recquest phase i summary reportare being delivered. it is clear that minneapolis has a higher amount...

RecQuest Phase I Summary Report

DRAFT January 26, 2015

2 Phase I Summary Acknowledgements

Acknowledgements

Consultant TeamMIG, Inc.

Ballard*King & Associates

LHB, Inc.

ClientMinneapolis Park & Recreation Board

PERFORMANCE DRIVEN DESIGN.

Minneapolis Park & Recreation Board RecQuest Summary Report 3

Phase I Report ContentsExecutive Summary ............................................................................................ 4

Introduction ....................................................................................................... 6Purpose and Intent of RecQuest Phase I ........................................................................7Background Data .............................................................................................................8

Internal MPRB Data ............................................................................................................................ 8Data From Other Agencies ................................................................................................................ 8Background Data Additional Information ........................................................................................ 8Relationship to Existing Plans .......................................................................................................... 9Alignment with Other MPRB Planning Processes ......................................................................... 10

Evaluation of Existing Conditions ................................................................... 12Facility Tours ................................................................................................................. 13

Summary of Methods ..................................................................................................................... 13Summary of Findings ..................................................................................................................... 13

Demographic Projections ............................................................................................. 20Program Assessment .................................................................................................... 23Trend Analysis ............................................................................................................... 28Level of Service Analysis .............................................................................................. 34Gap Analysis .................................................................................................................. 39

Community Engagement ................................................................................. 42Community Engagement Plan ..................................................................................... 43

Community Engagement Strategy ................................................................................................. 46Communications Plan ................................................................................................... 48Community Engagement Findings .............................................................................. 49

A: Data Request B: Facility Tour Notes C: Demographic Analysis D: Program Assessment E: Trend Analysis F: Level of Service Analysis G: Gap Analysis H: Community Engagement Plan I: Communications Plan J: Notes from Community Engagement Events K: Existing Condition Reports

APPENDIX

4 Phase I Summary Executive Summary

Executive Summary

The Minneapolis Park System is one of the most dynamic and beloved park systems in the country. Its recreation centers have played a central role in its success, providing social hubs and engaging residents in meaningful play throughout the year. They are the setting for activities that promote health, build skills, and unite families and communities. They are deeply valued by citizens and have become part of the individual and collective memory of Minneapolis residents.

But they are not static entities, either as physical structures or as programs. Many of the buildings are three, four, or five decades old and nearing the end of their useful lives. Over those same years, the communities they serve have changed, recreation trends have changed, operational needs have changed, and all of those changes have a direct impact on how recreation centers are used, programmed and operated now and in the next three, four, or five decades.

RecQuest provides the community and MPRB staff with an opportunity to collaboratively and directly address the changing nature of the recreation center system. The first phase of this project, as represented in this report, carefully examines the existing system and assesses recreation needs. The next phase of the project will then re-imagine the future of Minneapolis’ recreation centers. It is a tremendous opportunity to provide a vision and achievable outcomes for the

community that will impact residents for many years to come.

In the Introduction of this report, the purpose and intent of the Phase 1 report is briefly outlined in order to clarify the position of the report relative to the project as a whole. Next, the project is shown in the context of previous and ongoing planning efforts. It also describes the extensive data search that was conducted to build a strong foundation for the project as a whole. This contextual and background information is provided to help support the findings described in the Evaluation of Existing Conditions, and to ensure that later planning efforts can share the benefits of the extensive work done to gather all this data in one location.

The Evaluation of Existing Conditions provides a snapshot of both the physical condition of facilities and the current state of the programs provided by the MPRB. Over the course of a week, every facility in the system was visited, photographed, and described in terms of both physical condition and programming. At most locations, staff and sometimes users were present to share their perspectives on the facility function. Findings from this tour suggest that the recreation centers are well cared for, but some key maintenance and accessibility improvements are needed, as well as some cosmetic and technological upgrades.


Executive Summary

Of course, recreation centers are about much more than the buildings that house them. This report describes current demographics across the system which are dramatically different from when most of the centers were built. The community is more diverse and older than it was several decades ago, though it is still younger than the broader region. The demographic study also explores the economic conditions affecting families across the city and how those conditions may change how residents use the recreation center system.

The Program Assessment provides an overview of existing recreation programming services. It briefly summarizes MPRB’s recreation vision, programming services, targeted service groups, program access, costs, and partnerships. It includes preliminary findings regarding recreation programming or factors that influence recreation programming, operations and services. This information provides a foundation for the later assessment of community recreation needs. Findings note that the MPRB provides a variety of recreation programs, events and services for a diverse constituency. In most cases, recreation staff are highly adept and efficient at maximizing resources to provide indoor and outdoor programming responding to local needs. A decentralized system and challenges in funding, staffing, facility infrastructure, and other resources influences the types of programming that is provided.

The Trend Analysis seeks to set local perspectives about recreation needs and desires in a national context. By understanding the increasing interest in certain activities relative to others and by revealing new activities that may be just emerging elsewhere, we can anticipate changes that might happen in Minneapolis. This analysis shows us that investments in teen programs, fitness, education, and other programs that support health and serve a diverse population may be smart choices.

The Level of Service Analysis is to understand how well the MPRB system is meeting the needs of the residents as it exists today and how these services are being delivered. It is clear that Minneapolis has a higher amount of recreation facilities per capita than average for other major U.S. cities, and refining tactics involved with funding, strategically developed administration, marketing, staffing, an innovative approach to facility maintenance, and more are imperative to successfully delivering the services of the MPRB system to the residents.

The Gap Analysis analyses the programs and activities being offered in the MPRB facilities. Through a sampling of 4,000 programs, activities, and classes currently offered, it was assessed that youth programs and sports dominate the program offerings, while there is a gap in the amount of programming for seniors and activities such as fitness or arts that could be offered in the facilities.

The Community Engagement portion of this report describes the efforts currently underway to develop a clear understanding of how the community views the recreation center system. This has been a unique process, both in its comprehensive goals for engaging people throughout the entire system, as well as its commitment to reaching a diverse population with an inclusive process. During Phase 1, the community engagement process used intercept events, neighborhood meetings (conducted in concert with Closing the Gap), results of a citywide survey of residents, and listening sessions conducted by Voices for Racial Justice and Hope Communities as part of a Racial Equity Impact Assessment (REIA).

Key findings from the first phase of the engagement process indicate that recreation centers are very important to the community and generally positively received, but there are opportunities to improve the variety and cost of programming, the condition of facilities, and enhance the sense of inclusiveness. In later phases, other tools such as workshops, questionnaires, interviews, and focus groups will help develop a vision for the recreation system’s future.

6 Phase I Summary Introduction

Introduction


Purpose and Intent of RecQuest Phase I

The first phase of the RecQuest project examines the physical and programmatic condition of the recreation facility system as it exists today. Before beginning to imagine the future of the recreation facility system, it is important to set a baseline understanding of how the facilities are currently functioning on a systemic level as well as on a facility-by-facility level.

This assessment sets the context of basic requirements, such as building codes, as well as to national trends, market potential, and demographic factors. However, it goes beyond a simple assessment of how a building looks or whether a program is popular—it also explores how the people who run and use the MPRB’s recreation facilities perceive their current state. In short, this report seeks to answer the question, “What is...?”

In short, this report seeks to answer the

question, “What is...?”


Background Data

There is an extensive amount of existing information related to the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board operations, protocol, strategies, and initiatives. Some of this information only peripherally informs the recreation facility operations, and some pertains specifically to those facilities. The RecQuest team understood the importance of not only understanding the background information, but of obtaining any existing data that relates to or informs the process and goals of the RecQuest project in order to avoid duplicating efforts.

Through the data analysis process, it was realized that the accuracy and consistency of the registration and user data for 2014 used to assess participation in recreation programs and activities was questionable or inaccurate. Because in many cases this data has to be manually entered, there are often instances in which it may appear that there were no participants in even very well-attended events and activities. In discussions with the MPRB, it was advised to still utilize this data for the types of analysis seen in this Phase I report with the understanding that it is known to be inconsistent and should be read in the context of the other evaluation tools used for the RecQuest project. Future RecQuest Phase Summaries will provide recommendations to improve data collection techniques.

Internal MPRB Data

A substantial data request was conducted to gain the fullest possible picture of the current state of the MPRB Recreation Center system (Appendix A). Depending on the contents of the data obtained, this information was used to inform different parts of the RecQuest project. Greater scale planning documents or studies will be used to inform the project process and set the overall goals and outcomes in context, whereas specific information about individual facilities will be used to assess each facility as well as the collective system.

Each recreation facility has relatively complete information relating to the built form, but this information must be supplemented in the RecQuest process with a physical condition analysis. Programming and enrollment information is also available through reports that the MPRB has run on each facility, but aside from subjective estimation there is no analysis of how the programming is impacting or responding to the users of the facilities. In this phase of the RecQuest project, this usage, enrollment, and user data has been analyzed.

In summary, the skeletal form of the facilities exists, and moving through the next phases of the RecQuest project process, a more fleshed out picture of the performance and state of each facility and the system as a whole will begin to emerge.

Data From Other Agencies

Geographic Information System (GIS) and general demographic information was gathered from the City of Minneapolis website as well as the Hennepin County affiliated websites. The GIS data includes, but is not limited to, political boundaries, community boundaries, 311 and police incidents, zoning, transit patterns, walking sheds, and more. Data gathered from Hennepin County affiliated websites includes basic demographic information at the neighborhood level.

GIS data will be helpful in understanding the relationships of the individual recreation facilities within the greater context of overlapping systems. The demographic information (Appendix C) gives us a snapshot for the community served by each recreation center. It is part of a larger demographic study described later in this document.

Background Data Additional Information

Key findings from the background data are explored in the following chapters of this document. The full, comprehensive sets of data supporting the findings of this report are provided in many portions of the appendix, including a complete list of all data requested and received in Appendix A.


Background Data

Figure 1.1 Cover page from relevant MPRB Comprehensive Plan. Source: MPRB Website

Relationship to Existing Plans

A review of related plans was conducted to set the RecQuest project in its planning context (Appendix A). It is important to value the contributions of the community and staff to these documents by building upon them, rather than replicating their work unnecessarily. The review included some documents with a very direct relationship to this effort, such as the MPRB’s “2007-2020 Comprehensive Plan” and David Smith’s report “Parks, Lakes, Trails and So Much More.” Many others inform this project in more oblique ways, but still should be considered as we think about the recreation system as a whole.

A few key findings include:

» Minneapolis Park & Recreation Board 2007-2020 Comprehensive Plan, approved October 2007. Recent research shows that recreation trends in Minneapolis are moving toward non-traditional and self-directed recreation activities, and that health trends are important. This information is relevant to the existing and future programming of recreation centers.

» Intersections, Downtown 2025 Plan, Mpls Downtown Council, 2011. More people living downtown may increase the need for open space and recreation programming, part of which may include recreation centers. To this end, the document specifically mentions the possible re-purposing of the historic Armory building as a University laboratory, recreation center or continuing education building.

» Court Sports Activity Plan (in progress), MPRB. The guidelines for service delivery are based on the demographics of an area, identified community need, and target audience. The focus

is on outdoor court spaces, but still relevant given the relationship between indoor and outdoor recreation programming and the impact outdoor programming has on indoor uses.

» Skate Park Activity Plan (in progress), MPRB. This study’s focus is on outdoor skate parks and related activities, but still relevant given the relationship between indoor and outdoor recreation programming and the impact outdoor programming has on indoor uses.

» Urban Agriculture Activity Plan, MPRB 2014. The focus of this plan is on outdoor food growing spaces and bee keeping, but some of these sites overlap with the Rec Quest study area, and the interior spaces may become host to markets and places of education/exchange for this program.

» SW Light Rail Transit and Bottineau Transitway (in progress). New transportation options may affect park and recreation center usage by increasing the connectivity of people across the city.

» “Parks, Lakes, Trails and So Much More,” David Smith, MPRB 2008. This report chronicles the

history of each MPRB park, providing an overview of each of the MPRB properties. This is a very relevant document as it includes information on recreational facilities constructed in some of the parks, important dates for each park, and the philosophy behind the construction of some facilities.

» Capital Improvement Program: https://www.minneapolisparks.org/about_us/budget__financial/capital_improvement_program/. For a comprehensive and up to date listing of all Capital Improvements to MPRB regional and neighborhood/community parks, please see the CIP web page.

» Met Council Park Use Among Communities of Color, Metropolitan Council, 2014. Though this study addresses regional parks in particular, the results could be helpful for all parks in the MPRB system in terms of increasing diversity and access. Its results should be taken into consideration for the RecQuest project.

» MetCouncil Thrive MSP 2040 forecasts: http://metrocouncil.org/Data-and-Maps/Data/Census-Forecasts-Estimates.aspx. Minneapolis is expected to add the most households, and both Minneapolis

Comprehensive PlanMinneapolis Park & Recreation Board

2007 – 2020Approved October 17, 2007

Comprehensive PlanMinneapolis Park & Recreation Board

2007 – 2020Approved October 17, 2007


Background Data

and St. Paul will be leaders in employment by 2040. This affects RecQuest in that more people may be living and working in Minneapolis by 2040, and thus may be using recreation centers in greater numbers.

» 2015 Annual Budget Report: http://www.minneapolisparks.org/default.asp?PageID=768. This budget points to the gap between available resources and the demands on the park system, including an increase in park attendance and usage, and desire for enhanced programs and services. This specifically includes recreation centers and programs, and youth development services. Changes to recreation center hours are suggested.

» ADA Transition Plan and Self Evaluation: https://www.minneapolisparks.org/park_care__improvements/park_projects/current_projects/ada_transition_plan_and_self-evaluation/. This newly completed evaluation of all recreation facilities addresses necessary and recommended improvements to facilities that are not fully accessible to all users.

Though these plans contain information that generally relates to recreation centers, there are no existing plans that evaluate in detail the condition, usage, programming, and future needs of recreation centers operated by the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board.

Alignment with Other MPRB Planning Processes

RecQuest is one part of a multi-faceted planning, community engagement, and community education effort currently being conducted by the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board (MPRB). Following the direction set by its “2007-2020 Comprehensive Plan,” the MPRB is seeking to get a more complete picture

of the current state of the system as a whole. It is conducting a master planning process for each of the five service areas, beginning with the Downtown and South Service Areas in 2015 and following with the other service areas in 2017, 2018, and 2019.

