rentals. Its construction on a landfill has caused serious structural problems. Since 1981, about $535,000 has been spent to stabilize the building, add a Farm at storage structure to the north side of the gymnasium, replace the gym floor and make other needed improvements. Anheuser-Busch donated $55,000 in 1989/1990 and numerous improvements were made in 1990 and 1991, such as upgrading the ventilation system, resurfacing the gymnasium floor, adding a divider curtain in the gymnasium, painting and replacement of equipment. A recent structural report recommended that the facility be rebuilt on a different site. Lee Farm at Lee Martinez Park opened in 1985. This facility is a working farm, featuring animals such as pigs, cows, goats, chickens, horses and sheep, and also houses an extensive display of farm equipment and implements. Many improvements have been made including the addition of playground equipment, two pole barns, landscaping, parking lot fencing and an addition to the museum. Programming emphasis is on preschool age through teens. In conjunction with the City horticulture program, a children's community garden was started in 1996. Pottery Studio is located in a two- story house that was built in 1923 at West Oak and South Bryan Streets. A wheelchair - accessible Martinez Park restroom was added to the first floor in 1994. A year-round pottery program for all ages is conducted in the building and the enclosed yard. This popular activity has outgrown its space. This facility needs to eventually be incorporated with another recreation facility at a new location. City Park Pool was built in 1949 and is located adjacent to the City Park Center and Sheldon Lake. This facility contains a bathhouse/concession building (new in 1987), which also houses the cashier area Fort Collins Parks and Recreation Policy Plan 3-12 and a staff room, a very large recreational pool that ranges from 0 depth to 10 feet, and a separate wading pool. The wading pool was replaced in 1992 along with relocating the filter plant for the wader to the southwest corner of the first floor of City Park Center. Many upgrades have been made to the main pool which is 45 years old and in need of replacement. The facility is open from early to mid -June through the end of August and is used for recreational swimming and lessons. The pool staff also manages a paddle boat rental program on Sheldon Lake in conjunction with the pool operation. A high priority of the Recreation Division is to replace this pool on the same site with an updated, state-of-the-art leisure pool. The Fort Collins Tennis Association (FCTA) uses this facility and other City courts to provide competitive tennis programs for adults in the community_ . Activities at this complex include private/semi-private and group lessons, recreational drop -in tennis, and tournaments sponsored by FCTA. The facility has also been used for high school tennis tournaments in conjunction with the local school district and state high school athletic association. Fort Collins Senior Center Rolland Moore Park Racquet Complex opened in 1986. It contains 8 tennis courts, 2 platform tennis courts, 3 racquetball/handball courts, 4 sand volleyball courts, an office/pro shop and restrooms. The facility is staffed from mid -April through the end of September Fort Collins Senior Center is the newest facility mariaged and operated by the Recreation Division. Located on a 7- acre site southeast of Rolland Moore Park, it was completed in 1995. This 40,000 square foot facility contains meeting/classrooms, a multi -use -oom, kitchen, arts and crafts areas, gymnasium, indoor jog/walk track, 4-lane lap pool, locker rooms, billiards room and a library/media center. The outdoor area features a courtyard and patio, community gardens, horseshoe pits, easy trail access to Rolland Moore Park, rose and wildflower gardens, and hundreds o� annual flowers in the summer. Fort Collins Parks and Recreation Policy Plan 3-13 The staff plans numerous drop -in activities and trips for older adults. Staff also programs general interest, sports, wellness, dance, swimming and arts/crafts classes for adults aged 18 and older. The facility is also rented to all types of groups during evenings and weekends when the building is closed. c. Trails and Open Lands Inventory The Fort Collins Trails System consists of three major links -- the Foothills Trail (5.8 miles), Poudre River Trail (10 miles) and Spring Creek Trail (8.6 miles). Both the Poudre River and Spring Creek trails are paved and used primarily for hikers and bicyclists. The Foothills Trail has a natural earthen base and is used primarily by hikers. The Foothills and Poudre trails are used to a varying extent for equestrian activities. Future plans call for an additional link along Fossil Creek in 1996. The trail system is presently 24.4 miles long. The Foothills Trail has been completed while the Poudre River and Spring Creek trails are essentially complete except for crossings and minor connections. The trail system lacks connections on the west, thus precluding a trail user from making a loop. All three trails have good access and are adjacent to or overlook a water feature for the majority of their length. Trailhead parking is provided at six locations along the Poudre River. Four trailheads are located along Spring Creek and 2 trailheads will be constructed in the near future to access the planned Fossil Creek Trail. The Parks and Recreation Department's goal is to provide trail access at one -mile intervals. The City's open lands system, totaling over 4,700 acres, is organized into three primary categories for management purposes — natural areas, parkland and greenways. As defined by the City's Open Lands Natural Areas Management (OLNA) Team, each of the three primary categories are further divided into three subcategories as shown below. Natural Area Parkland Greenways Sensitive Cemetery Stormwater Urban Golf Course Light & Power Restorative Parkways Water/Wastewater The OLNA Team includes the City Divisions of Forestry, Natural Resources, Parks, Park Planning and Development, Recreation and Stormwater. Natural Areas Natural areas within the city include the Poudre River and stream corridors, wetlands associated with stormwater utility facilities, the foothills, and other areas of wildlife or native plant community importance. Sensitive natural areas include sites that support rare plants, unique native plant communities, special animal species, important animal habitats and unique or fragile geological features. These are high priority areas in terms of management as they can be impacted by high visitor use. The OLNA Team is currently drafting management plans for the Poudre River and the foothills areas and has completed a plan for the Cathy Fromme Prairie. Fort Collins Parks and Recreation Policy Plan 3-14 Definitions for all open lands management categories and subcategories can be found in Appendix A, General Management Guidelines for City -Owned Open Spaces and Natural Areas (10/21/94). Table 3.2 lists City -owned natural areas by management classification. The largest and more well known sites are shown on Map 3.1. The City's Natural Resources Department mapped all natural areas within the UGA in 19910. These natural resource areas were identified by the presence of plant species and/or communities of ecological importance. Mapped areas include major habitat categories such as aquatic, marsh and wet meadow, riparian forest, grasslands, upland shrubland, foothills forest, urban plains forest, undesirable riparian shrubs and weedy forbeland. Areas that contain one or more of these categories are shown on Map 3.2, Open Lands Considerations. Though not within the UGA, the Fossil Creek Reservoir area also contains significant natural resources that should be protected and properly managed due to continued encroachment of urban growth. Heron nest near Poudre River Several key properties along the Poudre River have been acquired by the City and CSU (Environmental Learning Center); however, most of the river's floodplain within the urban growth area (UGA) remains in private ownership. Current ongoing studies are working towards identifying appropriate land uses and management along the Poudre River corridor. The City of Fort Collins continues to pursue acquisition of land for open space, resource protection and enhancement purposes along the river. A 1/4 cent sales tax approved in November 1992 has provided the necessary funding to purchase these natural areas. This sales tax expires at the end of 1997. The City also receives a share of a 1/4 cent countywide open space sales tax from 1996 to 2001. d. Golf Courses Public golf courses in or near the Fort Collins city limits offer a total of 72 holes of golfing for area golfers. Public golf courses include City Park Nine (9 holes), Collindale (18 holes), Link-N-Greens (18- hole executive course), Mountain Vista (9 holes) and SouthRidge (18 holes). 'The City of Fort Collins owns and operates City Park mine, Collindale and Fort Collins Parks and Recreation Policy Plan 3-15 Table 3.2 City -Owned Natural Areas (9117196) Cathy Fromme Prairie 659 Ross 30 Spring Park 2 Pineridge 528 Fischer 11 Bignall 2 Maxwell 167 Prospect Ponds 25 Gustav Swanson 11 Nature Area Campeau/Reservoir Ridg&60 Archery Range 50 Udall 25 Riverbend Ponds 219 Salyer 24 Redwing Marsh 17 Coyote Ridge 759 Legacy Natural Area 13 W.R.E.N. Pit 48 Springer 22 North Shields Pond 10 The Coterie 5 Prairie Dog Meadow 53 Arapaho Bend 278 Stormwater Detention 4 Fossil Creek Wetlands 229 Red Fox Meadows 35 Areas (2 sites) Redtail Grove 40 Hickory Natural Area 11 Water, and Light & 70 Lee Martinez Park 46 Power Facilities (2 sites) Old Fort Collins 2 Heritage Park Stormwater Detention 90 Areas (9 sites) Water Facilities 35 (3 sites) Total 3,006 Total 660 Total 114 Note: The Foothills Trail Note: The Poudre River easement & ROW is also & Spring Creek bike trail under this management easements & ROW are classification also under this management classification Fort Collins Parks and Recreation Policy Plan 3-16 SouthRidge (totaling 353 acres), while the other daily fee courses are in private ownership. In addition,18 holes of golf are provided at the semi-public Ptarmigan Golf Course and another 18 holes at the Fort Collins Country Club, a private club requiring membership. Mountain Vista may add another 9 holes within a few years, and Ptarmigan may become a private club in the near future. e. Other Properties The Parks Division is responsible for maintaining various medians and streetscapes within Fort Collins. Maintenance efforts, including mowing, weed control, irrigation and trash removal, vary based on the type of median or streetscape. Different treatments include rock landscaped medians, irrigated medians and frontage roads, landscaped streetscapes, and streetscapes with natural plant growth. The two City -owned cemeteries, Grandview and Roselawn (totaling 69.6 acres), are also supervised and maintained by the Parks and Recreation Department. 3. Condition of City Parks The existing condition of the Fort Collins park system was discussed with staff from the Parks Maintenance Division. Overall, the parks in Fort Collins are well designed and maintained. The focus in reviewing each park was on identifying specific problems/issues that should be remedied or at least discussed in further detail among Parks and Recreation staff. a. Community Parks City Park • The park has 2 restroom facilities that are not adequate for the high use level and size of the park An additional restroom is needed. • Summer time parking is inadequate. • The ability to drive through the park continues to be an item of concern. Cruising is difficult to control without closing one or more access points to the park • Poor water quality at Sheldon Lake has been an issue for a number of years. The lake is part of a storm drainage system that contributes to the murky water appearance. Heavy waterfowl use of the lake adds a high level of phosphate to the water that also negatively affects water quality. In addition, residents have complained about odor from the lake. The canal through City Park has been eroded and is in need of improvement too. Edora Park The park does not accommodate picnic use very well. There are no shelters. The irrigation pond has a siltation problem and needs to be dredged. The playground surface area is too large and requires more maintenance than other park playgrounds. Fort Collins Parks and Recreation Policy Plan 3-17 Lee Martinez Park • 'The restroom/concession facility is in poor condition. The concession area is used only for storage. • During high use, the upper terrace area by the tracks becomes the primary parking lot. This area is not paved, so parking is somewhat haphazard. • Vandalism is often a problem. • The press boxes and bleachers at the ballfields are in need of improve- ment. • Parking at the Farm is inadequate for special events. Rolland Moore Park • Multiple events that attract significant Rendezvous at Lee Martinez Park numbers of sports people often occur programs. simultaneously, resulting in • There is no permanent restroom facility. inadequate parking. The Soccer Club brings in a porta-toilet • Basketball court use conflicts with use during its season. Overall park use as overflow parking. level is not high enough to justify a • Neighborhood residents complain permanent restroom. about noise and lighting at the park b. Large Neighborhood Parks Avery Park • A new restroom facility has improved the park. Beattie Park • A restroom facility was recently constructed. Blevins Park Fort Collins Parks and Recreation Policy Plan 3-18 • The park may be City's first site for the new adopt -a - park program. • Homeowners would like to see lights added to the park to better accommodate junior high school Buckingham Park • Vandalism continues to occur Golden Meadows • The lake is difficult to maintain. The Colorado Division of Wildlife allows fishing. • The park needs a drinking fountain. Greenbriar Park • This is a newly -developed park in good condition. • Obtaining adequate water from canal has been difficult. • Pond needs liner to prevent seepage. Landings • Restroom needed; funding available for construction in 1996. Legacy Park • The access to the park has been improved with construction of a pedestrian bridge across the Poudre River west of College Avenue. • The area is frequently utilized by homeless people. This use may discourage some people from using the park Library Park • The museum would like to expand. Old Fort Collins Heritage Park • No problems were identified. Overland Park • The wood playground equipment was removed due to the high level of maintenance required. • Fields are often wet due to inadequate drainage. Rogers Park • The barn structure is frequently vandalized. • Reservations for facility use have been requested though they are not currently allowed. • Wildflower planting along the trail has been very successful. Rossborough Park • No off-street parking is available. Staff would like to get on -street parking approved if additional programming is developed in the park • High school students are said to cause problems. Spring Park • A new pump plant was recently constructed for the lake. • The park needs a permanent restroom facility and drinking fountain. Fort Collins Parks and Recreation Policy Plan 3-19 Table of Contents CHAPTER ONE - INTRODUCTION CHAPTER TWO -- THE PLAN A. Introduction...................................................... 2-1 B. Summary Recommendations ....................................... 2-1 C. Goals and Policies ................................................. 2-2 D. Parkland Standards ................................................ 2-7 1. Existing Level of Service ........................................ 2-7 2. Standards and Level of Service Provided Other Communities ....... 2-8 3. Land Required to Accommodate Community Needs .............. 2-10 a. Community Parks .......................................... 2-10 b. Neighborhood Parks ........................................ 2-11 4. Summary ..................................................... 2-12 E. Classification Standards and Guidelines ............................ 2-12 1. Neighborhood Parks ........................................... 2-13 2. Community Parks ............................................. 2-15 3. Park Preserves ................................................ 2-16 4. Natural Areas ................................................. 2-17 5. Trails......................................................... 2-19 a. Paved Multi -Purpose Off -Street Trails ........................ 2-19 b. Non -Paved Multi -Purpose Trails_ ............................. 2-20 c. Trailheads................................................. 2-20 F. Park System Recommendations .................................... 2-20 1. Introduction.................................................. 2-20 2. Neighborhood Parks ........................................... 2-21 3. Community Parks ............................................. 2-22 4. Park Preserves ................................................ 2-23 a. Fossil Creek Reservoir Regional Park ......................... 2-23 b. Strauss Cabin Park ......................................... 2-23 c. Gateway Park .............................................. 2-24 5. Special Community Facilities ................................... 2-24 a. Swimming Pools ........................................... 2-24 b. Multi -Purpose Recreation Centers ........................... 2-24 c. Community Horticulture Center ............................. 2-24 6. Natural Areas ................................................. 2-25 7. Trails........................................................ 2-25 8. Miscellaneous Improvements and Management Plans ............ 