In parallel, the board recently conducted a public education and engagement campaign called “Closing the Gap,” which sought to update the community on the funding situation affecting their neighborhood parks and at the same time gathering feedback on priorities for maintenance and improvement. Together with RecQuest, these efforts will allow the Board to evaluate their current investments, prioritize future investments, and seek new funding sources as needed. This is an unprecedented opportunity to imagine the future of Minneapolis’ parks and recreation as a whole.

Because these efforts are occurring concurrently, but are addressing separate issues and geographic areas, it is important to understand the relationships of each to the RecQuest project. The Downtown Service Area Master Plan (DSAMP) is being conducted in concert with the City of Minneapolis Community Planning and Economic Development (CPED) Long Range Planning Department as part of “Pathways to Places.” The goal of this coordinated project is to imagine a complete system for the public realm in Minneapolis, including parks, plazas, streets, and other spaces. The DSAMP project has focused on exploring the goals for Downtown parks, which may be somewhat different from typical neighborhood parks, though of course they must still serve Downtown neighborhoods in meaningful ways. The project is also exploring the possibility of new parks or other methods for delivering recreation services to the rapidly growing residential community of Downtown. The DSAMP

project recognizes the role of recreation centers in this system and is closely coordinated with the RecQuest project to ensure they share goals and outcomes.

The South Service Area Master Plan (SSAMP) has engaged in an intense series of meetings and open houses with the many neighborhoods served by the 30 independent neighborhood parks and 2 neighborhood parks within a regional park in that portion of the city. This project has focused on understanding what outdoor facilities are most valued by community members and which are in need of maintenance or improvement. It is also exploring the availability of valued outdoor facilities by users. Like RecQuest and DSAMP, this project is based on an extensive exploration of community demographics, recreation trends, market potential, facility condition, and community need. This project is also setting goals for the Service Area as a whole and creating or updating master plans for each of the parks. The South Service Area is probably more similar than the Downtown Service Area to the remaining three service areas and it is therefore most predictive of how the subsequent planning efforts will be conducted.

Compared to the service area master plans and RecQuest, Closing the Gap (CTG) is a unique effort, although it was also conducted in close coordination with those efforts. It was primarily focused on helping residents understand the current funding needs and gaps affecting the parks they use and love. MPRB Staff conducted meetings in all parts of the city over the summer of 2015 and the fall of 2015. At those meetings, information was provided about the status of the park and recreation system as a whole and the specific status of the park or parks in that area. After this context-setting presentation, participants


Background Data

were asked to work in small groups to explore issues with the existing facilities and programs and to set priorities for future opportunities. They were also asked to reflect on possible funding sources and their willingness to contribute to future investments in their parks.

Figure 1.2 Page illustrating a park Analysis page from South Service Area Master Plan project. Source: South Service Area Master Plan

Figure 1.3 Page describing project motivators from the Downtown Service Area Master Plan project. Source: Downtown Service Area Master Plan

Figure 1.4 Lively community conversation during a Closing the Gap meeting Figure 1.5 Community engagement event during a Closing the Gap meeting

Open Schedule Firm ScheduleFlexibility + Time

Large ScaleIntimate

Scale/Size of Group

Wild Manicured

No Kids Kids

Unstructured Organized

Low Level High Level

Paid Events + Amenities Free Events + Amenities

1/4 Mile Radius

5 SRF LHB MIG Minneapolis Park & Recreation Board Downtown Service Area Master PlanCity of Minneapolis CPED Downtown Public Realm Framework Plan

x

Description Public Space Program

Primary Modifiers

Learning

Indoor Space Water-Oriented RecreationMaking Art + Music

Bird/Wildlife Watching Gardens, Gardening + Urban Agriculture

This motivation is about the desire to explore new environments and learn new things. For a person with this motivation, parks provide a setting for learning about the natural world, history and culture. They choose to pursue this goal in a park, rather than in another setting, because of the availability of natural and interpretive elements, they appreciate the benefits of being outdoors, and they seek the programming provided by the park system.

Explore/LearnMOTIVATOR

Nature

Kids

Level of Structure

Level of Social Interaction

Willingness/Ability to PayH

IGH

APP

RO

VAL

LOW

APP

RO

VAL

LONGFELLOW PARK

COMMENTS:Maintenance Improvements (4): Weeds. Grass care. Cleaning. Replacing broken things.

Suggestions (6): Dog park. Better lighting at night. More natural/native areas could be educational for children (ex. children’s butterfly garden). More trees/vegetation/shade. Volleyball. Skate park.

General Comments (1): Grills in the NW corner get heavily used in the summer.

= LIKED/ENJOYED

= NEEDS IMPROVEMENTS

-6

+16

WALKING PATHS

Comments (2): Bike trail improvements along 35th St. Add Bike trail for kids separate from walkers and dogs.

-5

+12

MULTI-USE FIELDS

BASEBALL/SOFTBALL FIELDS

-5

+5

REC CENTER

-17

+5

Comments (2): Restroom Improvements. Add a door along north side of building to better access the playground.

BASKETBALL

-18

+7

Comments (3): Full Court. Remove trees north for better visibility and keep one kids size hoop. Southern edge of court has a steep drop-off.

TENNIS COURTS

-5

+18

Comments (1): New Nets.

-5

+11

PICNIC AREA

Comments (1): More Picnic Tables.

PLAYGROUND

-9

+28

Comments (6): More equipment/Bigger playground. Newer equipment. No sand - use rubber instead. More toddler friendly. Bigger tire swing. Gymnastic team likes using monkey bars for practice - keep

-22

+19

WADING POOL

Comments (2): Bigger/Deeper Pool. Updated Pool with Zero-Depth Entry.

PLAYGROUND

TENNIS COURTS

WALKING PATHS

+28

+18

+16

-9

-5

-6

MULTI-USE FIELDS

RECREATION CENTER

WADING POOL

BASKETBALL

PICNIC AREA

BASEBALL/SOFTBALL

+12

+5

+19

+7

+11

+5

-5

-17

-22

-18

-5

-5

HIG

H A

PPR

OVA

LLO

W A

PPR

OVA

L

LONGFELLOW PARK

COMMENTS:Maintenance Improvements (4): Weeds. Grass care. Cleaning. Replacing broken things.

Suggestions (6): Dog park. Better lighting at night. More natural/native areas could be educational for children (ex. children’s butterfly garden). More trees/vegetation/shade. Volleyball. Skate park.

General Comments (1): Grills in the NW corner get heavily used in the summer.

= LIKED/ENJOYED

= NEEDS IMPROVEMENTS

-6

+16

WALKING PATHS

Comments (2): Bike trail improvements along 35th St. Add Bike trail for kids separate from walkers and dogs.

-5

+12

MULTI-USE FIELDS

BASEBALL/SOFTBALL FIELDS

-5

+5

REC CENTER

-17

+5

Comments (2): Restroom Improvements. Add a door along north side of building to better access the playground.

BASKETBALL

-18

+7

Comments (3): Full Court. Remove trees north for better visibility and keep one kids size hoop. Southern edge of court has a steep drop-off.

TENNIS COURTS

-5

+18

Comments (1): New Nets.

-5

+11

PICNIC AREA

Comments (1): More Picnic Tables.

PLAYGROUND

-9

+28

Comments (6): More equipment/Bigger playground. Newer equipment. No sand - use rubber instead. More toddler friendly. Bigger tire swing. Gymnastic team likes using monkey bars for practice - keep

-22

+19

WADING POOL

Comments (2): Bigger/Deeper Pool. Updated Pool with Zero-Depth Entry.

PLAYGROUND

TENNIS COURTS

WALKING PATHS

+28

+18

+16

-9

-5

-6

MULTI-USE FIELDS

RECREATION CENTER

WADING POOL

BASKETBALL

PICNIC AREA

BASEBALL/SOFTBALL

+12

+5

+19

+7

+11

+5

-5

-17

-22

-18

-5

-5

12 Phase I Summary Evaluation of Existing Conditions

Evaluation of Existing ConditionsThe summary of findings from the existing conditions evaluation will directly influence many portions of the project. Being able to speak from firsthand account of spending time at the facilities in each community and interacting with staff, the RecQuest team will be able to dig deeper with grounded conversation to inform the greater vision of the project. Further, understanding the physical condition of each facility helps the consultant team make realistic evaluations and recommendations of what is feasible for the MPRB to budget for when considering improvements.


Facility Tours

Summary of Methods

Over the course of one week in May 2015, the consultant team was taken on a tour of the existing recreation facilities by staff at the MPRB. Observations such as the physical condition of the structures and the method of operations were taken as walking conversations were had with facility managers (see Appendix B).

Summary of Findings

This overview of recreation center facilities is an attempt to distill the observations made in May 2015 of the building conditions of more than 48 operational sites. In most cases, the site supervisors were present at the review, facilitating discussions on the various conditions encountered. The discussion that follows seeks to generalize and compare the conditions observed. As the photographs and notes from the days in the field were compiled and

digitized, it became clear that the MPRB recreation facility system is complex and extensive, but there are many themes that repeated from site to site that we have categorized in the narrative.

Site Observations

The general site observations were evaluated based on the impression received of the exterior approach to the recreation facilities. Parking, accessibility and visibility, and the quality of grounds keeping are typical first impression observations that every user of the facility may take in and are important to the overall impression of the facility.

» Facility Parking: Parking at sites ranges from no parking at very urban locations to adequate at other sites. The spaces are generally paved with most sites using an aged bituminous surface. Parking generally is located near facilities.

» Grade access to building: Almost all sites have grade access to the front door at 5% or less slopes.

» Landscaping and curb appeal: This varies from more or less barren on some sites to more well-kept planting beds and well-manicured plant material on other sites. The exterior grounds management seemed somewhat dependent on the overall site management.

» Ability to monitor site activities: Most buildings were constructed with a very opaque approach to viewing the site from outside of the facility. It is difficult to tell if the building is open or what type of activities are taking place inside. Other facilities have more of an open feel and allow some permeability between the interior and exterior.

Plan Layout Observations

Many of the recreation facilities share common interior elements and follow a similar model of types of spaces. The layout of these elements differs by facility which impacts the general ease of visibility, use, and flexibility. The era of facility construction or major renovation has a great impact on the layout of each facility, with older facilities exhibiting the most


Facility Tours

Figure 1.7 Typical full kitchen in a facility

Figure 1.6 Example of a typical ADA friendly central desk in a facility

similar model of layout and newer facilities showing a greater range of layout.

» Central desk: All facilities have a central desk location. The newer model of desk has a drop down area for accessibility needs as well as capacity to utilize newer technology at the front desk. This is one area where almost all desks needed to be redesigned and rebuilt for better use, as technology and curb appeal are imperative for the proper function of a front desk in a system that caters to users with accessibility needs and also utilizes newer technology to run registration systems. Some facilities have been modified by abandoning the large older desks built with casework elements and have placed an updated freestanding desk for the staff behind the original desk. Visibility from the desks of the various interior spaces varied from those at a central “hub and spoke” sort of array to those where the plan layout afforded only partial views. Renovation and relocation of the central desk may be in order for some of those conditions.

» Toilets: Approximately half of the facilities have the old style accessibility toilet stalls and the other half appear to be in good compliance with newer requirements. Some sites have outside restrooms or at least shared capacity to use the same restrooms from outside or inside. The exterior access to facility restrooms is popular where available, but in some locations this access has been blocked.

» Kitchens: All sites have some form of kitchen whether it is a strip type in a multi-purpose room, or a larger version that has access to the multi-purpose room. In several instances, a second kitchen

is often adjacent to the gym space and was found to be redundant and not used as much as the main kitchen space. Few kitchens are NSF rated stainless steel equipped as most are more residential in nature with plastic laminated surfaces.

» Gymnasiums: This additional space varied in sizes but typically utilize a high school sized court as the basic space determinant. Natural day light from clerestory plastic panels improved the overall lighting and enhanced the gym space experience.

» Obsolete spaces: In older facilities, some spaces that are no longer needed include locker shower rooms, some warming rooms and second kitchens.

» Flexible uses: Spaces that endure the changing decades include the multi-purpose rooms, kitchens, meeting rooms, lounges, gymnasiums, and crafts rooms.

» View and transparency: Newer facilities have a more open view to the central desk and surrounding areas, whereas older facilities often have a more tucked-away location. The visibility of the desk in these older facilities can be improved somewhat with additional windows or other retrofitting options. Improving transparency should be a long term objective.

» Storage needs: As expected, site managers consistently noted the lack of storage space in most facilities. Some sites are re-purposing out buildings or restrooms/locker rooms for extra storage needs. As a typical example, one new site had a well done multi-purpose room but no space to store the tables and chairs that were needed. Lack of storage space


Facility Tours

Figure 1.9 Typical roof system with a steeply sloped roof

Figure 1.8 Typical masonry exterior with small windows

reduces the flexibility of high potential spaces, and increasing storage space at facilities should be a general long term objective.

» Expansion capability: All sites should have some expansion capacity as a planning strategy. Most facilities can expand, and expansion in a planned modular approach would appear to be most practical. The most likely major addition in some facilities would be to add a gymnasium where none exists.

Building Envelope Conditions

As the skeleton of these facilities, the physical condition of the building envelope is imperative to study and understand. The envelope conditions are both structural and aesthetic, and could carry significant cost where improvements are necessary. The observable conditions of the building envelopes were assessed to the extent possible without removing portions of the structure to observe hidden conditions.

» Structural: With the exception of the Longfellow building, no glaring structural conditions of note were encountered. At the Longfellow facility, the glue laminated beams are deteriorated significantly and need immediate and swift attention.

» Roofs: A large percentage of low sloped roofs are covered with EPDM membrane roofing material. While a good choice for commercial buildings with a short horizon, the amount of leak complaints and the relatively short lived nature of this material make it

less than ideal for implementation on the recreation facilities. A gravel ballast built up roof membrane is a better long term and robust roof system to use for these conditions. Where steep sloped roofs are present, the wood shingles have held up but are evidencing leakage at several sites, especially after the high snow impact of two years ago. Laminated asphalt shingles appear to be performing well and are a suitable alternative to wood shingles and thinner three tab type asphalt shingles.