2-26 Fort Collins Parks and Recreation Policy Plan i-iii Troutman Park • The playground receives heavy use in winter by Lopez Elementary School students. • Water for the pond and park irrigation comes from Pleasant Valley Canal. The canal is not lined and some of the water is lost before reaching the park Warren Park • The park is unable to accommodate more people because of the limited capacity of the existing composting type restroom. • The park receives high use for soccer and tennis. c. Mini -Neighborhood Parks Alta Vista • The wood play structures were replaced with metal equipment. Eastside Park • Newly -constructed with no identified problems. Creekside • A solar -powered air pump for bike tires and a drinking fountain were recently installed. Freedom Square Park • Lights are no longer in use due to persistent vandalism. High School Park • Future use of old Fort Collins High School may direct future use of the park • Gazebo frequently vandalized. Indian Hills • No identified problems. Jefferson Park • Concern has been raised about transient use of the park and the surrounding area. • This site may have potential as a gateway to the Poudre River related to commercial redevelopment. Leisure Park • Playground was recently renovated. Romero Park • No problems were identified. Spencer Park • The park receives little use. Washington Park • No problems were identified. Fort Collins Parks and Recreation Policy Plan 3-20 Woodwest Park • No problems were identified. d. Trails and Natural Areas The existing conditions of the City's trails and natural areas system vary. The Poudre River and Spring Creek trails are heavily used and receive routine maintenance to ensure public safety. Portions of the Poudre River trail have unattractive views to adjacent industrial areas or other disturbed landscapes. Ongoing land use and engineering studies for the Poudre River are beginning to address critical issues pertaining to the future care, management and opportunities associated with this important community resource. Conflicts between pedestrians, runners, in -line skaters, bicyclists and off -leash dogs are common on both the Poudre River and Spring Creek trails, and recently on the Foothills trail. This is primarily due to high use levels. Several other natural areas are also experiencing similar conflicts and degradation of trails due to heavy bicycle use. Management plans are being developed for several popular natural areas to address these issues. The plans will also identify areas that need restoration. e. Recreation Facilities The state of existing conditions for the City's primary recreation facilities was obtained from surveys filled out by Parks and Recreation staff and private recreation program providers. The following is a list of comments made about each facility. Pottery Studio • Space for programs is inadequate; conditions are crowded. • The building's interior layout is poor. • Lighting is inadequate • The building has poor entry access; ice is a problem at the north entry and in the street. • There is not enough parking. City Park Center • First floor storage area needs remodeling. • Second floor remodel is necessary to improve efficiency of the space. • Additional parking in the summer for this facility and the adjacent City Park Pool is needed. Northside Aztlan Community Center The building still has serious settling problems. A study was conducted in early 1996 that states the Center should be relocated. It needs new carpeting and painting. Expansion of the building is needed. Fort Collins Parks and Recreation Policy Plan 3-21 The Farm at Martinez Park • Most facilities are in good condition, but the pond needs renovation. • The restrooms are inadequate. • Parking is insufficient for special events. • Some exterior pathway slopes do not meet ADA standards. Edora Pool Ice Center • Lobby area is too small during large events. • Locker and dressing room space for skaters is inadequate, particularly for female skaters. • The meeting room and storage space is inadequate. • A changing room for figure skaters is desired. • A studio rink (as shown on the Facility Site Plan) would reduce the demand for the main ice arena. Mulberry Pool • Conditions are good. The facility was renovated in 1992. City Park Pool • Major repair or replacement is needed because of the age and slow deterioration of the facility. Rolland Moore Park Racquet Complex • Tennis court settling is a major concern. Repairs are costly. Fort Collins Senior Center • No problems were identified. f. Golf Courses The City of Fort Collins owns, operates and maintains three golf courses: City Park Nine, Collindale and SouthRidge. City Park Nine was constructed circa 1940 and has somewhat narrow fairways and smallish greens. The course, clubhouse building and all maintenance structures are in good condition. However, the tight nature of this regulation size 9-hole course causes problems with errant golf balls going into the streets adjacent to City Park or the adjacent Grandview Cemetery. Also the driving range is too small to allow golfers to practice with all their clubs, so use of the range is limited to irons only. Range balls' are still found throughout adjacent fairways. Monitoring and addressing these potential safety issues will continue to be a key concern at City Park Nine through the next decade. Collindale Golf Course is a premier 18- hole regulation size course that was opened for play in 1971. The quality of the greens and the excellent condition of the course itself continue to attract many golfers. The clubhouse building, however, is outdated and will require fairly extensive upgrades within the next 10 years. Completing the golf car path program, bridge renovations and parking lot improvements are high priorities. Fort Collins Parks and Recreation Policy Plan 3-22 SouthRidge Golf Club is an 18-hole regulation size course that has sculptured fairways with challenging sand and water hazards, well -manicured greens and tee boxes, and diverse elevations offering scenic views of the Rocky Mountains. SouthRidge opened in 1984 and is generally in good condition with adequate facilities. However, the design of the driving range,17th and 18th holes are not ideal. Redesign of these areas should be considered; an addition to the clubhouse and golf cart storage area and additional restrooms are also needed. g. Water Use The City currently irrigates approximately 384.4 acres of turf grasses at 38 different park sites. In addition, several acres of shrub material and trees are irrigated at most of the parks. It is estimated that more than 90 % of the water applied is used to irrigate turf. Five locations are irrigated entirely by untreated agricultural irrigation water, five locations are irrigated by a combination of municipal treated water and untreated agricultural irrigation water, and 110 locations are irrigated entirely by municipal treated water. Approximately 152 acres of turf are irrigated with municipal treated water, and the remaining 250 acres of turf are irrigated with untreated agricultural irrigation water which is equivalent to an annual use of 366.6 million gallons of raw water. Historical water use data, combined with the water requirements published in the Fort Collins Water Department Rate Study, indicate an average annual irrigation water requirement for turf grass of about 27 inches per year. Twenty- seven inches of municipal treated water applied to 152 acres of turf is equivalent to an annual treated water use of 98.3 million gallons. At the present time, the Park Division pays for treated water at the park sites. If trends within other Colorado cities hold true, future water costs will become a significant line item in the Park Division's budget. At today's costs, the treated water bill in 1994 for irrigating the parks in Fort Collins exceeded $155,385 (based on the 1994 irrigation -only water rate of $0.94 per 1,000 gallons and an annual use of 111.5 million gallons). Based on these costs alone, proper management of water is a critical concern for the City. The current City policy is that future park development should utilize untreated agricultural water wherever feasible. Irrigating turf and other plant material does not require treated water and a cost savings may be realized by using agricultural water, since conveyance and storage systems are already in existence in much of Fort Collins. The City has equipped all of the parks with automatic irrigation controllers and budgets these costs for new parks being developed. Fort Collins Parks and Recreation Policy Plan 3-23 C. School District Recreational Resources In addition to providing educational services, public schools serve a limited amount of the community's recreational needs. In the Fort Collins area, there are 31 public schools: 5 high schools, 6 junior high schools, and 20 elementary schools. The locations of these schools are identified on Map 3.1, Existing Conditions. Through rental agreements with the Poudre School District, the Recreation Division uses some school facilities for City recreation programs. Table 3.3, Poudre School District Recreation Facilities, presents an inventory of the schools and related facilities that are used for these programs (except the mountain schools). School gymnasiums, playgrounds and tennis courts are the facilities most often used. In addition to the formal recreation programs, casual public use of outdoor recreation areas occurs at almost every school, particularly the sports fields, tennis courts and playground areas. In addition, the City has a priority to program school tennis courts as needed in the summer. Co -location of schools and parks provides an efficiency that has been recognized in the siting of several park facilities. Existing schools associated with parks are Beattie Elementary and Beattie Neighborhood Park, Blevins Junior High and Blevins Neighborhood Park, Riffenburgh Elementary and Edora Park, Lopez Elementary and Troutman Park, Laurel Elementary and Eastside Neighborhood Park, and Linton Elementary and English Ranch Park New elementary and junior high schools have also been built adjacent to Westfield Park Colorado State University has a variety of recreational facilities. However, due to University policies, CSU facilities cannot be considered as community recreational resources. University policy specifies that their facilities are intended for use only by students, faculty and those people officially associated with CSU. Although there are some exceptions to this policy where facilities have been rented for public recreation, CSU facilities were not included in the inventory of recreational facilities. D. Regional Recreation Resources Regional recreation resources serving Fort Collins include areas managed by federal, state and county agencies. These recreation areas offer primarily large, water -based recreational opportunities or passive, open space oriented activities. 1. Federal Federal recreation resources in the area include Roosevelt National Forest, Rocky Mountain National Park and Pawnee National Grasslands. All are located within a 13/2-hour drive. Two of the areas are characterized by the spectacular mountain scenery typical of the Rocky Mountains, and they offer users many opportunities for passive recreation including hiking, backpacking, camping Fort Collins Parks and Recreation Policy Plan 3-24 and fishing. Pawnee is east of Fort Collins and is an outstanding example of the native short -grass prairie. The grassland also offers opportunities for passive recreation. 2. State The State of Colorado also manages several recreational resources in the Fort Collins area. Lory State Park includes 2,419 acres and is located directly west of Fort Collins in the foothills. This state park includes rock formations and scenic features that are characteristic of the Front Range topography. Uses allowed in the pa rk are primarily passive in nature such as picnicking, backcountry camping, hiking, horseback riding, mountain biking,, rock climbing, cross-country skiing and hunting. The park is adjacent to Horsetooth Reservoir and therefore provides access to fishing. Another state-owned area is Boyd Lake State Recreation Area. This recreation area includes 197 acres of land and 1,747 acres of water and is located between Loveland and Fort Collins east of U.S. Highway 287. A water -based recreation area, it affords numerous activities including sc� iling, motorboating, swimming, fishing and hunting. Picnicking a nd camping are also permitted. The Colorado Division of Wildlife manages se,.✓eral lakes and reservoirs surrounding; Fort Collins including Wellington Reservoirs #3 and 94, Smith Reservoir and Watson Lake. Permitted uses vary with the area; in general, fishing is allowed but hunting is prohibited. In addition, th�= Division of Wildlife manages the Wellington State Wildlife Area. This 2,300-acre area is located just east of Wellington and Interstate 25; it is used primarily for waterfowl hunting. 3. County Horsetooth Reservoir Several parks near Fort Ccllins are owned and managed by Larimer 4;-ounty. These range from large, water -based recreation areas to smaller, open space -oriented parks. Recreational use of Horsetooth Reservoir is managed by the County. This 3,900- acre reservoir is located immediately west of the city and provides a wide range of water resoucce activities including boating, swimming and waterskiing. In Fort Collins Parks and Recreation Policy Plan 3-2.5 Table 3.3 Poudre School District Recreation Facilities NEW MINE l-NL 1-Junior 4-L — Old Fort Collins New Fort Collins -- 2-NL 2-Full 5-L 2 Limited public use; running track Rocky Mountain 2 2-NL 2-Junior 5-NL 2 Limited public use; running track Poudre -- 2-NL 1-Full, 1 Junior 5-NL 2 Limited public use; running track Centennial EN .......... .. ................... Ww X-;fOW Blevins — 2-NL 2-Junior 2-NL I -Full Running track; granite sand infields Boltz 2 2-NL 2-Full 3-NL 1-Full Lincoln I 3-NL 2-Junior 3-NL 1-Full Fitness course Usher 2-NL 1-Junior 2-NL I -Full Preston 1-Full Outdoor fields; not ready for play Webber 2-NL 1-Full 1-Full Granite sand infields L = Lighted AL — Not Lighted *Nast J0f&afl1baseMUfle4lj at ekmewaq schools overlap MA 30ccerffootballfieI& and are suitable only, or practices or T-ballgames. .............. ..... . ,x. ....... Bauder 2-Small . ... 1-Junior M %00, :��k ........... ­0% .......... Granite sand infields Beattie Bennett 2-Small NL 1 Granite sand infields Dunn 1-Small NL I • Granite sand infields Harris a Fields in poor condition Irish 2 NL' 1 0 Granite sand infields Jobnson I NI, 1-Junior 1 0 Infield mix Juan Fullana 1 NI, Grass infield Kruse 2 NL 1-Junior 1 0 Granite sand infields Laurel 1 NL 1-Junior 1 0 Girass infield Linton — 1 NI, 2-Junior 1 0 infield mix MoGraw — 1 NL 1-Junior 1 0 Grass infield Moore — 2 NI, 2-Junior 1 0 Granite sand infields ODea — 2NL 1-Junior 1 0 Grass infields Olander 2 NL 1-Junior 1 0 Granite sand infields Putnam I NL — 0 Granite sand infields Riffenburgh 2 NL 1-Junior 1 0 Granite sand infields Shepardson 2 NL 1-Junior 1 0 Granite sand infields Tavelli 2 NI, 0 Fields in poor condition Werner I NL 2-Junior 1 0 Dirt infield L = Lighted AL = Not Lighted *Most sqftdballbaseball folds at elementary schools overlap with soccer4botballftel& and are suitable only for practices or T-ball games. addition, opportunities are available for camping, picnicking and hiking near the reservoir. Horsetooth Mountain Park is located in the foothills just west and adjacent to Horsetooth Reservoir. As with Lory State Park, Horsetooth Mountain Park features the topography, vegetation and rock outcroppings characteristic of the Front Range. The park offers 2,100 acres of excellent opportunities for hiking, mountain biking, horseback riding and picnicking. Use levels at county parks and reservoirs continue to grow. Capacity is reached at these parks on most weekends during the summer recreation season. Camping, picnicking and water -related facilities are in need of major repair or replacement. Smaller county parks in the area include Strauss Cabin and Bingham Hill (which are historic sites), McMurray Park and Lions Park These areas offer open space - oriented activities such as picnicking, fishing and hiking. The county also operates a shooting range for both rifle and handgun target practice. Strauss Cabin is a historic structure located along the Poudre River. The cabin, constructed in 1864, is located on its original site and has an architectural style that is unique in Colorado. The two-story log construction reflects a design built in Kentucky and Indiana in the 1800s. The hand-hewn pine logs were joined in dovetail corners (a technique requiring great skill and patience), and the inside walls were white -washed. Bingham Hill is also a historic site. Named for Samual Bingham who settled at the base in 1860, the site overlooks Bellvue and Pleasant Valley where the earliest settlers of the Poudre River located. The park provides a scenic view of the valley, the foothills and Greyrock Mountain, and is used primarily for picnicking and hiking. McMurray Park is an open space area with a pond adjacent to the Poudre River and is used for picnicking, fishing and hiking. Lions Park is also an open space area adjacent to the Poudre River and is used primarily for picnicking and fishing. E. Open Lands Opportunities Important natural resource areas include floodplains, wildlife habitats and significant topographic or scenic features. These resources are shown in Map 3.2, Open Lands Considerations. A more complete discussion of natural resource areas occurring in and around the city is provided in the "City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Policy Plan" prepared in 1992. The overview that follows focuses on the relationship between parks and natural areas and the recreational opportunities associated with open lands. Fort Collins Parks and Recreation Policy Plan 3-28 1. Floodplains Floodplain land is an important consideration in park and open space planning. Flood plains are generally subject to significant limitations to developmentand are therefore likely to remain as open space. These area.,, provide important wildlife habitats and are often scenic areas that are well suited for passive activities. As open space, floodplains can be used to link recreational facilities and provide public recreation access to its associated watcrtivay. Floodplains of note in the Fort Collins area are associated with the Poudre River, Spring Creak, Fossil Creek, Boxelder Crer,k, Cooper Slough and Dry Creek. Map 3.2 shows the I()() - year floodplain for each of these drainages. and th , Art h! ry Range. I'he City a � 1,J) �­lntial llark_13nd and rlatur& Alon�t_ `,pring tart-ok including; Rollxnd Moore Park, Spring Park, Fdora Parr and he I isclier and Ross natural areas. H-sil reef: Park is located alon�,-, l4ossil Greek. it:dicated (m Map 3.2, portiolis of , he t'oudre Ritter anJ Sprliig I�'reck natural eso Irce areas have v(J to be includ"d in she t itv s t >pet) I .atld, Plarl I,nrtion-� of and ��ther ra111a+'; at't' 1,`t>>otectc:d, althol.lgh tllc (�ity k)wns 3 Park: C'ath. l�rr.,ml�1t> I'rairic Mead(�w, Rkdtail t._�rt,�c Ind L1)ssll r('E'k. )A' (, t I'l I I d s, Poudre TZiver thnrcc )t tl,,> 1 117'I'I Yt11' a ! cr,rI i C ' 7 t I The City of Fort Collins has established a precedent for acquiring natural areas and parkland adjacent to floodplains. Along the Poudre River, the city has five parks: Lee Martinez, Buckingham, Legacy, Hickory and Old Fort Collins Heritage. Cite natural areas along the Poudre River include North Shields Ponds, Gustav Swanson, Salver, Riverbend Ponds, Udall, Bignall, Springer/Williams, Arapahoe o1hil" ha- also ..Itik'la 1 (le '�!oadl�iains as trail c(I1'11Clo1'ti t( link recreation t�ic'Ities arui natural area��. trail ha, k,,een de%eloped alm thc: Poudre River frorn daft I fill to thc' `�t_'� I,.nviro imental I,carning Ccntcl, and a trail has also been constructed alotlti� Spring Creek from the Poudre River to icmthwe5t Park. 2. Wildlife Habitats The majority of significant urban wildlife, habitats it-) the Fort Colllins vicinity c,ccur in r!parian areas, the foothills and tl_.E, Fort Collins Parks and Recreation Police Plan 3.2u 9. Responding to the Demand for Recreation Facilities .............. 