» Walls: Exterior walls are commonly masonry with accent materials such as wood shingles, wood siding, or metal panels. The wood materials are showing deterioration and should be phased out. Little to no graffiti was observed. The continuation of masonry materials would seem prudent if a consistent look is desired within the system. Insulation levels were not investigated but there are facilities that likely have little insulation and need upgrades.

» Windows and Doors: For the most part, aluminum framed windows and doors are enduring, especially those with heavier profiles. The glazing showed remarkably little breakage or the breakage was immediately repaired. Facilities with a lot of glass appear to be showing little signs of breakage, thus suggesting that notions of small windows for such facilities are unfounded and greater permeability could be achieved with more space devoted to windows. Doors at some facilities had hollow metal framing which while functional, does not provide good energy performance.


Facility Tours

Figure 1.11 Outdated materials and obvious wear and tear is a common sight in many facilities

Figure 1.10 This example of a non-ADA compliant toilet stall is not an uncommon sight in the system

Accessibility Observations

Although it is not in the scope of the RecQuest project to complete a full ADA assessment of the recreation facilities, this important aspect of ensuring the facilities are serving all users as equally as possible was not overlooked. A general assessment of the ADA impression for general facility use is provided.

» Site to building: The grade to the main building doors in the various sites appears to meet slope requirements. The required ramps may be in various conditions but the basics are in place.

» Front doors: Approximately half of the front doors have button activated openers.

» Central desk: Approximately 2/3rds of the central desks do not have a lowered accessible counter portion.

» Toilets: Approximately half of the toilets do not have current space requirements for lateral transfer at the water closets. The other half appear to be up to current space and grab bar standards.

Interiors

The interior of the facilities receive daily wear and tear by users and staff. This usage affects the appearance and condition of materials, whether by a high amount of use or by use over time. The interior materials were also assessed by quality of materials and aesthetic of materials, as these factors impact the impression of each facility by the users.

» Materials conditions: Many materials within the facilities are decades old and have worn out either by heavy use or degradation over time. Visually, the majority of the interiors need to be updated to more current interior trends, colors, and materials.

» Flooring: The flooring in the facilities is comprised mostly of hard tile type materials. Vinyl composition tile material is typically showing the most wear and tear.

» Walls: Most walls are comprised of concrete masonry units and have performed well when the paint is maintained.

» Ceilings: Of particular note is the 12 inch by 12 inch Z-spline ceiling tile that is no longer produced and shows wear easily.

» Doors: While a mixture of materials between facilities, hollow metal frames have performed well as have wood and hollow metal doors.

Mechanical Systems Observations

Properly functioning and full service mechanical systems are crucial to quality interior space, ensuring safe and healthy building conditions. Up to date HVAC systems provide thermal comfort and acceptable interior air quality. System controls allow specific adjustment of indoor comfort levels. Proper plumbing function is hygienic, and if the system is up to date it can conserve water. Fire extinguishing systems ensure safety for the staff and users of the facilities. In general, a holistically up to date and


Facility Tours

functioning mechanical system protects resources and facilitates efficiently functioning structures.

» HVAC: Most systems are comprised of multiple gas fired furnaces with only about half of the systems capable of providing air conditioning in the facilities. Overall, many units appear to be well past their functional end dates.

» System controls: The system is centrally controlled. While site supervisors recognize the wisdom in this system, they often complain about the lack of flexibility and of hot or cold spots in their buildings.

» Plumbing: Most plumbing fixtures are in line with the building vintage with not much in the way of water saving or automatically functioning installations.

» Automatic fire extinguisher: Sprinkler coverage is evident in some buildings but is not universal. Most buildings are rather simple in plan and of non-combustible materials suggesting that this strategy could continue with minimum loss.

Electrical Systems Observations

Along with mechanical systems, properly functioning electrical systems contribute to the comfort, safety, and usability of the facilities. Up to date electrical systems directly relate to cost saving and energy efficiency.

» Power: Most sites have a simple power distribution pattern that reflects the age of the facility and thus likely need upgrading.

» Lighting: Generally comprised of T-8 or similar fluorescent lighting, the systems should be methodically updated to LED fixtures and photo/occupant controlled switching.

» Egress and Emergency: Generally present but should be reviewed and augmented for better coverage.

Technology and Security

The Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board system uses digital technology to track users and user data. In order to ensure proper data is being collected, and that programs are efficiently organized and ran, these tools should be available to all staff expected to contribute to the system.

» Data: Most facilities require better service to the central desk areas. Further, a more widespread distribution of digital technology across the facilities would improve space use flexibility.

» Security cameras: Security cameras seem to be present only in sites that have exhibited the need for additional surveillance above the daily capacity of the staff. The long term strategy should be to eventually equip all sites with security camera coverage.

Energy Utilization Issues

Building energy utilization is a relatively easy way to measure the performance of a structure and assess whether it is as efficient as it could be. Aside from the

below system-wide assessments, a graph on each facility’s Existing Condition Report (see Appendix K and Figure 1.13) compares each individual facility’s energy performance to a B3 Benchmark Performance based on ASHRAE/IESNA standards for a modern building constructed to the same layout.

Many facilities are dated from the 70’s and 80’s and thus likely do not have insulation levels within the roofs and walls to meet modern codes, inherently rendering the structures more inefficient as they could or should be. When considering updating, re-roofing would provide a good opportunity to upgrade the structural insulation, bearing in mind that the masonry wall retrofitting is an expensive alternative.

There are a few additional opportunities for improvements, including window upgrades, AHU replacement, lighting fixture and lighting control sensor upgrades, rooftop renewable power generation addition, possible ground source system installation for heating and cooling, and air barrier testing or tightening.


Facility Tours

Recommendations and Critical Conditions

One note of critical concern is the potential for structural collapse of the older portion of the Longfellow facility due to decaying glue laminated wood beams. The continued failure of the numerous EPDM roof membranes suggest that an aggressive review and patching program system-wide is necessary with a complete replacement program being preferred. Accessibility issues in each site should be further analyzed and strategically scheduled based on State of Minnesota Code priorities. Security camera upgrades should be made to those sites without a security camera system.

Areas of generally good condition:

» Graffiti control

» Overall cleanliness and maintenance

» Robust wall and interiors material selection

Areas of generally fair to poor condition:

» Gas fired furnace systems

» Air conditioning

» Central desk

» EPDM and wood shingle roof systems

» Energy efficiency

» Accessibility to toilets and central desks

» Security systems

Final Overall Assessment

Most of the facilities should be considered for continued use except where the building and programmatic needs are wildly divergent or the building condition and layout are very poor such as Longfellow. The assessments made in this physical facility overview have been distilled on a facility-by-facility basis in each facility’s Existing Condition

Report (see Appendix K and Figure 1.12). The gauge graphic considers the most glaring issues or concerns at each facility and assesses the condition of the facility based on these observations. A lifeline of each facility can also be found on the Existing Condition Report for easy comparison of where the building is at in its usable life compared to the condition it is assessed to be in and the performance of the efficiency of the building.

As mentioned in the Introduction, there are repeating themes from site to site such as:

» Generally high levels of daily maintenance observed with little or no graffiti, broken windows, unkempt appearance, etc. evidenced in the facilities.

» Extensive re-roofing challenges for the facilities, especially those of low slope surfaced with EPDM materials and steep sloped roofs using wood shingles and thinner three tab type asphalt shingles.

» Improved accessibility needs, especially for upgraded toilet rooms, button activated doors, and


Facility Tours

“You only get one chance to make a first impression”At-A-Glance Emerging Themes from the Community Engagement Process

» High levels of daily maintenance are evident

» Re-roofing is required for many facilities

» Accessibility improvements are needed

» Transparency into and through centers can be enhanced

» HVAC system improvements could improve efficiency and comfort

» Interior renovations and technology improvements are needed

» Central desk improvements would make centers more welcoming and functional

» Parking lot pavement replacements are needed

central desk access points.

» Transparency and visibility throughout the facilities can be improved in what are largely opaque plan layouts and older notions of how to construct robust centers. This issue is tied to the security systems presence and increasing Safe from Harm needs. Newer facilities prove the case for the improved view and glass options.

» HVAC systems upgrades should occur at most sites to improve energy efficiency, integrate air conditioning, and replace obsolete equipment. There are virtually no renewable energy systems in any of the facilities, and the large sites offer opportunities for ground source heating and cooling system installations that should be considered. While natural gas powered equipment is efficient at the moment, it may well serve to broaden the portfolio of energy sources at the various facilities to reduce the singular dependence on gas.

» The interior finish materials, lighting, power outlet distribution and technology wiring are typically very behind the times in most facilities, suggesting a complete interior renovation package approach to effect the needed changes.

» “You only get one chance to make a first impression,” and often this is made at the Central Desk. Most of these should be redesigned for accessibility, technology, security and ergonomic factors.

» Replacement of the parking lot pavement is needed at most facilities. Portions of parking area should consider the use of permeable pavers.

Figure 1.12 Sample physical condition analysis gauge graphic illustrating a snapshot condition level of a recreation facility

Figure 1.13 Sample building energy data performance graph comparing the facility’s energy use to the B3 benchmark

Evaluation of Existing Conditions - Armatage Recreation Center

15+85+O 35+29+27+9+O25+975=

570+430

=

105.34

101.70

0 50 100 150 200228+772=

Funding needed through 2040: $2,013,151 projected

Funding needed through 2020: $753,997

Funding allocated: $459,945 projected

Funding allocated: $18,962

Funding gap: ($735,035)

Funding gap: ($1,553,206) projected

6 Demographic information provided by 2008-2012 American Community Survey 5-year estimates.

2 Total outdoor use includes reserved use only, and not all park uses.

3 Figures taken from Closing the Gap data; includes only recreation center funding only and does not include any other amenity within the park. See the MPRB 2015 Closing the Gap report for more information.

1 This data is known to be inconsistent and should be read in the context of the other evaluation tools used for the RecQuest project. Future RecQuest Phase Summaries will provide recommendations to improve data collection techniques.

$93,488.00

$50,563.00

$- $20,000 $40,000 $60,000 $80,000 $100,000

1

City of Minneapolis Neighborhood

Median Income of Neighborhood 6

Facility Funding3

15% of total annual available hours for indoor reservation are

being used

Total Annual Attendees of

Reserved Events both Indoor

and Outdoor: 38,127

Amount of Indoor

Attendees from Total Annual

Reserved Events: 21,772

Zip Codes of Activity Attendees1

Bold zip code indicates zip code the facility is located within. See “Minneapolis Area Zip Codes” map in Appendix K for zip code locations

55419

55407

55410

Other

Population of Neighborhood6

Am. Indian

Asian

Black

Hispanic

White

Other

0% 35%

3%

88%

3% 8%

0% 27%

2% 29%

Neighborhood

Indoor Rooms:

Park Name

Amenities and Use Information1

Service Area Southwest

Address 2500 W 57th StMinneapolis, MN 55410

Armatage

Year Facility Built 1977

Armatage Park

Craft RoomGymKitchenLoungeMeeting Rooms (2)Multipurpose Room

7,097 FT2Square Footage of Building

4Actual energy consumption compared to the expected B3 Benchmark energy consumption.5 B3 Benchmark performance data based on ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1 2004 standards. kBtu/SF/Yr = thousands of British thermal units per square foot per year (a standard unit of measuring the energy use intensity of a building).

Building Energy Performance4

Benchmark kBtu/SF/Yr5

Facility Actual kBtu/SF/Yr

88% 55%

0%

12% 45%

Gender of Activity Attendees1

Male

Female

Did Not Report

Tenure of Neighborhood6

Renters

Owners

Age Groups of Neighborhood 6

<18

18-64

65+ 12%

67% 4%

21% 96%

Age Groups of Activity Attendees1

>18 Youth

18+ Adults

1978 20282015

50 Year Facility Lifespan

Facility physical condition analysis is based on field observations and facility supervisor interviews conducted as part of the RecQuest Phase I process. Please see Appendix B for detailed information on individual facilities.

Facility Annual Drop-In Users (20141): 511 people

Facility Annual Activity Registration Total (20141): 2,946 people

Building Condition Analysis

Good condition

Moderate condition

Poor condition

2

2

(NO MAJOR RENOVATIONS)

Evaluation of Existing Conditions - Armatage Recreation Center

15+85+O 35+29+27+9+O25+975=

570+430

=

105.34

101.70

0 50 100 150 200228+772=

Funding needed through 2040: $2,013,151 projected

Funding needed through 2020: $753,997

Funding allocated: $459,945 projected

Funding allocated: $18,962

Funding gap: ($735,035)

Funding gap: ($1,553,206) projected

6 Demographic information provided by 2008-2012 American Community Survey 5-year estimates.

2 Total outdoor use includes reserved use only, and not all park uses.

3 Figures taken from Closing the Gap data; includes only recreation center funding only and does not include any other amenity within the park. See the MPRB 2015 Closing the Gap report for more information.

1 This data is known to be inconsistent and should be read in the context of the other evaluation tools used for the RecQuest project. Future RecQuest Phase Summaries will provide recommendations to improve data collection techniques.

$93,488.00

$50,563.00

$- $20,000 $40,000 $60,000 $80,000 $100,000

1

City of Minneapolis Neighborhood

Median Income of Neighborhood 6

Facility Funding3

15% of total annual available hours for indoor reservation are

being used

Total Annual Attendees of

Reserved Events both Indoor

and Outdoor: 38,127

Amount of Indoor

Attendees from Total Annual

Reserved Events: 21,772

Zip Codes of Activity Attendees1

Bold zip code indicates zip code the facility is located within. See “Minneapolis Area Zip Codes” map in Appendix K for zip code locations

55419

55407

55410

Other

Population of Neighborhood6

Am. Indian

Asian

Black

Hispanic

White

Other

0% 35%

3%

88%

3% 8%

0% 27%

2% 29%

Neighborhood

Indoor Rooms:

Park Name

Amenities and Use Information1

Service Area Southwest

Address 2500 W 57th StMinneapolis, MN 55410

Armatage

Year Facility Built 1977

Armatage Park

Craft RoomGymKitchenLoungeMeeting Rooms (2)Multipurpose Room

7,097 FT2Square Footage of Building

4Actual energy consumption compared to the expected B3 Benchmark energy consumption.5 B3 Benchmark performance data based on ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1 2004 standards. kBtu/SF/Yr = thousands of British thermal units per square foot per year (a standard unit of measuring the energy use intensity of a building).