2-27 CHAPTER THREE — EXISTING RESOURCES A. Introduction...................................................... 3-1 1. History of Parks and Recreation Services .......................... 3-1 B. Municipal Parks and Recreation Resources ........................... 3-5 1. Introduction................................................... 3-5 2. Inventory of City Facilities and Resources ......................... 3-7 -- a. Parks ....................................................... 3-7 b. Recreation Facilities ........................................ 3-10 c. Trails and Open Lands Inventory ............................ 3-14 d. Golf Courses ............................................... 3-15 e. Other Properties ........................................... 3-17 3. Condition of City Parks ........................................ 3-17 a. Community Parks .......................................... 3-17 b. Large Neighborhood Parks .................................. 3-18 c. Mini -Neighborhood Parks ................................... 3-20 d. Trails and Natural Areas .................................... 3-21 e. Recreation Facilities ........................................ 3-21 - f. Golf Courses ............................................... 3-22 g. Water Use ................................................. 3-23 C. School District Recreational Resources .............................. 3-24 _ D. Regional Recreational Resources ................................... 3-24 1. Federal....................................................... 3-24 2. State ........................................................ 3-25 3. County ....................................................... 3-25 E. Open Lands Opportunities ....................................... 3-28 1. Floodplains................................................... 3-29 2. Wildlife Habitats .............................................. 3-29 3. Visually Sensitive Zone ........................................ 3-30 4. Region Between Fort Collins and Loveland ...................... 3-30 CHAPTER FOUR — ISSUES AND NEEDS A. Demographic and Socioeconomic Factors ............................ 4-1 1. Existing and Projected Population ................................ 4-1 2. Age Distribution ................................................ 4-3 3. Income........................................................ 4-5 4. Summary ...................................................... 4-5 B. Recent Community Surveys ........................................ 4-5 C. Major Recreational/Sports Facilities .................................. 4-6 1. Gymnasiums (Basketball and Volleyball) .......................... 4-7 Fort Collins Parks and Recreation Policy Plan - i-iv larger prairies and open lands along Fossil Creek According to the Colorado Division of Wildlife, approximately 90% of all wildlife species use riparian areas to fulfill all or part of their habitat needs. The most significant riparian habitats in the area are along the Poudre River which supports fairly dense tree and shrub growth along most of the river's length through the city. Other well -developed, riparian areas exist along parts of Spring Creek, Mail Creek and Fossil Creek These riparian areas are shown on the Open Lands Considerations Map, Map 3.2. The foothills and Fossil Creek areas contains significant raptor habitat. Wetland areas are also important wildlife habitat. The Poudre River is an important wetland area. Wetland areas occur along the river channel as well as in adjacent gravel ponds and marsh areas. Spring Creek, Dry Creek, Fossil Creek, Boxelder Creek and Cooper Slough are other drainages that include important wetlands. In addition to these drainages, the many lakes and ponds around Fort Collins serve as important habitat for wildlife, especially for geese and other species of waterfowl. 3. Visually Sensitive Zone Fort Collins' western edge is physically defined by the hogback formation that provides an attractive visual backdrop for the community. With the exception of three dams along the east side of Horsetooth Reservoir, this first ridgeline and east -facing slope is primarily natural in character and is considered to be a visually sensitive zone. Shown on Map 3.2, the zone roughly begins at the elevation of 5,200 feet and continues up to the ridgeline. The City's Utility and Planning Departments have set 5,2W feet as the maximum finished floor elevation for development due to water supply limitations. A portion of this zone has been preserved as City -owned natural areas — Coyote Ridge, Pineridge, Maxwell, Campeau and Reservoir Ridge. 4. Region Between Fort Collins and Loveland -IN The "Plan for the Region Between Loveland and Fort Collins" seeks to maintain an open buffer of land that preserves the separate identities of these two communities. The plan map is also designed to protect valuable habitat, an open visual corridor to the foothills and Rocky Mountains, and some rural landscape character. The Plan was adopted by Larimer County, Fort Collins and Loveland in 1995. The plan area consists of three distinct resource areas that have been designated as the Fossil Creek Resource Area (east), the Agriculture Resource Area (central) and the Foothills Resource Area (west). Up to 26 distinct habitat types have been identified in the corridor. Although field surveys have been limited in the area, several species of concern have been observed, and it is likely that other important species occur. Without careful planning, this region and its resources will become fragmented and of reduced value to wildlife. Fort Collins Parks and Recreation Policy Plan 3-30 © FORT COLLINS PARKS & RECREATION POLICY PLAN 0 X. Existing Conditions Community Parke Natural Areas 1. city 4. Lee Martinez a. Arapaho Bend n. North Shields Pond Map 3.1 2. Edora 5. Rolland Moore b. Archery Range o. Pineridge 3. Fossil Creek* 6. Southwest* c. Bignall p. Prairie Dog Meadow d Reservoir r. sFFox Large Neighborhood Parks Ridge Red Meadows 7. Avery 19. Legacy e. Cathy Fromme Prairie s. Redtail Grove // ^ Community Park Primary Service Area B. Beattie 9. Blevins 20. Library 21. Miramont* 1. The Coterie Coyote Ridge I. u. Redwing Marsh Riverbend Ponds (1 mile radius) 10. Buckingham 22. Old Fort Collins Heritage taga g. h. Fischer v. Ross � 11. Cases 23. Overland i. Fossil Creek Wetlands w. Sayer Large Neighborhood Park Prima Service Area g 9 Primary 12. Cottonwood clan* 24. Ridgeview* j. Gustav Swanson x. Spring Park O 13. English Ranch* 25. Rogers k. Hickory y. Springer (1/2 mile radius) 14. Golden Meadows 26. Rossborough I. Legacy z. Udall -Neighborhood Park Primary Service Area 15. Greenbrier 16. Harmony* 27. Spring 28. Troutman m. Maxwell as. W.R.E.N. Pit OMini (1/4 mile radius) 17. Hickory* 29. Warren 18. Landings 30. Westfield* pval.r, Lighta Pare W Sbmw*w oerenlloLi Fachitin Nar Lhne) ......• Trails • Mini -Neighborhood Parks County Parks 31. Alta Vista 32. Creekside 37. Jefferson Street 38. Leisure 33. Eastside 39. Romero High Schools g State Parks 34. Freedom Square 40. Spencer ■ Junior High Schools 35. High School 41. Washington 36. Indian Hills 42. woodwest Is Elementary Schools *Undeveloped Park Sites September 1996 �__ ® mi - EDAW 0 FORT COLLINS PARKS & RECREATION POLICY PLAN Open Lands Considerations Map 3.2 Natural Resource Areas ej City of Fort Collins Natural Areas Visually Sensitive Zone Fort Collins/Loveland Corridor Planning Area Boundary 2 Major Drainages 61 100 Year Floodplain 'Note: In most cases. these are areas that contain primarily native or otherwise natural vegetation. Source: City of Fort Collins Natural Resources Department; some areas outside urban growth area boundary mapped using 1994 aerial photography. x ty 10 CA) IV ®September 1996 0 1/2--mL mAW Chapter Four Issues and Needs 0 Chapter Four Issues and Needs This chapter discusses the key issues facing the City of Fort Collins in providing parks and recreation services for its residents. The need for additional recreational facilities and parks has also been identified. Special attention has been given to determining how many of the most extensively used facilities are needed, as these have the greatest impact on the City's budget and the space required in neighborhood and community parks to accommodate them. The chapter begins with a profile of demographic trends and economic considerations. Section B summarizes recent community surveys that give insight into perceptions of the general population. Section C addresses the issues, demands and recommended level of service for each of the major recreational sports facilities as well as parks, trails and natural areas. A. Demographic and Socioeconomic Factors Demographic and socioeconomic characteristics of Fort Collins residents influence the demand for and ability to pay for recreational services and facilities. This section profiles key characteristics of the population. 