Building Energy Performance4

Benchmark kBtu/SF/Yr5

Facility Actual kBtu/SF/Yr

88% 55%

0%

12% 45%

Gender of Activity Attendees1

Male

Female

Did Not Report

Tenure of Neighborhood6

Renters

Owners

Age Groups of Neighborhood 6

<18

18-64

65+ 12%

67% 4%

21% 96%

Age Groups of Activity Attendees1

>18 Youth

18+ Adults

1978 20282015

50 Year Facility Lifespan

Facility physical condition analysis is based on field observations and facility supervisor interviews conducted as part of the RecQuest Phase I process. Please see Appendix B for detailed information on individual facilities.

Facility Annual Drop-In Users (20141): 511 people

Facility Annual Activity Registration Total (20141): 2,946 people

Building Condition Analysis

Good condition

Moderate condition

Poor condition

2

2

(NO MAJOR RENOVATIONS)


Demographic Projections

Demographic Overview

Minneapolis has experienced dramatic shifts in its demographics since the 1950s, from 1.6% of the population identified as non-white to roughly 36% identified as non-white in 2010. An analysis of the shifting demographic landscape is needed in order to capture the existing and projected needs of the community as the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board gears up for the next generation of recreation centers in the city. A demographic overview of the city is presented here to better understand the different populations to be served.

According to the 2009-2013 5-year American Community Survey (ACS) data, the estimated population of Minneapolis in 2013 was 400,070, which would represent a 4.6% increase from the 2010 decennial census. This is slightly more than twice the growth rate of the state as a whole (2.2%). Women account for just under half of the City’s total

population at 49.7%. By age, the City’s breakdown is as charted to the right in Figure 1.15.

According to the 2009-2013 5-year ACS data, just under two-thirds of the population in Minneapolis identifies as white alone (approximately 61%). The full racial composition of Minneapolis is charted to the right in Figure 1.16.

A wide range of demographic data is needed to recognize the more complete picture of the city’s population. A sample of this information, generated from the 2009-2013 American Community Survey 5-year estimate data, is charted in Figure 1.14. While these numbers are just estimates, they provide a reliable baseline for moving forward.

Other City-Wide Demographic Data

Category Measure

Foreign born persons 15.2%

Language other than English spoken at home for population over age 5 20.3%

High school graduate or higher for population over age 25 88.3%

Bachelor’s degree or higher for population over age 25 45.7%

Households 165,438

Median household income $49,885

Persons below poverty level 22.5%

<5 Years

<18 Years

18-65 Years

>65+ Years6+19+68+7+P61+18+2+5+10+4+P

City-Wide Age Distribution

City-Wide Racial Distribution

White

Black

Am. Indian 2%

6%

19%

68%

7%

5%

18%

10%

61%

4%

Asian

Hispanic

Other

Figure 1.14 Other informative pieces of demographic data to consider. Source: 2009-2013 American Community Survey 5-year estimates.

Figure 1.15 Distribution of City-wide age demographics. Source: 2009-2013 American Community Survey 5-year estimates.

Figure 1.16 Distribution of City-wide racial demographics. Source: 2009-2013 American Community Survey 5-year estimates.



Demographics By Service Area

The MPRB has established geographic “service areas” for planning purposes: North, Northeast/Southeast, Downtown, Southwest, and South (see Figure 1.17). Since the distribution of ethnic groups and income levels are not evenly spread across the city, examining the demographic profiles within each of the service areas can provide a more accurate representation of each area’s existing and projected needs. To better understand how this information will look in the future, we will utilize more detailed information and projections available from the United States Census Bureau and the Environmental Systems Research Institute (Figure 1.18).

Population within Minneapolis is projected to increase from 382,599 people to approximately 416,976 people by the year 2020. Consequently, each service area will experience an increase in population, and thus, an increase in demand and use for recreational facilities (see Figure 1.18).

Age and household income influence the level of participation in recreation activities. For example, the lower the median age, the higher the participation rates for most activities. As shown in the table below, there is a trend toward an older median age in all of the service areas through the projections. In addition, typically participation in recreational activities increases as the median income levels increase.

Population, Median Age, and Household Income for Service Areas

Service Area Downtown North Northeast/Southeast South Southwest Minneapolis

2010 Census

Population 25,892 59,970 66,774 126,871 103,089 382,599

Median Age 33.8 29.3 26.5 32.9 33.7 31.4

Household Income* -- -- -- -- -- $49,889**

2015 Projection

Population 28,409 61,637 70,416 131,123 105,943 --

Median Age 34.9 29.9 26.7 34.2 34.6 32.7

Household Income $45,036 $37,164 $40,247 $46,768 $56,087 $46,514

2020 Projection

Population 30,722 64,400 74,411 137,105 110,355 416,976

Median Age 36.0 30.4 27.0 35.1 35.1 33.1

Household Income $55,043 $40,785 $46,168 $53,032 $66,291 $53,487

Figure 1.17 Service area map illustrating the 5 service area model. Source: Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board, 2016

Figure 1.18 Summary of demographic information by service area. Source: United States Census Bureau, 2010; Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI) demographic projections*Household Income information not available by service area for 2010** In 2013 inflation-adjusted dollars

Mi

ss

is

si

pp

iR

iv

er

Lake Calhoun

DiamondLake

WirthLake

GrassLake

TaftLake

Jo Pond

RyanLake

BrownieLake

LoringPond

Lake Harriet

CedarLake

Lake Nokomis

LakeoftheIsles

Mother Lake

LakeHiawatha

Mi

ss

is

si

pp

iR

iv

er

M i n n e ha h a C r e e k

B a s s e t t C r e ek

M i n n e ha h a

C r e e k M i n n e h a h a C r e e k

WebberPond

LakeMead

Mi

ss

i s s i p p i

R i v e r

PowderhornLake

BirchPond

SpringLake

M i n n e h a h a C r e e k

Ba

s s e t tC r e e k

Sh

in

gl

e

Cr

e

ek

§̈¦

§̈¦

§̈¦

§̈¦§̈¦

§̈¦

§̈¦

§̈¦

§̈¦

§̈¦

§̈¦

§̈¦

§̈¦

§̈¦THEODORE WIRTH PARK / PARKWAY

MINNEHAHA PARK

LAKE HIAWATHA GOLF

GROSS GOLF COURSE

COLUMBIA PARK / GOLF

WEST RIVER PARKWAY

FORT SNELLING GOLF / COMPLEX

LAKE NOKOMIS PARK

PARADE PARK

POWDERHORN PARK

LORING PARK

BOSSEN FIELD

BRYN MAWR MEADOWS

EAST RIVER PARKWAY

PEARL PARK

FOLWELL PARK

KENWOOD PARK

RIDGWAY PARKWAY

FARVIEW PARK

SHINGLE CREEK PARK

EDWARD C. SOLOMON PARK

TODD PARK

LOGAN PARK

WAITE PARK

BETHUNE PARK

KENNY PARK

SIBLEY FIELD

MCRAE PARK

BRACKETT FIELD

PEAVEY PARK

PHELPS FIELD

WINDOM PARK

MATTHEWS PARK

AUDUBON PARK

NORTH MISSISSIPPI PARK

VIC

TORY

MEM

OR

IAL

PA

RK

WAY

WEBBER PARK

KIN

GS

HIG

HW

AY

WILLIAM BERRY PARK

MINNEHAHA CREEK PARK / PARKWAY

BASSETT'S CREEK PARK

ST ANTHONY PARKWAY

BOOM ISLAND PARK

ARMATAGE PARK

NORTH COMMONS PARK

LYNDALE FARMSTEAD

KENWOOD PARKWAY

VALLEY VIEW PARK

STIN

SON

PA

RK

WAY

NORTHEAST ATHLETIC FIELD

ST LOUIS PARK CORRIDOR

LONGFELLOW GARDENS

BF NELSON PARK

MARTIN LUTHER KING PARK

ELLIOT PARK

BOHANON PARK

MORRISON PARK

BELTRAMI PARK

PERSHING FIELD

DEAN PARKWAY

MINNEHAHA CREEK PARK

VAN CLEVE PARK

LYNNHURST PARK

HARRISON PARK

STEWART PARK

DEMING HEIGHTS PARK

BOTTINEAU PARK

NICOLLET ISLAND

NICOLLET ISLAND

LONGFELLOW PARK

LINDEN HILLS PARK

CURRIE PARK

LUXTON PARK

SUMNER FIELD

HIVIEW PARK

HALL PARK

LAKE HIAWATHA PARK

HOLMES PARK

MORRIS PARK

CAVELL PARK

EAST PHILLIPS PARK

LIN

DEN

HIL

LS P

AR

KW

AY

SCHERER PROPERTY

ST ANTHONY PARK

JORDAN PARK

OSSEO ROAD PRAIRIE / DOG PARK

BRYANT SQUARE

PERKINS HILL

WHITTIER PARK

GLUEK PARK

HIAWATHA PARK

THE MALL PARK / ROAD

TOWER HILL PARK

MURPHY SQUARE

WASHBURN FAIR OAKS PARK

KEEWAYDIN PARK

PAINTER PARK

MARSHALL TERRACE PARK

FATHER HENNEPIN BLUFFS PARK

MAIN STREET PARK

JACKSON SQUARE

CORCORAN PARK

FULLER PARK

STEVENS SQUARE

VICTORY PARK

UPP

ER R

IVER

WES

T B

AN

K P

AR

K

MPRB HEADQUARTERS

DICKMAN PARK

WAVELAND TRIANGLE

MUELLER PARK

SEVEN OAKS OVAL

GATEWAY PARK

MARCY PARK

EDISON ICE ARENA

LOVELL SQUARE

HUMBOLDT GREENWAY

CENTRAL GYM

PHILLIPS POOL & GYM PARK

DELL PARK

WILLARD PARK

CHUTE SQUARE

CEDAR AVENUE FIELD

GLEN GALE PARK

EDGEWATER PARK

FARWELL PARK

CLEVELAND PARK

PARK SIDING PARK

CLINTON FIELD PARK

SOO LINE GARDEN

THOMAS LOWRY PARK

SHERIDAN MEMORIAL PARK

FRANKLIN STEELE SQUARE

RESERVE BLOCK 40 PARK

28TH STREET TOTLOT

WASHBURN AVENUE TOTLOT

WINDOM SOUTH PARK

BARNES PLACE

ARCHITECT TRIANGLE

COTTAGE PARK

SHOREVIEW & 54TH ST E

NORTHWESTERN BELL PROPERTY

LUCY WILDER MORRIS PARK

ADAMS TRIANGLE

CHERGOSKY PARK

LEVIN TRIANGLE

HUMBOLDT TRIANGLE

ALCOTT TRIANGLE

SMITH TRIANGLE

WEST END TRIANGLE

49TH AVENUE CORRIDOR

2220 / 2128 MARSHALL ST NE

1808 & 1812 MARSHALL ST NE

NEWTON TRIANGLE

NORMANNA TRIANGLE

PIONEER TRIANGLE

WASHINGTON TRIANGLE

IRVING TRIANGLE

SVEA TRIANGLE

PENN MODEL VILLAGE TRIANGLE

RUSTIC LODGE TRIANGLE

CHOWEN TRIANGLE

GLADSTONE TRIANGLE

ST LOUIS TRIANGLE

SHOREVIEW & 55TH ST E

CALEB DORR CIRCLE

OLIVER TRIANGLE

SHOREVIEW & 54 1/2 ST E

RUSSELL TRIANGLE

FREMONT TRIANGLE

BARTON TRIANGLE

PARK AVENUE TRIANGLE

MONROE PLACE TRIANGLE

CLARENCE TRIANGLE

ORLIN TRIANGLE

ELMWOOD TRIANGLE

VINELAND TRIANGLE

LAUREL TRIANGLE

OAK CREST TRIANGLE

SIBLEY TRIANGLE

ROLLINS TRIANGLE

ORVIN "OLE" OLSON PARK

MICHAEL P. SCHMIDTOPERATIONS CENTER

INTE

RS

TATE

94

HIGHWAY 62

INTERSTATE 35W

CH

ICA

GO

AVE

POR

TLA

ND

AV

E

PAR

K A

VE

38TH ST E

LAKE ST E

42ND ST E

35TH ST E

5TH

AVE

S

CED

AR A

VE

S

PEN

N A

VE

N

HIAWATHA AVE

26TH ST E

2ND

ST

N

15TH

AV

E S

16TH

AV

E S

28TH

AV

E S

NIC

OLL

ET

AV

E

17TH

AV

E S

LYN

DA

LE A

VE

N

1ST

AVE

S

4TH

AVE

S

BRY

AN

T A

VE

S

ALD

RIC

H A

VE

S

32ND ST E

43RD ST E

OA

KLA

ND

AV

E

50TH ST W

DU

PO

NT

AV

E S

THO

MA

S A

VE

N

LAKE ST W

46TH

AV

E S

XER

XE

S A

VE

S

42N

D A

VE

S

41S

T A

VE

S

BLO

OM

ING

TON

AVE

31ST ST E

GR

AN

D A

VE

S

40TH

AV

E S

54TH ST E

44TH

AV

E S

2ND ST NE

58TH ST E

SHE

RID

AN

AV

E N

56TH ST W

BROADWAY ST NE

FRE

MO

NT

AV

E N

45TH

AV

E S

34TH

AV

E S

28TH ST E

FRA

NC

E A

VE

S

FILL

MO

RE

ST

NE

394 HOV LN INTERSTATE 394

STE

VE

NS

AV

E

26TH AVE N

39TH

AV

E S

56TH ST E

36TH

AV

E S

LOWRY AVE NE

WA

SH

ING

TON

AV

E N

54TH ST W

MARSHALL ST NE

38TH

AV

E S

36TH AVE N

SNELLING AVE

49TH AVE N

35TH AVE N

34TH AVE N

43R

D A

VE

S

HENNEPIN AVE

GLENWOOD AVE

PEN

N A

VE

S

52ND ST E

GIR

AR

D A

VE

N

60TH ST E

30TH

AV

E S

34TH ST E

8TH ST S

LIN

CO

LN S

T N

E

MIDTOWN GREENWAY E

7TH ST S

UPT

ON

AV

E N

WEST RIVER PKWY

DU

PO

NT

AV

E N

PLYMOUTH AVE N

UN

IVE

RS

ITY

AV

E N

E

ZEN

ITH

AV

E S

RU

SSE

LL A

VE

N

51ST ST E

SAINT ANTHONY PKWY

26TH AVE NE

8TH ST SE

29TH

AV

E S

36TH ST W

EAST MINNEHAHA PKWY

26TH ST W

MC

KIN

LEY

ST

NE

LON

GFE

LLO

W A

VE

20TH

AV

E S

35TH

AV

E S

GR

AN

D S

T N

E

53RD AVE N

25TH ST W

24TH ST E

36TH ST E

DIGHT AVE

IRV

ING

AV

E N

48TH ST E

35TH ST W

25TH ST E

CEN

TRA

L A

VE N

E

27TH ST W

DOWLING AVE N

HAR

RIE

T A

VE

31S

T A

VE

S

CLE

VE

LAN

D S

T N

E

3RD

ST

NE

XER

XE

S A

VE

N

3RD

AVE

S

MO

NR

OE

ST

NE

CO

LFA

X A

VE

S

ABB

OTT

AV

E S

10TH

AV

E S

24TH ST W

53RD ST W

52ND AVE N

COMO AVE SE

HENNEPIN AVE E

EAST RIVER PKWY

18TH AVE NE

WES

T R

IVER

PKW

Y S

33R

D A

VE

S

CO

LFA

X A

VE

N

OLSON MEMORIAL HWY

26TH

AV

E S

11TH

AV

E S

14TH AVE N

PLE

AS

AN

T A

VE

3RD ST S

QU

EE

N A

VE

N

49TH ST W

BRY

AN

T A

VE

N

CO

LUM

BU

S A

VE

40TH ST E

2ND

AV

E S

ME

MO

RIA

L PK

WY

9TH ST S

40TH ST W

57TH ST W

58TH ST W

HIG

HW

AY

65

POLK

ST

NE

51ST AVE N

FRANKLIN AVE W

10TH ST S

39TH ST E

ALD

RIC

H A

VE

N

EME

RS

ON

AV

E S

41ST ST E

UNIVERSITY AVE SE

EDM

UN

D B

LVD

GA

RFI

ELD

AV

E

49TH ST E

MIDTOWN GREENWAY W

6TH

ST

N

ULY

SS

ES

ST

NE

7TH ST N

53RD ST E

5TH ST SE

44TH ST W

12TH

AV

E S

UPT

ON

AV

E S

13TH AVE NE

16TH AVE N

44TH ST E

THEO

DO

RE W

IRTH

PKWY

29TH AVE NE

33RD AVE NE

8TH AVE NE

45TH ST E

32ND AVE NE

6TH

ST

NE

41ST ST W

CLI

NTO

N A

VE

HAY

ES

ST

NE

61ST ST W

LAS

ALL

E A

VE

2ND ST SE

22N

D A

VE

S

WA

SH

ING

TON

ST

NE

27TH

AV

E S

29TH AVE N

22ND ST E

OSSEO RD

37TH

AV

E S38TH ST W

37TH ST W

22ND AVE NE

1ST ST N

TYLE

R S

T N

E

55TH ST E

FRE

MO

NT

AV

E S

42ND AVE N

STIN

SO

N B

LVD

18TH ST E

MAIN ST SE

28TH AVE NE

CAM

DE

N A

VE

N

DOUGLAS AVE

46TH ST W

LOWRY AVE N

MINNEHAHA AVE

14TH

AV

E S

23RD AVE N

RIVERSIDE AVE

PIE

RC

E S

T N

E

OA

K S

T S

E

15TH AVE NE

MAR

QUE

TTE

AVE

WE

ST

LYN

DA

LE A

VE

N

1ST A

VE N

17TH ST E

CEDAR LAKE PKWY

GOLDEN VALLEY RD

JOH

NS

ON

ST

NE

YOR

K A

VE

S

NICO

LLET

MAL

L

HU

MB

OLD

T A

VE

N

39TH ST W

FRANKLIN AVE E

WASHINGTON AVE S

HIGHW

AY 121

43RD ST W

EB I94 TO 4TH ST N

11TH ST S

31ST AVE NE

2ND AVE N

WOODLA

WN B

LVD

STIN

SO

N P

KW

Y

6TH

AVE

SE

12TH ST S

ADA

MS

ST

NE

19TH AVE NE

37TH AVE N

HIG

HW

AY

77

24TH AVE NE

1ST AVE NE

BEN

JAM

IN S

T N

E

OAK PARK AVE N

BUS EXIT

5TH

AVE

SE

ELM ST SE

48TH AVE N

IND

US

TRIA

L B

LVD

5TH

ST

NE

LAGOON AVE

NEW

BRI

GHTON

BLVD

BUTLER PL

KASOTA AVE

15TH ST E

45TH ST W

21ST ST E

39TH AVE N

BUC

HAN

AN S

T N

E

SEABURY AVE

25TH

AV

E S

3RD AVE NE

HO

LME

S A

VE

S

40TH AVE N

WASHINGTON AVE SE

6TH ST S15TH ST W

32N

D A

VE

S

17TH AVE NE

60TH ST W

QU

EE

N A

VE

S

10TH

ST

N

5TH ST N

JEFF

ER

SO

N S

T N

E

7TH ST SE

24TH

AV

E S

4TH ST N

1ST ST S

3RD ST N TO WB I94

EXCELSIO

R BLV

D

GA

RFI

ELD

ST

NE

TAFT

ST

NE

KENNEDY ST NE

SB I3

5W T

O W

B I9

4

4TH ST S

PARK PL

EB I94 TO

WB

I394

HO

OV

ER

ST

NE

EAST LAKE CALH

OU

N PKW

Y

MAIN ST NE

47TH ST W

FRANKLIN AVE SE

27TH AVE NE

PILL

SB

UR

Y A

VE

MCNAIR AVE

8TH

AVE

SE

7TH

AVE

SE

COLUMBIA PKWY

6TH ST SE

10TH A

VE N

WE

ST

LAK

E C

ALH

OU

N P

KW

Y

18TH

AV

E S

E

BLA

ISD

ELL

AVE

EAST

LAK

E N

OKO

MIS

PKW

Y

23RD AVE NE

22N

D A

VE

SE

RIDGWAY PKWY

WES

T LA

KE H

ARRI

ET P

KWY

3RD A

VE N

SOUTH WAYZATA BLVD

U OF M TRANSITWAY

WES

T LA

KE N

OKO

MIS

PKW

Y

32ND ST W

ELLI

OT

AV

E

29TH

AV

E S

E

18 1/2 AVE NE

55TH ST W

BRIG

HTO

N AV

E NE

TAY

LOR

ST

NE

LYN

DA

LE A

VE

N T

O W

B I9

4

46TH AVE N

37TH AVE N

E

15TH AVE N

36TH AVE NE

25TH AVE N

SOUTH MINNEHAHA PARK DR

5TH ST S

21ST ST W

WEST RIVER PKW

Y N

SIBLEY ST NE

14TH ST E

45TH AVE N

BOARDMAN ST

SHO

REVIE

W A

VE

4TH

ST

NE

11TH AVE N

HIGHW

AY 55

WE

NTW

OR

TH A

VE

HWY 62 FRONTAGE RD

RU

SSE

LL A

VE

S

23R

D A

VE

S

ON

TAR

IO S

T S

E

GROVELAND AVE

2 1/

2 S

T N

E

19TH

AV

E S

E

36 1/2 AVE NE

ERIE

ST

SE

SUNSET BLVD

WEST R

IVER R

D N

COOLIDGE

ST N

E

11TH

AV

E S

E

ESSEX ST SE

ILION A

VE N

5TH A

VE N

ISLAND AVE E

THE MALL

24TH AVE N

ORLIN AVE SE

17TH AVE SE

9TH ST SE

GODFREY PKWY

HO

WA

RD

ST

NE

20TH AVE NE

JAM

ES

AV

E N

EME

RS

ON

AV

E N

59TH ST W

16TH ST E

WEBBER PKWY

12TH ST N

20TH

AV

E S

E

48TH ST W

6TH AVE NE

EAST LAKE OF THE ISLES PKWY

ISLAND

AVE W

CEN

TRAL

AVE

SE 13

TH A

VE

SE

SUNRISE D

R

19TH

AVE

S

26TH

AV

E S

E

LAKE

PL

MILITARY HWY

GO

DW

AR

D S

T N

E

CH

UR

CH

ST

SE

8TH AVE N

CHESTNUT AVE W

LINDEN AVE W

46TH ST E

YALE PL

5TH AVE NE

4TH

AVE

SE

BUR

NH

AM

RD

EAST RIVER TERR

CAL

IFO

RN

IA S

T N

E

WE

ST LA

KE

OF TH

E IS

LES

PK

WY

VIN

CE

NT

AV

E S

OAK GROVE ST

LUVERNE AVE

7TH AVE NE

21S

T A

VE

SE

DIAMOND LAKE RD E

FAIRMOUNT ST

BED

FOR

D S

T S

E

31ST AVE N

10TH A

VE

SE

28TH AVE N

6TH S

T S TO

EB I94

TRAFFIC ST NE

CO

LUM

BIA

AV

E

52ND ST W

CEDAR

LAKE R

D N

59TH ST E

3RD

ST

N

21S

T A

VE

S

HAR

VAR

D S

T S

E

12TH

AV

E S

E

30TH AVE NE

COLE AVE SE WEEKS AVE SE

EDGEW

ATER BLVD

7TH AVE N

25TH

AV

E S

E

ELWOOD AVE N

HAWTHORNE AVE W

MOUNT CURVE AVE

LINDEN AVE

NO

KO

MIS

AV

E S

RIVER ST

LINCOLN AVE

27TH ST E

36 1/2 ST E

HAM

PS

HIR

E D

R

FULTON ST SE

16TH AVE NE

LIND

EN

HILLS

BLVD

14TH

AV

E S

E

FARWELL AVE

4TH A

VE N

HIAW

ATHA AVE TO

WB I94

HILLSIDE AVE N

ARTH

UR

AVE

SE

16TH

ST

N

MA

DIS

ON

PL

WB I94 TO 5TH ST S

37TH ST E

WB

I94

TO 5

3RD

AV

E N

WIL

LOW

ST

MA

DIS

ON

ST

NE

EB I394 TO WB I94

EB H

WY

55 TO E

B I94

47TH

AV

E S

4TH ST SE

5TH AVE S TO EB I94

NB

I35W

TO

JO

HN

SO

N S

T N

E

57TH ST E

SPRING ST NE

50TH AVE N

LYN

DA

LE A

VE

S

51ST ST W

CEDAR LAKE AVE

SEY

MO

UR

AV

E S

E

35TH AVE NE

RAN

DO

LPH

ST

NE

22ND AVE N

EAST

LAK

E H

ARR

IET

PKW

Y

NB I35W TO EB HWY 62

QU

INC

Y S

T N

E

WA

SH

BU

RN

AV

E S

SPR

UC

E P

L