1. Existing and Projected Population The number of people who are (or will be) located within the city and the surrounding area is one of the most important factors in determining community needs. As shown in Table 4.1, population in Fort Collins grew by 35% from 1980 to 1990 (U.S. Census,1990). Growth continues into the 1990s at approximately 3% per year, about one-half the average annual increase that was experienced during the 1980s. Table 4.1 Historic Population Growth 1980-1990 Fort Collins City 65,092 87,759 22,667 35% Limits Larimer County 1 149,184 1 187,415 1 38,231 1 26% Fort Collins Parks and Recreation Policy Plan 4-1 In 1995 the population within the City reached 100,000. According to the City Planning Department (1995), by the year 2005, Fort Collins' population is expected to be 135,365, an increase of approximately 2.8% per year (see Table 4.2). The population within the Urban Growth Area (UGA) is also expected to increase, primarily due to growth within and expansion of the Fort Collins city limits. Most growth in the past 10 years has occurred in the southern half of the Urban Growth Area, with less growth occurring in the northern portion of the city. This trend is not expected to continue as the City has adopted policies to encourage new development in the northern portions of the city and has identified an activity center in the northeast. Instead, City planners are anticipating a more even distribution of growth throughout the city. By the year 2015, the city is expected to contain 150,000 people (City Planning Department,1996). Although Larimer County is growing at a slower rate than the City of Fort Collins, the county is expected to grow at approximately 2% per year until the year 2005, resulting in a total of more than 247,000 people. These numbers include residents in Fort Collins and Loveland, which both offer a broad range of recreational opportunities. However, a significant number of county residents (approximately 58,000 in 1990) live in the unincorporated areas of the county or in towns that have limited recreational programs and facilities. This is significant because many nearby county residents, especially those in the Fort Collins UGA, use the parks and recreational facilities and programs offered by the City of Fort Collins. Table 4.2 Projected Population Growth 1990-2005 "v`e; ":O. :T .&��'J�" :•Y.�}'�::i f•;"�.!: 4Ax� f+:: 'L+`}:3 'iF;"' iiFia" ,f;... .$v ''��'� e ..^Sv. f°,:fr<N ..3.... '0...:}}, :3+v.:{.:,+:�} •': v..tk �;::; r•�. q tr`,; tri :}'.$.:. n•,?J%J. f tr: y •p}. $?^ �.. QCht•G f`>f •':i'v... f,.J.n.+ ( •�••:n•{:$•r �yr }� p`v':C�':4:4.'�:;�`O�::J �v�i::i 2:J. iy6 tr:. : �i ,...�:,:{� v r:3 itr0.. @v`�^'Cn : p. 1}nv <.i tin$'.fp'.>'.: :i.:iJ♦ �itrJ'n C. '.:4 <�iv f:'}f:J,vf.:tr::n.U.v}.J }:i¢{}pJ...i.4;:C:i:i` ,vv :. tr i tr. n:•Jvf:t �':O.:O'{{iv.:}.R .. tif: v 5 .O`:v :i::ti}i`i:: 'C`:'�.i:�{.ar: p3$ rf•:}�a{C.:,<`,. `i��x�.',;•'.,j�}. �:.5 tr }.:vv 'y'Y . v •C .`v�ii,`NS} ti:::f.: 'rJr. rii trl.:+t;:: vit.'i•. i'firri:Yi{r'9i}:}»»» ::{,»:::, ; 4: r. v:aa: ..{f'rt::}iv}ii.ii5:{tr}:tr}}}f..i:sv:v}i:}:}i :r: Qi..t`viY.{$:vii%::{ujv�{.:i:::::}F::i:}}:.>.:::�{::: `i'.L:..'.`:ii^.::::t0:{}>{:}.}i•... j :nJn}w::.:.v:.vn rw ......: r.n Y;..}:n: "J'i0 }:::{{ .':::'yj. yp�'�y� ...; :4::::C:J!J.�,+,•,n,•.••.T-.,�.�•�.�{M'�i.�.�, �,�.:•�....•,�.:.:..;.i�i.., v. •. �::��::F:.',: �': mC: •tvv :?.r\rv'4 `�� ::45 • ��'..`'.'n'•+:�G y .OF'0 �, i p v .C:, {}^v .:iJ}5' %� vim•,.: J :J ''ldc`} :';ti:2y ,.:,3i.f5:gJi.�' e .Q.,�:; :_yi• �'.iok '�: ' r$>v... ji.1':C }}�,p ':vir': }b;JX. t}ntr:': ; 6}c:�:� ..n .;?y...::: tr'.+.:.trO: QCn . . ..lv boy,: p`?v^;;' tom::?:%f} .:.: o: t.i}: 'v: :+'::5 v v:$i. :c..,:..wr _. o.. .tro: :s..:.�`.. v.}tr......... v.,.tr.. .:o•'' : .tr.. }}ft•: :.tr . :.ov :,f:tr:.:f.....v..... J'4f:�f{y{:;:{`�;ti::" � .. {u.::.J::.eiri:::tr::o.:{,: ::iC::{::{ .}:fi2 t{:`4i: t. ....n... t.:i.:tr'fvw: n..trtr.: •:n ::{{ft n ..:n.......n.::... ":::.t:: n}:v:..:}':.::iY:}n:}}tr}:$'}:.v:fn}:pi:ff is 1990 87,759 104,408 186,136 1995 100,000 na na 2000 119,497 na 216,922 2005 1 135,365 149,481 247,132 "Calculations prepared by City Staff for the Fort Collins Congestion Management Plan, April 1995. Fort Collins Parks and Recreation Policy Plan 4-2 2. Age Distribution The size of specific age groups is another significant factor in determining the demand for recreational facilities and programs. The age distribution of the Fort Collins population in 1980 and 1990 appears in Table 4.3. Approximately 22% of the city's population was 18-24 years old in 1990 compared to approximately 30% in 1980 — a decrease of more than 8%. The presence of Colorado State University skews the distribution toward this age group; but as the city grows, the university's influence becomes less pronounced. During the 1980s, the next largest change in age group occurred in the 35 to 49 age group, from 12.5% of the population in 1980 to 20.2% in 1990. This is typical across the nation as the "baby boomers" grow older. In the next ten years, the majority of the people in this age group will be in the next age group (50 to 64 years) and can be expected to participate in fewer physically strenuous activities and team sports. Another method of predicting the demand for youth sports is projected student enrollment in the Poudre School District. Although the district boundariesextend as far north as the Wyoming border and west to Jackson County at theContinental Divide, Fort Collins is the largest city in the district, and its residents make up the great majority of the students within the district. Even though the total population in the Fort Collins Urban Growth Area is projected to increase by more than 45,000 people in the next 10 years (Table 4.2), the school age population is expected to remain relatively constant, with perhaps as few as 700 to 1,000 additional school age children within the entire school district (Table 4.4). According to Mr. I. Carol Agee, who projects enrollments for the school district, this is supported by a substantial decline in the number of school children per single family dwelling unit (from 1.1 elementary students per single-family household in 1980 to 0.4 in 1995). Another factor that contributes to the marked decrease in the proportion of the population that will be of school age in ten years is the longer life span of the average American. Although birth rates and family size are declining, people are living longer, resulting in a net increase in the total population and larger numbers of people in the older age groups. Fort Collins Parks and Recreation Policy Plan 4-3 Table 4.3 Fort Collins Age Distribution The following is a summary of historic and projected data on school age children in the Fort Collins area. Table 4.4 Historic and Projected Numbers of School Age Children 16,597* est. 895# ............... ----- 17,492 1985 1990 18,590* 1,002* 19,592 2,100 12.0% 1994 21,2.34* 1,891* 23,125 3,533 18.0% 12000 1 22,176* est, 1,975* 24,151 1,026 4A% 1 2005 1 21,950* est. 1,955* 23,903 (248) -1.0% 0 Source. Enrollment Report, Poudre School District, T. Carol Agee, October -November 1994. #Based on the percentage (5.1 %) of all school -age children who were private/home schooled in 1990. *Based on the percentage (8.2%) of all school -age children who were private/home schooled in 1994. Fort Coffins Parks and Recreation Policy Plan 4-4 The implications of little growth in the total youth population over the next ten years should be carefully analyzed to determine what facilities may or may not be needed in this time frame. 3. Income Income influences the ability to pay for parks and recreation services. In 1990, the median household annual income was $26,826. Nearly 45% of Fort Collins households earned between $25,000 and $75,000 per year. Twenty-nine percent of households earned between $10,000 and $25,000 per year,18% earned less than $10,000 per year and approximately 8% earned over $75,000 per year. 4. Summary Fort Collins is expected to grow by another 35,000 people in the next ten years. New development is expected to occur in a relatively even distribution around the city, with new emphasis on development in the northern portion of the UGA, an area that has not seen much new growth in the recent past. The majority of the population will be over 18 years of age, with the number of people in the 5 to 18 age bracket staying almost the size it is today. B. Recent Community Surveys Surveys are a good way to determine where residents recreate and what they think about the parks system. In 1991 the City conducted a mail -out, mail -back survey that resulted in 510 responses from randomly selected households in Fort Collins. The most frequently used community park was City Park, with 85% of the respondents stating that they used the park in the past year. Rolland Moore Park was used by 73% of the respondents. Edora Park and Lee Martinez Park were used by 67% and 65% of the respondents, respectively. The most popular neighborhood parks were Library, Warren and Spring parks, with 45%, 35% and 26% of the respondents saying that they used these parks in the past year, respectively. The remaining 11 neighborhood parks were visited by 7% to 17% of the respondents. When asked why they visited parks in Fort Collins, the most frequent responses were relaxation (68%), walkingrJogging (64%), trails (63%), picnics (54%), playgrounds (42%), trees and flowers (42%), athletic fields (38%), watching sports events (34%) and viewing wildlife (34%). When asked what facilities they used, the most frequent responses were trails (69%), picnic areas (58%), playgrounds (46%), ponds and streams (37%), volleyball (30%), City Park swimming pool (26%) and tennis (21 %). Athletic field usage was listed as follows: softball (19%), soccer (15%), baseball (7%) and football (7%). Basketball and ice skating at City Park were both listed by 16% of the respondents. Fort Collins Parks and Recreation Policy Plan 4-5 a. Participation Rates and Perceived Needs ...................... 