17TH AVE N

33RD ST E

ROSE W

AY R

D

OLI

VE

R A

VE

N

PROSPECT AVE

SB I35W TO EB HWY62

24TH

AV

E S

E

MO

RGAN

AVE

S

4TH AVE NE

RIDGEWOOD AVE

WINTER ST NE

CHESTER ST

9TH AVE NE

EDGE PL NE

30TH AVE N

14TH AVE NE

ARTH

UR

ST

NE

KNO

X A

VE

S

CEDAR VIEW DR

2ND ST S

15TH

AV

E S

E

33R

D A

VE

SE

23R

D A

VE

SE

42ND ST W

WALNUT ST

CEC

IL S

T S

E

GIR

AR

D A

VE

S

HAR

RIS

ON

ST

NE

33RD AVE N

QUARRY CENTER DR

VALL

EY

ST

BOR

DE

R A

VE

N

ROBBINS ST

NEW

TON

AVE

S

22ND ST W

SPAIN PL

19TH ST E

14TH ST W

BELMONT AVE S

41ST AVE N

SB I3

5W T

O 4

5TH

ST

E

50TH ST E

NEW

TON

AV

E N

MO

RG

AN

AV

E N

WEST BRO

ADWAY

53R

D A

VE

N T

O E

B I9

4

DIAMOND LAKE RD W

YALE AVE

WILLIAM

S AVE SE

46TH S

T E TO

SB

I35W

EB I394 TO

EB

I94

WB I94 TO WB I394

2 1/2 ST S

FS 4

LOG

AN A

VE

S

WA

SH

BU

RN

AV

E N

CEDAR LAKE RD S

EAS

T R

IVE

R R

D N

E

FOLWELL DR

HIGHWAY 62 TO SB I35W

12TH AVE NE

WASHINGTON AVE SE TO 3RD ST S

11TH AVE NE

NB HW

Y77 T

O EB

HWY62

WB

I94

TO 1

1TH

ST

S

JAM

ES

AV

E S

IVY LN

STA

ND

ISH

AV

E

PAR

K LN

1 1/2 AVE N

WB

I94 TO LY

ND

ALE A

VE

N

CROSBY PL

DOWLING ST

TWINS WAY

43RD AVE N

12TH AVE N

LAUREL AVE W

NB I35W TO EB I94

RIC

HFIELD

RD

18TH AVE S

NORTH WAYZATA BLVD

7TH ST NE

HAR

DIN

G S

T N

E

SB HW

Y77 TO W

B HW

Y62

NB I35W TO NB I35W

OLIV

ER

AV

E S

34TH ST W

IRV

ING

AV

E S

GRANT ST W

PARK DR

NAWADAHA BLVD

13TH

AVE

S

R S

T N

E

WB

I94

TO 4

9TH

AV

E N

33RD ST W

SHERIDAN AVE S

HOLLYWOOD AVE NE

62ND ST W

CHESTNUT AVE

GLA

DS

TON

E A

VE

RAMSEY ST NE

MOUNT VIEW AVE

29TH ST E

GROVELAND TERR

FRANKLIN TERR

13TH ST S

MIL

WA

UK

EE

AV

E

NB

I35W

TO

4TH

ST

S

VALLEYVIEW PL

SAINT PAUL AVE

61ST S

T E

MINNEAPOLIS AVE

MONDAMIN ST

CO

UN

TY R

OAD

22

JAC

KS

ON

ST

NE

DEAN CT

AIR FORCE BASE

CU

MB

ER

LAN

D R

D

CED

AR S

HO

RE

DR

SAINT LO

UIS A

VE

RO

YA

LSTO

N A

VE

N

WEENONAH PL

6TH AVE N

BOSSEN TERR

1ST

ST N

E

28TH ST W

46TH S

T E TO

NB

I35W

VICTORY MEMORIAL DR

KEEWAYDIN PL

WILLOW AVE N

44TH AVE N

TALMAGE AVE SE

RIC

HM

ON

D C

V

UN

ION

ST

SE

EB I94 TO SB HWY65

WB I94 TO

DO

WLIN

G AVE N

HALL LN

29TH ST W

BEACON ST

3RD

AVE

SE

EB H

WY

62 T

O S

B I3

5W

EB I9

4 TO

WE

ST

BR

OA

DW

AY

AV

E

EUCLID

PL

LYN

DA

LE P

L

WIL

SO

N S

T N

E

DO

RR

DR

LOREN DR

BARTO

N AVE SE

GIR

ARD

TER

R

CO

FFM

AN L

N

BANK ST

BUR

TON

LN

DR

EW

AV

E S

9TH

AVE

SE

COFFEY LN

VIN

CE

NT

AV

E N

EME

RA

LD S

T

MO

RR

ILL

LN

SB I3

5W T

O S

B I3

5W

48TH

AV

E S

CLAR

ENC

E AVE SE

MA

LCO

LM A

VE

SE

WE

ST B

RO

AD

WA

Y TO

WB

I94

EWIN

G A

VE

S

CLIFTON AVE

SAIN

T M

ARYS

AVE

36TH S

T E TO

SB

I35W

27TH

AV

E S

E

FOREST DALE

ISABEL AVE

NOKOMIS CT

WA

RW

ICK

ST

SE

SB I3

5W T

O 3

5TH

ST

E

HU

MB

OLD

T AV

E S

CURRIE AVE W

KNO

X A

VE

N

30 1/2 ST E

59 1/2 ST E

WB HWY62 TO PENN AVE S

NOKOMIS

LN

SOO

AV

E N

35TH S

T E TO

NB

I35W

EB I94 TO

DO

WLIN

G A

VE

N

NB

I35W

TO

46T

H S

T E

GLENDALE TERR

SB I3

5W T

O 6

0TH

ST

E

HIGHWAY 7

HIAWATHA LN

INDUSTRIAL BLVD TO SB I35W

THO

MAS

AVE

S

SIDNEY PL

HAWTHORNE AVE

30 1/2 ST W

26 1/2 AVE NE

9TH S

T N

18TH AVE N

PRATT ST

31ST ST W

28TH AVE S TO EB HWY62

11TH ST N

47TH ST E

LOG

AN A

VE

N

WILS

HIR

E P

L

MERRIAM ST

30TH

AV

E S

E

COLGATE AVE

AVIONICS BLVD

HU

MB

OLD

T LN N

GRASS LAKE T

ERR

PORTLAND AVE TO WB HWY62

EB HWY62 TO 28TH AVE S

CURRIE AVE

RO

OS

EV

ELT

ST

NE

DEAN

PKWY

INGLEWOOD AVE

CAL

HO

UN

BLV

D W

PAR

AD

E S

TAD

IUM

DR

HOLDEN ST N

OG

EMA PL

34TH AVE NE

ZEPHYR P

L

FS 6

16TH

AV

E S

E

SAINT ANTHONY AVE

THO

RN

TON

ST

SE

SUM

NE

R C

T

COLFAX LN S

BENTON BLVD

PAR

K T

ER

R

BEA

RD

AV

E S

47TH AVE N

SB I3

5W T

O 4

TH S

T SE

MIN

NEH

AHA AVE S

18 1/2 AVE N

EVERGREEN DR

HARMON PL

WB I94 TO HURON BLVD SE

394 H

OV LN TO D

UNWOODY

DORMAN AVE

25 1/2 ST W

EDLIN PL

ROLLINS AVE SE

CROMWELL DR

WB I394 TO PENN AVE S

VAN

BU

RE

N S

T N

E

INDUSTRIAL BLVD TO NB I35W

OA

K L

AK

E A

VE

N

31ST S

T E TO S

B I35W

CH

OW

EN

AV

E S

LAKE ST E TO W

B HIAWATHA AVE

VAN

NE

ST

AV

E

WB I94 TO CEDAR AVE S

GRAMERCY AVE N

DEL

AN

O S

T N

E

THOMAS PL N

LAKE ST E TO EB HIAW

ATHA AVE

FS 7

SAN

DE

R D

R

CHATEAU PL

7 1/2 ST S

BARNES PL

PAUTZ PL

DUNWOODY BLVD

9TH A

VE N

DIA

MO

ND

LA

KE

LN

EASTMAN AVE

62ND ST E

DELAWARE ST SE

PILLSBURY DR SE

ARC

HIT

EC

T A

VE

SUMMER ST NE

HURON BLVD SE

DOW

LING AVE N TO

EB I94

9TH

AVE

S

10TH AVE NE

GRANT ST E

MIS

SIS

SIP

PI D

R

BUSCH TERR

GLENWOOD PKWY

WAVERLY PL

21ST AVE N

WE

LLS

FA

RG

O W

AY

2ND

AVE

SE

MADEIRA AVE

CED

AR L

N

RUSTIC LODGE W

LOURDES PL

LYN

PA

RK

AV

E N

ANTOINETTE AVE S

FS 1

4

4TH C

T N

27TH AVE N

LIST PL

12TH

ST

S T

O S

B H

WY

65

VICT

ORY A

VE

VIKI

NGS

WAY

NEW BRIGHTON BLVD TO NB I35W

MA

RK

ET

ST

23RD ST E

NB HWY121 TO WB HWY62

SUMMIT AVE

MOTOR PL

GLABE LN

BURNHAM BLVD

29 1/2 ST E

POWDERHORN TERR

NAPCO AVE N

34 1/2 ST E

FS 1

7

DRIVEWAY

BROOK AVE SE

ELMWOOD PL E

59 1/2 ST W

33 1/2 ST W

WALT

ON PL

CO

LUM

BU

S C

T

SUMMIT PL

10TH ST NE

LOCUST ST

PARKWAY CT

AUTUMN ST

FARWELL PL

SKY

LIN

E C

V

WAVELAND TERR

CEN

TENN

IAL

PL

PIE

RC

E P

L N

E

BROWNIE RD

12 1/2 AVE N

25 1/2 AVE NE

CEMETERY ST

ALICE RAINVILLE PL

SUNNYSIDE A

VE

BRID

AL V

EIL

CIR

BOA

RD

WA

LK P

L

THO

MA

S C

IR S

ARLINGTON ST

GIVENS LN

BANNEKER AVE N

DERBY AVE

22ND ST E

GIR

AR

D A

VE

S

QU

EE

N A

VE

N

33RD ST W

10TH

AV

E S

37TH ST E

3RD ST S

2ND

AV

E S

LIN

CO

LN S

T N

E

50TH ST E

3RD

AVE

SE

33RD ST E

45TH ST E

44TH ST W

7TH ST S

12TH AVE N

IRV

ING

AV

E S

HAR

RIE

T A

VE

NEW

TON

AV

E S

35TH

AV

E S

25TH

AV

E S

RU

SSE

LL A

VE

S

VIN

CE

NT

AV

E S

3RD ST N

3RD ST S

23RD

AVE

SE

SUMMIT AVE

41ST AVE N

22ND ST W

VIN

CE

NT

AV

E S

SHE

RID

AN

AV

E S

CO

LFA

X A

VE

S

BUC

HAN

AN S

T N

E

33RD ST E

PAR

K A

VE

45TH ST E

10TH AVE N

SHE

RID

AN

AV

E S

FRANKLIN AVE W

60TH ST W

16TH

AV

E S

30TH AVE NE

41S

T A

VE

S

QU

EE

N A

VE

S

23RD AVE NE

QU

EE

N A

VE

S

2ND AVE N

4TH ST NE

59TH ST E

STIN

SO

N B

LVD

21ST AVE N

DORMAN AVE

QU

INC

Y S

T N

E

29TH

AV

E S

21S

T A

VE

S

24TH

AV

E S

E

58TH ST W

CO

LUM

BU

S A

VE

EB I9

4 TO

WB

I394

CEDAR LAKE RD S

5TH

AVE

S

3RD AVE N

12TH AVE NE

28TH

AV

E S

OLI

VE

R A

VE

S

37TH

AV

E S

15TH

AV

E S

E

24TH ST E

14TH ST E

ELLI

OT

AV

E

47TH ST E

24TH AVE N

PIE

RC

E S

T N

E

47TH AVE N

UPT

ON

AV

E N

HIAWATHA AVE

WEEKS AVE SE

53RD ST W

MO

RG

AN

AV

E N

BRY

AN

T A

VE

N

49TH ST W

26TH AVE NE

44TH ST E

26TH AVE NE

THO

MAS

AVE

S

KNO

X A

VE

N

LOG

AN A

VE

N

11TH

AV

E S

61ST ST E

26TH

AV

E S

15TH

AV

E S

24TH AVE N

DR

EW

AV

E S

30TH

AVE

SE

WA

SH

BU

RN

AV

E N

20TH

AV

E S

39TH ST W

GA

RFI

ELD

AV

E

LOG

AN A

VE

N

14TH

AV

E S

YOR

K A

VE

S

TYLE

R S

T N

E

CEDAR LAKE RD S

5TH ST SE

LOG

AN A

VE

N

NEW

TON

AV

E S

LON

GFE

LLO

W A

VE

4TH AVE N

32N

D A

VE

S

HIG

HW

AY

65

RU

SSE

LL A

VE

N

31ST AVE NE

47TH ST W

20TH

AV

E S

7TH A

VE N

CO

LUM

BU

S A

VE

15TH

AV

E S

53RD ST E

XER

XE

S A

VE

N

4TH

AVE

S

HU

MB

OLD

T A

VE

N

29TH AVE NE

26TH

AVE

SE

35TH

AV

E S

21S

T A

VE

S

EWIN

G AVE S

STA

ND

ISH

AV

E

KNO

X A

VE

N

GR

AN

D A

VE

S

43RD ST E

XER

XE

S A

VE

N

26TH

AV

E S

NEWTO

N AVE S

16TH AVE NE

19TH

AV

E S

35TH AVE NE

22ND AVE N

BROOK AVE SE

SPRING ST NE

17TH

AVE

SE

27TH AVE N

39TH

AV

E S

PILL

SB

UR

Y A

VE

4TH

ST

N

WE

NTW

OR

TH A

VE

CLI

NTO

N A

VE

30TH

AV

E S

DU

PO

NT

AV

E N

EME

RS

ON

AV

E S

44TH AVE N

47TH ST E

SHE

RID

AN

AV

E S

NO

KO

MIS

AV

E S

SHE

RID

AN

AV

E N

36TH AVE NE

59TH ST W

16TH

AV

E S

E

CO

LFA

X A

VE

N

22ND AVE NE

27TH ST E

2ND

AV

E S

48TH AVE S

PIE

RC

E S

T N

E

29TH ST E

SHE

RID

AN

AV

E N

FRA

NC

E A

VE

S

SHER

IDAN

AVE

S

ABB

OTT

AV

E S

35TH

AV

E S

WA

SH

BU

RN

AV

E N

5TH AVE N

6TH ST S

41ST ST E

37TH

AV

E S

17TH ST E

PEN

N A

VE

S

ARTH

UR

ST

NE

CH

OW

EN

AV

E S

21ST AVE N

41ST AVE N

MA

DIS

ON

ST

NE

37TH AVE N

59TH ST W

OLI

VE

R A

VE

N

BEN

JAM

IN S

T N

E

47TH

AV

E S

12TH AVE N

KNO

X A

VE

S

37TH ST E

UPT

ON

AV

E N

CLI

NTO

N A

VE

4TH

ST

N

CO

LFA

X A

VE

S

CLE

VE

LAN

D S

T N

E

18TH ST E

3RD

ST

NE

32N

D A

VE

S

ELLI

OT

AV

E

29TH ST W

4TH

AVE

S

FRA

NC

E A

VE

S

THO

MA

S A

VE

S

TAY

LOR

ST

NE

27TH AVE N

40TH

AV

E S

52ND ST E

HU

MB

OLD

T A

VE

S

4TH AVE N

DR

EW

AV

E S

34TH

AV

E S

DU

PO

NT

AV

E S

7TH A

VE N

32N

D A

VE

S

34TH ST W

MO

RG

AN

AV

E N

OLI

VE

R A

VE

N

3RD ST S

BLO

OM

ING

TON

AVE

ULY

SS

ES

ST

NE

QU

EE

N A

VE

N

6TH AVE N

5TH ST NE

45TH ST E

52ND AVE N

HAR

RIE

T A

VE

54TH ST E

47TH

AV

E S

EME

RS

ON

AV

E N

24TH AVE N

WA

SH

BU

RN

AV

E N

50TH ST E

6TH

ST

NE

22ND ST E

BRYAN

T AVE N

31ST ST W

THO

MA

S A

VE

S

53RD AVE N

JAM

ES

AV

E S

LOG

AN A

VE

S

28TH

AV

E S

GIR

AR

D A

VE

S

MO

RG

AN

AV

E N

BEACON ST

UPT

ON

AV

E S

29TH ST W

KNO

X A

VE

N

48TH ST W

34TH ST E

PILLSB

UR

Y A

VE

51ST ST W

GIR

AR

D A

VE

S

TALMAGE AVE SE

KNO

X A

VE

S

47TH ST W

FRE

MO

NT

AV

E S

18TH

AV

E S

18TH AVE N

47TH

AV

E S

18TH AVE NE

UPT

ON

AVE

S

OLI

VE

R A

VE

S

33R

D A

VE

S

13TH

AVE

SE

DU

PO

NT

AV

E S

38TH

AV

E S

37TH ST E

56TH ST E

QU

EE

N A

VE

N

10TH

AV

E S

18TH AVE N

45TH ST W

9TH ST S

18TH AVE N

XER

XE

S A

VE

N

HAYES ST NE

50TH AVE N

POLK

ST

NE

21ST ST W

CO

UN

TY R

OAD

22

38TH

AV

E S

LOG

AN A

VE

S

9TH ST S

21ST AVE N

OLI

VE

R A

VE

S

30TH AVE NE

27TH

AV

E S

E

JAM

ES

AV

E S

13TH

AV

E S

46TH AVE N

LINCOLN AVE

53RD ST E

RO

OS

EV

ELT

ST

NE

33R

D A

VE

S

62ND ST E

30TH

AV

E S

14TH

AVE

SE

2ND

AV

E S

30TH AVE N

GIR

AR

D A

VE

N

HAR

RIE

T A

VE

9TH AVE NE

17TH AVE N

34TH AVE N

GIR

AR

D A

VE

N

1ST

AVE

S

12TH A

VE

S

4TH

AVE

S

DU

PO

NT

AV

E N

LIN

CO

LN S

T N

E

MINNEHAHA AVE

3RD AVE NE

25TH AVE N

PEN

N A

VE

N

WO

OD

LAW

N B

LVD

12TH

AV

E S

HIG

HW

AY 1

21

5TH AVE N

51ST AVE N

18TH AVE N

JAM

ES

AV

E S

40TH AVE N

10TH

AVE

SE

15TH ST E

34TH

AV

E S

ALD

RIC

H A

VE

S

WA

SH

BU

RN

AV

E S

51ST ST E

15TH

AV

E S

39TH

AV

E S

8TH AVE N

19TH ST E

PEN

N A

VE

N

29TH AVE N

27TH ST E

LOG

AN A

VE

N

6TH ST S

12TH

AVE

S

22N

D A

VE

S

10TH

AV

E S

JAM

ES

AV

E S

33RD AVE N

6TH A

VE N

BRY

AN

T A

VE

S

19TH

AV

E S

31ST AVE N

32N

D A

VE

S

27TH

AV

E S

33RD AVE N

EME

RS

ON

AV

E S

ALDR

ICH

AV

E N

47TH AVE N

LOG

AN A

VE

N

27TH

AVE

SE

ALD

RIC

H A

VE

N

HARMON PL

STIN

SO

N P

KW

Y

EME

RS

ON

AV

E S

34TH ST E

DU

PO

NT

AV

E N

OLI

VE

R A

VE

N

1ST ST S

CO

LUM

BU

S A

VE

INTE

RS

TATE

94

ELLI

OT

AV

E

10TH

AVE

S

14TH AVE N

3RD ST N

16TH AVE NE

15TH AVE N

23R

D A

VE

S

QU

EE

N A

VE

N

ELLI

OT

AV

E

43R

D A

VE

S

NEW