4-7 b. Cost of Providing Services ................................... 4-11 c. Level of Service Comparison - Gymnasiums .................. 4-12 d. Conclusions ............................................... 4-12 2. Baseball/Softball Fields ......................................... 4-13 a. Participation Rates and Perceived Needs ..................... 4-13 b. Cost of Providing Services ................................... 4-16 c. Level of Service Comparison = Baseball/Softball Fields .......... 4-17 d. Conclusions ............................................... 4-18 3. Soccer/Football Fields .......................................... 4-18 a. Participation Rates and Perceived Needs ..................... 4-19 b. Cost of Providing Services ................................... 4-22 c. Level of Service Comparison - Soccer/Football Fields ........... 4-22 d. Conclusions ............................................... 4-23 4. Tennis Courts ................................................. 4-24 a. Participation Rates and Perceived Needs ..................... 4-24 b. Cost of Providing Services ................................... 4-25 c. Level of Service Comparison - Tennis Courts .................. 4-25 d. Conclusions ............................................... 4-26 5. Swimming Pools .............................................. 4-26 a. Participation Rates and Perceived Needs ..................... 4-26 b. Cost of Providing Services ................................... 4-28 c. Level of Service Comparison - Swimming Pools ............... 4-29 d. Conclusions ............................................... 4-29 6. Ice Skating Arena .............................................. 4-30 a. Participation Rates and Perceived Needs ..................... 4-30 b. Cost of Providing Services ................................... 4-32 c. Level of Service Comparison - Ice Skating Rinks ............... 4-33 d. Conclusions ............................................... 4-33 7. Recreation Centers and Other City Facilities ..................... 4-34 a. Participation Rates and Perceived Needs ..................... 4-34 b. Cost of Providing Services ................................... 4-36 c. Level of Service Comparison - Recreation Centers ............. 4-37 d. Conclusions ............................................... 4-37 8. Other Emerging Needs ........................................ 4-37 D. Parks ........................................................ 4-38 1. Existing Parkland Standards .................................... 4-38 2. Community Parks ............................................. 4-40 3. Neighborhood Parks ........................................... 4-42 E. Trails and Natural Areas ........................................... 4-47 1. Trails........................................................ 4-47 Fort Collins Parks and Recreation Policy Plan i-v When asked if there were enough of specific park facilities and amenities, the items that received a majority of "no" responses (from those who had an opinion) were drinking fountains (60), natural, greenbelt, pond and open space areas (59%), park benches (53%), trails (52%), flower beds (51 %) and restrooms (50%). Other amenities and facilities that received significant "not enough" responses were trees (44%), outdoor swimming pools (43%), picnic tables and shelters (39%), and volleyball (37%). Indoor swimming pools, soccer, tennis, softball, basketball, and baseball were listed as "not enough" by 31%, 29%, 28%, 25%, 24% and 23% of the respondents, respectively. In 1994, the City conducted another mail survey that asked many similar questions and received 168 responses. From 30% to 50% of those surveyed did not have an opinion on various questions. Of those who did have opinions, the results were similar to the 1991 survey in terms of which amenities and facilities were perceived as most needed: drinking fountains (62%), outdoor swimming pools (52%), restrooms (46%), trails (40%), park benches (40%), and picnic tables (37%). The amount of natural, greenbelt, pond and open space areas was not addressed in the 1994 survey. Facilities that were not addressed in the 1991 survey that showed significant support in the 1994 survey were drop -in facilities for youth (60%), outdoor ice skating (56%), indoor gymnasiums (47%) and workout exercise facilities (46%). C. Major Recreational/Sports Facilities The previous chapter inventoried the numbers and condition of the numerous recreational and sports facilities in the City. This section documents the following: • Usage of the facilities; • Citizen and staff perceptions related to the needs and demands for additional facilities; • An analysis of the net cost to the City to provide programs, operations and maintenance of the facilities; • A comparison of the numbers of these public facilities available in Fort Collins and those available in other cities along the Front Range of Colorado (in summer of 1995); and Conclusions about the range of choices the City faces regarding the number of facilities that should be provided in the next ten years. _ To determine usage, more than 50 interest groups, including the City recreation staff, were surveyed to determine how many participants they have in each program. Total participation numbers (numbers of times that someone used a facility) were developed by the City Recreation Division. Fort Collins Parks and Recreation Policy Plan 4-6 The interest group surveys also included information regarding perceived needs and demands for additional facilities. Staff involved with programming facilities were also consulted. Net cost to the City for providing facility operations, maintenance and associated programs was developed by staff of the Facilities, Parks Maintenance and Recreation divisions. The costs are the expenses that the City incurs after all tees and ether program -related income is collected. The costs were reported per user (or individual) who participates in a program or uses the facility. This cost is the amount that the City subsidizes an individual over the course of a vear. The costs are also complete, as some cities did not have the data !-eadily avai.able or in a form that coulc be translated into a direct comparison. However, the data that 4,vas obtained is useful in establishing what level of service is being provided by cities in the region and assisting the City of Fort Collins in deciding where on the spectrum it desires to be. A summary of the survey is contained in Appendix B. The information was sorted by facility type n the follovving discussion. City basketball league game reported as a cost per use. This is the amount that the City subsidizes each time a facility is used. The comparisons of the number of facilities provided by communities along the Front Range were developed by interviewing staff at each of eight other communities during the summer of 1995. These included Castle Rock, Loveland, Longmont, Thornton, Greeley, Westminster, Boulder, Lakewood and Colorado Springs. Not all data is 1. Gymnasiums (Basketball and Volleyball) The City currently 2 gymnasiums, one at the Northside Aztlan CommunitN� Center (NACQ and one at the Senior ('enter. Many City programs are also conducted at school gyms. a. Participation Rates and Perceived Needs In 1994, the total rumber of tinges that people participated in indoor basketball and volleyball was approximately 60,000. The total number of individual users was estimated to be 10,375, including drop -in use at NACC. The average number of Fort Collins Parks and Recreation Policy Plan 4-7 times per year that each basketball/ volleyball player used a gym was 5.8. The 1994 survey indicated that approximately half (47%) of the people who had an opinion thought there were not enough gymnasiums; 60% thought there were not enough drop -in facilities for youth. The following pages describe each program in more detail. (1) Basketball Programs Organized basketball for both youth and adults has continued to be a popular activity with a significant number of participants. Table 4.5 shows historic participation in basketball programs. Youth basketball, particularly at the elementary school age, has seen an annual increase for the years 1990-1993; 1994 participation decreased slightly due to lack of access to enough gyms to provide the same service level in 1996. Summer youth basketball has recently become very popular as has drop -in play, especially at the NACC and Rolland Moore Park outdoor courts. The summer youth program has been a very successful cooperative effort between City Cultural, Library and Recreational Services and the community to organize and support this program. City staff has stated that the summer program could double in size if adequate personnel and facilities were available. Other private, non-profit programs (such as Triple Crown Sports) offer basketball. In 1994, Triple Crown had 115 basketball participants in their Memorial Day tournament. The Fall 1993 NACC basketball program attracted 342 participants. Elementary and junior high basketball programs are held at school gymnasiums. Practices are held immediately after school during the week games are held at selected school gyms on Saturday mornings. Gymnasium facilities are in high demand by a variety of user groups as well as for school activities. Basketball and volleyball programs compete for these facilities. Scheduling has become a significant challenge. The Poudre School District allows gymnasiums to be used for youth basketball during summer months which has greatly expanded the participation in this program. Other than at schools, the only available public indoor basketball facilities are at NACC and the Senior Center. The NACC facility has nearly reached maximum use capacity, is in need of repair and is not conveniently located within the city. The Senior Center places preference on use by the older age groups of the population. City staff believes there is need for a southside community center with multiple gyms as well as a permanent gym for youth and teens. Fort Collins Parks and Recreation Policy Plan 4-8 Table 4.5 Historic Numbers of Participants in Basketball Programs Fort Collins Parks and Recreation Policy Plan 4-9 (2) Volleyball Programs historic numbers of participants of volleyball programs. All programs have Volleyball programs are offered by both generally experienced steady to increased the City and private clubs/organizations. annual participation over the past five Combining all programs, the sport is years. The City offers adult leagues and played year-round. Table 4.6 shows class instruction. Table 4.6 Historic Numbers of Participants in Volleyball Programs ................... . .. . M 1990 400 400 576 1991 256 256 512 1992 256 256 520 1993 312 200 392 1994 392 312 448 n. 425 1990 1991 425 1992 425 1993 525 1994 525 1990 3Z/4 1991 3V4 1992 40/8 1993 48/6 1994 6418 Note: Winter, spring and fall seasons offered ix o i" MMile-iIi igg MllM I, N 1990 50 1991 75 1992 100 1993 120 1 1994 120 1 Fort Collins Parks and Recreation Policy Plan 4-10 Table 4.6 (continued) 1990 1991 300 1992 300 1993 500 1994 750 (outdoor tournaments) (C) - City sponsored; (P) - Private sponsored &tg. Participation ranges from 60450 players per event. Indoor tournaments usually draw 150-250 players per event. Other smaller private non-profit volleyball programs/classes are also available. Outdoor tournaments are held at sand and grass courts at Rolland Moore Park, City Park and Fort Collins High School. Parking at Rolland Moore Park is a significant problem, as multiple sports events are often held simultaneously. Volleyball programs compete with basketball programs and other groups for use of school gyms and the NACC gym. The City has had to limit participation and cancel some volleyball programs due to a lack of facilities. Costs to provide staff to supervise at up to six different sites per night are very high. Private volleyball programs also find it very difficult to schedule gym time and have often had to go out of town to find space. Volleyball programs and participation expansion will continue to be limited until other facilities become available and/or constructed. The need for gym space will continue to grow as the population increases. b. Cost of Providing Services In 1994, the net operational cost to the City was approximately $1.96 per basketball or volleyball player. When costs were divided by total participation, basketball and volleyball cost $0.29 each time a participant was involved in a program or dropped in to use a gym. This is the lowest cost of all programs that the City offers, primarily because the majority of the gyms are owned and maintained by the Poudre School District. The operations and maintenance costs for the school gyms were not considered in this analysis as they are not City costs. Fort Collins Parks and Recreation Policy Plan 4-11 C. Level of Service Comparison - Gymnasiums Table 4.7 Comparison of Level of Service Provided for Gymnasiums by Front Range Communities .uti :. "•yr:c?:}`C:r �c*J '{ ,Y`:�?. . ?' SCC,�>.eeCv ;ap: 'Yy ' 2: A .?'$,.l \'n: P".. •YJ": � � ::o;??.� �` C. E�Xi±?n'?`:. e:yy''r•� {} : . • .Cc ^ ,AO*J a ' ?4`,%• •::�a°.:Q..¢.Y'b •t4'o-.: : � >: Ap �': :..:�.:.Y •:•mod..: <: `?-Y f�:.. $tr�O:C OC\^>f/{}"A. AL'?•. . #c`Yy`5:;.. 'Y. %:w�c:; yam; 4:;�: £: �`� ';;0.�} }3+' .:;:. '�;' L..�j� "T: a .,: ran„?>r'rir•:y. A �.. ••J �` ....� f• ..e k:'�:: :<:�;:• ?6.a•:���:)�:?�k�}pt}F.;fi:L^F°.3%..'i �c}'o\'»:?�ryA{;'n�`!•.}?� F"': $ Cl.• :S�^' A *7..LY. re. :ice'.}: '4\. Y� NhpC.l,�^�}iY4':'v6fYh r 'I..C...+v:+. ::2:�Y:i'': u?t�?Af :tr4"{?C+" v? :S; •.Y:�}?.�. .�,�? ;JvY 1:1,200 Castle Rock (pop.12,000) 1:12,000 Loveland (pop. 42,000) 1:24,000 1:7,000 Longmont (60,000) 1:60,000 na Thornton (pop. 60,000) 1:30,000 na Greeley (pop.64,092) 1:32,046 1:1,930 Westminster (83,400) na na Boulder (pop. 94,706) 1:31,569 1:2,960 Lakewood (pop.132,000) 1:44AM 1:13,200 Colorado Springs (pop. 1:163,500 na 327,000) Average 1:49,639 1:7,418 Fort Collins (pop. 96,960) 1:48,00 1:3,878 d. Conclusions The City of Fort Collins is slightly below the average level of service offered by surveyed Front Range cities for public gymnasiums. It appears as though the City is making good use of school gyms, offering youth programs at almost all available facilities. Many gyms are not generally available for adult programs because they are either not sized for adult use or they are used by school athletic teams. As long as the school district continues to build schools proportionally to the school age population, there should be adequate gyms for youth programs. However, the adult population is expected to expand greatly in the next ten years. There is already evidence that the existing facilities are at capacity and an additional gym is currently needed, especially if the old Fort Collins High School gym, which is now part of a youth center that is leased from the school Fort Collins Parks and Recreation Policy Plan 4-12 district, is no longer available. The 1994 survey also indicated that the general population believes there are not enough indoor gymnasiums or drop -in facilities for youth. It is recommended that the 2. Baseball/Softball Fields The City uses 49 ballfields for softball and baseball practice and 25 fields for games. The fields are primarily City fields; however, some school facilities are used. The large majority of practice fields are in neighborhood parks and at elementary schools. Softball and baseball games are played on a total of 25 fields, including 10 in community parks and 10 in neighborhood parks. a. Participation Rates and Perceived Needs City Construct 1 or 2 additional gymnasiums (potentially associated with a larger community or youth center), and renovate or replace the Northside Aztlan Community Center gyre. surveyed who had an opinion thought that the City had enough softball fields; 69% thought there were enough baseball fields. The following pages describe each program in more detail. (1) Baseball Programs City adult softball game In 1994, the total number of times that people participated in baseball and softball was approximately 111,000 and 133,000 respectively. The number of individual baseball and softball players was estimated to be 3,296 and 11,304 respectively. The average number of times per year each baseball and softball player used a field was 33.7 and 11.8 respectively. In 1994, 71 % of people Table 4.8 shows historic numbers of participants in baseball programs. Fort Collins Youth Baseball (FCYB) and the Men's Senior Baseball League provide programs for 5- 1.8 year olds and 30 years and over age groups, respectively. Third largest in Colorado, the FCYB program membership increased from 1,968 in 1990 to 3,171 in 1994; the annual average increase has been 300 players. Recreational and competitive leagues are offered by FCYB. FCYB uses Poudre School District school fields and 10 fields within public parks. Only two of the available fields are lighted, both at City Park. Games at City Park are held until the 11:00 p.m. lighting curfew. The senior league utilizes CSU and Edora Park baseball facilities;. Fort Collins Parks and Recreation Policy Plan 4-13 Table 4.8 Historic Numbers of Participants in Baseball Programs ......... .. ..... ...... .... 1990 1,968 1991 2,132 1992 2,416 1993 2,785 1994 3,171 .4 g' `•i'•.}i . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1990 75 1991 90 1992 95 1993 112 1994 125 Baseball fields, particularly practice fields, are in short supply. As many as 150 youths have been turned away from FCYB due to lack of fields. Additional growth is not possible until more fields are available. More lighted fields would allow an increased number of games played each day and possibly shorten the FCYB season. A lighted multi -field complex is desired. (2) Softball Programs Table 4.9 shows historic numbers of participants in softball programs. A 5- year look at softball generally reveals a steady annual increase in participation of this popular sport. Fort Collins Parks and Recreation Policy Plan 4-14 Table 4.9 Historic Numbers of Participants in Softball Programs (C) = City sponsored (P) = Private sponsored Port Collins Parks and Recreation Policy Plan 4-15