TON

AV

E N

17TH

AV

E S

E

6TH ST NE

WA

SH

BU

RN

AV

E N

33R

D A

VE

S

58TH ST W

WA

SH

BU

RN

AV

E S

IRV

ING

AV

E S

HAY

ES

ST

NE

CECIL ST SE

11TH

AV

E S

30TH

AV

E S

UPT

ON

AV

E S

JAM

ES

AV

E N

59TH ST E

FRE

MO

NT

AV

E N

19TH

AV

E S

24TH

AV

E S

RU

SSE

LL A

VE

N

31ST ST E

57TH ST E

7TH AVE N

14TH

AV

E S

21S

T A

VE

S

STE

VE

NS

AV

E

QU

EE

N A

VE

N

IRV

ING

AV

E N

21ST ST W

31S

T A

VE

S

EME

RS

ON

AV

E N

22ND

AVE

S

46TH ST E

26TH AVE NE

17TH

AV

E S

E

41S

T A

VE

S

1ST

AVE

S

20TH AVE NE

28TH

AV

E S

CO

LFA

X A

VE

S

INTE

RS

TATE

35W

32ND ST W

43R

D A

VE

S

SUMMER ST NE

34TH ST E

59TH ST W

48TH

AV

E S

47TH ST W

XER

XE

S A

VE

N

52ND ST W

54TH ST E

33RD ST E

IRV

ING

AV

E S

50TH ST E

OLI

VE

R A

VE

N

6TH ST SE

POLK

ST

NE

WA

SH

BU

RN

AV

E S

1ST ST N

25TH

AVE

SE

OLI

VE

R A

VE

N

2ND ST S

POLK ST NE

WA

SH

BU

RN

AV

E N

32N

D A

VE

S

6TH AVE N

41ST AVE N

23R

D A

VE

S

RU

SSE

LL A

VE

N

5TH ST S

VIN

CE

NT

AV

E S

31ST AVE S

45TH ST E

47TH

AV

E S

DR

EW

AV

E S

29TH ST W

RU

SSE

LL A

VE

N

4TH

AVE

S

36TH AVE NE

12TH

AV

E S

27TH ST E

5TH ST S

FRE

MO

NT

AV

E S

33RD ST E

32ND ST E

CAL

IFO

RN

IA S

T N

E

LON

GFE

LLO

W A

VE

ARTH

UR

ST

NE

54TH ST E

18TH AVE NE

51ST ST W

OA

KLA

ND

AV

E

9TH ST N

16TH ST E

29TH

AV

E S

VIN

CE

NT

AV

E N

MO

RG

AN

AV

E S

24TH ST E

QU

INC

Y S

T N

E

MINNEHAHA AVE

5TH

AVE

S

17TH

AV

E S

25TH

AV

E S

MA

IN S

T N

E

THO

MA

S A

VE

S

40TH ST W

33R

D A

VE

S

ELLI

OT

AV

E

1ST

AVE

S

THO

MA

S A

VE

S

14TH AVE N

7TH AVE N

HAY

ES

ST

NE

32ND ST W

HIGHWAY 62

UPT

ON

AV

E S

5TH

ST

NE

1ST

AVE

S

OLI

VE

R A

VE

N

30TH AVE NE

11TH

AV

E S

DU

PO

NT

AV

E N

HIAWATHA AVE

UPT

ON

AV

E S

44TH ST E

22ND ST W

31S

T A

VE

S

14TH AVE NE

49TH ST W

MA

DIS

ON

ST

NE

KNO

X A

VE

N

16TH

AVE

SE

31ST AVE NE

RU

SSE

LL A

VE

N

VAN

BU

RE

N S

T N

E

22N

D A

VE

S

29TH

AV

E S

13TH

AVE

SE

24TH

AV

E S

MO

RG

AN

AV

E N

WINTER ST NE

34TH AVE NE

3RD

ST

N

14TH

AV

E S

ZEN

ITH

AV

E S

23RD AVE NE

39TH

AV

E S

VIN

CE

NT

AV

E N

JAM

ES

AV

E N

59TH ST W

SPRUCE PL

39TH AVE N

28TH ST E

17TH AVE NE

6TH ST NE

FRE

MO

NT

AV

E S

26TH

AV

E S

THO

MAS AVE S

GIR

AR

D A

VE

N

13TH AVE NE

25TH ST E

16TH AVE N

CED

AR A

VE

S

28TH AVE N

23R

D A

VE

S

43RD AVE N

VIN

CE

NT

AV

E S

NAWADAHA BLVD

11TH

AV

E S

13TH

AV

E S

50TH ST E

42ND ST W

20TH AVE NE

4TH ST SE

24TH

AV

E S

24TH AVE NE31ST AVE N

UPT

ON

AV

E S

RU

SSE

LL A

VE

S

YORK AVE S 12

TH A

VE S

E

34TH ST W

CO

LFA

X A

VE

N

JAM

ES

AV

E N

WINTER ST NE

NIC

OLL

ET

AV

E

BLO

OM

ING

TON

AVE

33R

D A

VE

S

16TH

AV

E S

PLE

AS

AN

T A

VE

13TH

AV

E S

THOMAS AVE S

DU

PO

NT

AV

E S

HU

MB

OLD

T A

VE

N

TYLE

R S

T N

E

57TH ST E

PEN

N A

VE

N

4TH S

T N

18TH AVE NE

42N

D A

VE

S

4TH

ST

N

17TH AVE NE

QU

INC

Y S

T N

E

VIN

CE

NT

AV

E N

62ND ST E

NEW

TON

AV

E N

7TH

ST

NE

SHE

RID

AN

AV

E N

2ND

AVE

SE

CED

AR A

VE

S

EWIN

G A

VE

S

16TH ST E

54TH ST W

58TH ST E

MOUNT VIEW AVE

NEW

TON

AV

E N

28TH ST W

61ST ST W

5TH ST S

SHE

RID

AN

AV

E N

45TH AVE N

JAC

KS

ON

ST

NE

17TH AVE N

FRE

MO

NT

AV

E N

SUMMER ST NE

NEW

TON

AV

E N

47TH ST E

KNO

X A

VE

S

27TH

AV

E S

35TH

AV

E S

INTE

RS

TATE

35W

OLI

VER

AVE

S

20TH

AV

E S

CO

LUM

BU

S A

VE

LOG

AN A

VE

N

14TH

AVE

S

29TH

AV

E S

LOG

AN A

VE

N

48TH ST W

OLI

VE

R A

VE

S 55TH ST E

40TH ST E

WA

LNU

T S

T

47TH ST E

27TH ST E

27TH

AV

E S

PILL

SB

UR

Y A

VE

32ND ST E

4TH ST S

36TH

AV

E S

27TH ST E

DELA

WA

RE

ST S

E

49TH ST W

PILL

SB

UR

Y A

VE

16TH A

VE

S

2ND ST S

ALD

RIC

H A

VE

N

61ST ST E

JEFF

ER

SO

N S

T N

E

9TH ST SE

CLI

NTO

N A

VE

26TH AVE NE

57TH ST E

MO

RG

AN

AV

E S

IRV

ING

AV

E N

MAL

COLM

AVE

SE

13TH

AVE

S

ALD

RIC

H A

VE

N

KNO

X A

VE

N

THO

MA

S A

VE

S

18TH ST E

30TH AVE N

24TH ST E

49TH ST E

4TH ST S

PEN

N A

VE

S

36TH

AV

E S

57TH ST E

37TH

AV

E S

30TH AVE N

28TH ST W

3RD

ST

N

23R

D A

VE

S

44TH ST E

CLI

NTO

N A

VE

39TH

AV

E S

2ND

AV

E S

ZEN

ITH

AV

E S

BRY

AN

T A

VE

S

45TH

AV

E S

ELLI

OT

AV

E

BUC

HAN

AN S

T N

E

TAFT

ST

NE

EWIN

G A

VE

S

13TH

AV

E S

29TH

AV

E S

17TH AVE N

HU

MB

OLD

T A

VE

N

25TH

AV

E S

LOG

AN A

VE

N

THO

MA

S A

VE

N

34TH

AV

E S

TAY

LOR

ST

NE

61ST ST W

6TH

ST

N

57TH ST W

WA

SH

BU

RN

AV

E S

7TH ST SE

PIE

RC

E S

T N

E

THO

MA

S A

VE

S

52ND AVE N

41ST ST E

12TH AVE NE

MA

IN S

T N

E

CLI

NTO

N A

VE

SPRING ST NE

3RD

AV

E S

14TH AVE NE

GR

AN

D A

VE

S

HU

MB

OLD

T A

VE

N

44TH

AV

E S

37TH ST E

7TH

ST

NE

58TH ST E

11TH

AV

E S

19TH AVE NE

EDM

UN

D B

LVD

SUMMER ST NE

ELM ST SE

43RD ST E

NEW

TON

AV

E N

23RD AVE N

OA

KLA

ND

AV

E

52ND ST W

CO

LUM

BU

S A

VE

OLI

VE

R A

VE

N

WASHBURN AVE S

WIL

SO

N S

T N

E

WA

SH

BU

RN

AV

E S

QU

EE

N A

VE

N

41ST ST W

IRV

ING

AV

E N

14TH

AV

E S

E

58TH ST E

13TH

AV

E S

36TH ST E

19TH AVE NE

57TH ST W

RU

SSE

LL A

VE

S

27TH

AV

E S

15TH AVE NE

GIR

AR

D A

VE

S

14TH

AV

E S

32ND AVE NE

8TH AVE N

5TH ST SE

TYLE

R S

T N

E

22N

D A

VE

S

22ND ST E

10TH

AV

E S

11TH

AVE

S

11TH

AVE

SE

NEW

TON

AV

E N

QU

EE

N A

VE

S

FRE

MO

NT

AV

E S

HIAWATHA AVE

23RD AVE NE

15TH

AV

E S

29TH ST E

6TH ST NE

31ST AVE NE

ALD

RIC

H A

VE

N

JAM

ES

AV

E N

31ST ST W

BLA

ISD

ELL

AVE

50TH AVE N

ME

MO

RIA

L PK

WY

6TH ST SE

XER

XE

S A

VE

N

27TH AVE N

3RD

AV

E S

12TH AVE N

13TH

AV

E S

TAY

LOR

ST

NE

GA

RFI

ELD

ST

NE

39TH ST E

33RD ST W

XER

XE

S A

VE

N

15TH

AVE

SE

BLA

ISD

ELL

AVE

27TH AVE NE

59TH ST E

51ST ST W

32N

D A

VE

S

RU

SSE

LL A

VE

N

7TH ST S

IRV

ING

AV

E N

10TH

AV

E S

56TH ST E

JAM

ES

AV

E N

6TH

ST

NE

PILL

SB

UR

Y A

VE

GA

RFI

ELD

ST

NE

37TH AVE NE

37TH

AV

E S

2ND

ST

NE

29TH ST W

28TH ST W

12TH

AVE

S

25TH ST E

59TH ST E

59TH ST W

29TH

AV

E S

E

40TH ST E

PLE

AS

AN

T A

VE

PILLSBURY DR SE

CH

OW

EN

AV

E S

KNO

X A

VE

N

THO

MA

S A

VE

S

6TH ST S

1ST

AVE

S

PAR

K A

VE

MO

RG

AN

AV

E N

32ND ST E

QU

EE

N A

VE

N

4TH

ST

NE

4TH ST SE

14TH ST E

KNO

X A

VE

S

2ND A

VE N

QUEEN AVE S

UPT

ON

AV

E N

59TH ST W

60TH ST W

35TH AVE NE

4TH

ST

N

BRY

AN

T A

VE

N

6TH ST N

CLI

NTO

N A

VE

STE

VE

NS

AV

E

55TH ST W

37TH ST E

19TH ST E

30TH AVE N

BUC

HAN

AN S

T N

E

SHE

RID

AN

AV

E S

NEW

TON

AV

E N

49TH ST E

GIR

AR

D A

VE

S

DR

EW

AV

E S

25TH

AV

E S

HAR

DIN

G S

T N

E

23RD ST E

43RD ST W

GA

RFI

ELD

AV

E

QU

EE

N A

VE

N

51ST ST E

49TH ST E

33R

D A

VE

S

CO

LFA

X A

VE

N

8TH A

VE N

GA

RFI

ELD

AV

E

18TH

AV

E S

39TH ST E

28TH

AV

E S

14TH

AV

E S

48TH ST W

17TH AVE NE

BEA

RD

AV

E S

48TH

AV

E S

22ND AVE NE

GRANT ST E

YOR

K A

VE

S

29TH ST E

IRV

ING

AV

E N

JAM

ES

AV

E N

19TH ST E

31S

T A

VE

S

GIR

AR

D A

VE

N

13TH

AVE

S

62ND ST W

36TH ST W

19TH

AV

E S

DUPONT AVE S

46TH ST W

47TH

AV

E S

6TH

ST

N

38TH ST W

WA

SH

BU

RN

AV

E N

46TH

AV

E S

53RD ST E

47TH ST W

QU

EE

N A

VE

S

25TH ST E

CO

LFA

X A

VE

N

WE

NTW

OR

TH A

VE

YOR

K A

VE

S

8TH ST S

EWIN

G A

VE

S

94

94

949494

94

35W

35W

394

35W

394

35W

35W

35W

Minneapolis5 Service Areas, including a Citywide

Regional Park / Downtown Service Area with Neighborhoods

³

Prepared by the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board

CREEKVIEWPARK

BEARD'SPLAISANCE

LYNDALE PARK

ROSE/PEACEGARDENS

WABUNPARK

ELOISE BUTLERWILDFLOWER

GARDEN

FIRST BRIDGEPARK

MILL RUINSPARK

1-26-2016

SCULPTUREGARDEN

Meadowbrook Golf - 1.8Miles West of City Limits

on Excelsior Blvd.

Operational Service Areas

N

NE / SE

DT/CWR

SSW

= North= Northeast / Southeast= Downtown / Citywide Regional= South= Southwest

LEGENDOperational Service Areas

XCELFIELD

North Mississippi

Park



2015 Age Distribution by Service Area

Ages Downtown North Northeast/Southeast South Southwest

-5 3.4% 9.3% 4.4% 7.5% 5.5%

5-17 4.4% 21.0% 9.2% 16.0% 12.4%

18-24 11.7% 12.2% 32.9% 11.1% 9.7%

25-44 45.8% 28.0% 28.5% 32.0% 38.0%

45-54 11.9% 11.7% 8.6% 12.2% 13.0%

55-64 10.3% 9.8% 8.3% 11.1% 11.2%

65-74 6.9% 5.0% 4.5% 6.1% 6.4%

75+ 5.8% 2.6% 3.3% 3.8% 3.9%

Expenditures on Entertainment and Recreation

Service Area Downtown North N o r t h e a s t /Southeast South Southwest

Amount Spent Annually $2,974.77 $2,039.97 $2,394.09 $2,626.74 $3,730.00

Percent of Annual Income 4.4% 4.4% 4.4% 4.5% 4.5%

Figure 1.19 Summary of age distribution by service area. Source: Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI) demographic projections

Figure 1.20 Summary of expenditures on entertainment and recreation. Source: Consumer Spending data are derived from the 2004 and 2005 Consumer Expenditure Surveys, Bureau of Labor Statistics. ESRI forecasts for 2012 and 2018.

Demographic Profiles by Recreation Center

Within each service area, MPRB operates multiple recreation centers. Appendix C shows the demographic breakdown for each neighborhood the recreation facility is located in. As the center-by-center data shows, there are significant differences even within the same service area in racial/ethnic background and disparities in household income. For example, median annual household incomes on a center-by-center basis ranges from approximately $13,000 to approximately $115,000.

Comparing the service areas, the Northeast/Southeast Service Area has a much lower median age than the other service areas. The North Service Area has the lowest median household income. The Downtown Service Area has the lowest population, but is also the smallest in size. These demographic differences may indicate a need for a more tailored approach to service provision, rather than a citywide approach, to respond to needs.

Figure 1.19 presents the age breakdowns for each of the service areas. This table shows the significant population of children and teens in the North service area and the South service area. In comparison, the highest percentages of older adults (65+) are in Downtown, Southwest, and South.

In addition to evaluating median age and income, it is important to examine Household Budget Expenditures. In particular looking at housing information; shelter, utilities, fuel and public services along with entertainment and recreation can provide a snap shot into the cost of living and spending patterns in the services areas. Figure 1.20 looks at that information and compares the service areas.


Program Assessment

The MPRB offers a variety of programs, events and classes aimed to serve all segments of the city’s population. Its community centers and park facilities host organized and drop-in programs, seasonal programs, special events, classes and workshops, and athletic leagues. Many residents and some visitors take advantage of the recreation opportunities planned and operated by the MPRB. These programs and services provide personal and community-building opportunities, promote health and well-being and contribute to quality of life.

This Program Assessment provides an overview of existing recreation programming services. It briefly summarizes MPRB’s recreation vision, programming services, costs and targeted service groups. It includes preliminary findings regarding recreation programming or factors that influence recreation programming, operations and services. This information provides a foundation for the later assessment of community recreation needs.

Recreation Vision

The MPRB’s Comprehensive Plan identifies the following Vision Theme: Recreation that inspires personal growth, healthy lifestyles, and a sense of community, supported by five goals:

» People play, learn, and develop a greater capacity to enjoy life.

» Residents, visitors, and workers enjoy opportunities to improve health and fitness.

» People connect through parks and recreation.

» Volunteers make a vital difference to people, parks and the community.

» Parks provide a center for community living.

As noted in the MPRB’s Recreation Programming Plan, programs, activities, and services are planned and implemented based on Recreation Standards and Measurements and essential service guidelines that foster activities promoting growth and development physically, mentally, emotionally, and socially in both group and individual settings.

Overview of Programming Services

Program Areas

The MPRB offers a variety of recreation programs and events to the community. These are advertised to the community three times a year via seasonal Activity Guides targeting each of the City’s five service areas. The combined winter/spring activity guide covers programming from January through May, the summer activity guide covers programming from June through August, and the fall activity guide covers programming from September through December.

MPRB provides programming in the following areas:

» Sports leagues » Adult Sports Leagues » Youth Sports Leagues

» Arts » Health and Fitness » Youth Programs

» School-Age Childcare » Teen Programs » Camps » Pre-School

» Winter Activities » Cross-Country Skiing » Snowboarding » Snowshoeing » Snow Tubing and Sledding

» Ice Fishing » Ice Rinks

» Nature Programs » Water Activities

» Classes, Lessons, and Clubs » Fishing » Pools

» Special/Seasonal Events » Music and Movies » Senior Programming

Community Needs-Based Programming

Many programs have been developed and offered in response to an identified community need. Examples of needs-based recreation and leisure services include:

» Nite Owlz provides late evening recreation on Fridays and Saturdays for youth ages 12 to 18 at nine parks in many of the most challenged areas of the city. This program was designed to provide safe and supervised activities for teens in urban core parks.

» Toddler Playtime opportunities include open, intrinsic playtime in the mornings for toddlers and preschoolers with large and small stackable toys, wheeled and stationery equipment, and soft sports supplies. This program was organized in response to parents requesting space for small children to run and play during cold winter days.

» Pop-Up Libraries in recreation centers provide stay-and-read and take-away books for all ages. This program was initiated, developed, and organized by a VISTA AmeriCorps worker and park teen leaders. They were initiated as part of AmeriCorps’ identified need to build community capacity to address literacy deficits, particularly within English-language learning communities.


Program Assessment

Program Fees

The MPRB offers both free and fee-based recreation programs. Most programs have different rates for residents and non-residents, with non-residents paying 50% more for selected programs. Some drop-in activities, field trips, and classes have a flat rate and do not charge different non-resident fees. Many free programs are offered.

MPRB also has a tiered pricing structure for reservation of athletic facilities. Fees are structured differently for the following facility use groups:

» MPRB and Minneapolis Public Schools (no fees) » Minneapolis Residents (Adults) & Colleges » Non-Resident Adults & Commercial Groups » Non-MPRB Youth Teams & Associations

The MPRB Fee Assistance Program assists Minneapolis residents when financial limitations occur. Eligibility for the program is determined by meeting the current income guidelines, completing an application and providing documentation. Fee assistance is for the instruction portion of fees only and not for supplies, extra fees or admission costs for field trips. Additional assistance for the RecPlus School-Aged Childcare program may be obtained through the Hennepin County Care Assistance program.

Targeted Groups

MBRB’s programs and recreation facilities are meant to be enjoyed by a wide range of user groups. In the MPRB Activity Guide, programming options are called out specifically for five different program categories:

» Preschool » Youth » Teens » Adults » Special Events

Language, Physical Disability, and Income Support

The MPRB Activity Guide also notes that language support and special assistance for low-income participants and people with disabilities is available. Through Reach for Resources, inclusion support services are provided for children and adults with disabilities who participate in MPRB programs. Participants may request reasonable modifications with a two-week advance notice.

Registration Options

Registration is required for all programs, trips and free activities. For the convenience of participants, there are four different ways to register for MPRB’s programs. Having four options may help increase the comfort level and convenience for different people to

register, potentially contributing to higher levels of program participation.

» Online: Online registration is available at http://activenet.active.com/minneapolisparks using a credit card, username and password.

» Walk-In: Registrations are accepted in person at any recreation center in Minneapolis, or at the Customer Service Desk at the MPRB headquarters during business hours.

» Over the phone: Phone registration is available only for Visa/MasterCard/ Discover payments. Customers may call the MPRB Customer Service Department or any recreation center during business hours to register by phone. While the MPRB Activity Guide is in English, contact information for the Customer Service Department regarding program and service inquiries is noted in the following languages:

» Somali » Spanish » Hmong

ActivePass Programs

An ActivePass card is issued to participants, which allows them to drop-in on a variety of activities like computer lab time, open swim, basketball, senior card club and tournaments, parent and tot playtime, and free Nite Owlz.

Program Participation

Program participation will be evaluated as part of an assessment of community needs for recreation opportunities and facility space to support the community’s vision for recreation. Program registration data has not been adequate to support an evaluation of program participation. Consequently,


Program Assessment

the needs assessment will take into account a variety of data sources. Reservation data, for example, will help indicate the time burden on facilities, if not the actual number of people using them. Other sources will help characterize who is participating in different types of programs.

Key Findings

The following preliminary findings have emerged from the review of recreation programs and services, conversations with Service Area Managers and Recreation Center Staff on a facility tour, and a review of documentation such as the Recreation Programming Plan. Many of the findings address recreation programming or factors that influence recreation programming, operations and services.

» Recreation centers are neighborhood hubs for indoor and outdoor programming. Residents visit local recreation centers for both organized and drop-in indoor programs, as well as opportunities to gather, socialize, have parties and hold group meetings. These facilities are also hubs for indoor/outdoor programs, such as hockey or ice skating outdoors with an indoor warming room, or childcare programs that use the playgrounds, wading pools and indoor classrooms. MPRB’s organizational alignment and budgeting also consider the recreation centers as cost units for both indoor and outdoor programs and events. For this reason, an evaluation of recreation center programs must consider all types of programming, including field sports and other types of outdoor programs.

» Most programming is decentralized. Many programming decisions are made at individual facilities within the overarching guidance, goals and standards of the MPRB. Recreation Center Staff have a lot of decision-making power and responsibility to determine programming options for their site(s).

As a result, programming options at one center may vary from the next, sometimes greatly. Often, site programs emphasize the strengths, interests and initiatives of the Recreation Center Staff. For example, some centers are stronger on arts and crafts, or track and sports, or adult programs, than other facilities. A supervisor who applies for grant funding may be able to offer specialized programs such as archery, which are not otherwise available across the system. Strong Recreation Center Staff use this flexibility to provide the types of programs most desired by the surrounding neighborhood or most needed to respond to local demographics.

» MPRB supports centralized programming in five categories. The following recreation services are organized and supervised through the central administration rather than through recreation centers: RecPlus, aquatics, environmental, youth sports, and events. MPRB also sets and to some extent standardizes the hours of facility operations.

» Indoor centers more strongly support passive recreation opportunities. Generally speaking, more recreation centers have spaces that support childcare, skill development, leisure classes such as arts and crafts, meetings, and similar sedentary or passive activities. Fewer sites have gyms, pools, or large multi-purpose rooms designed to support active recreation and fitness programs. Given MPRB’s interest in supporting health, wellness, and fitness, program staff incorporate active recreation and fitness programs where possible.

» The MPRB emphasizes youth programming. Park and facility programming has a heavy emphasis on youth programs and activities. While this target market is clearly a priority to the MPRB, there are limited opportunities for programs such as adult enrichment and senior activities.

» Youth Development and Community Outreach staff recruit under-served youth to encourage

participation. The Community Outreach Department is specifically tasked with connecting with under-served communities. Examples of outreach methods include:

» Spanish speaking staff conducts outreach at park wading pools and fields within neighborhoods to invite Minneapolis’ Hispanic/Latino families to participate in swimming lessons, camps, sports and after-school programs.

» Multi-lingual staff meets with youth within Minneapolis Public School classrooms to invite them to apply for the Village Parks language and cultural program, which then connects the youth to summer employment assisting with summer camps and swimming lessons for children.

» Youthline Outreach Mentorship full-time staff conduct street and neighborhood outreach in Minneapolis’ under-served neighborhoods to connect at-risk youth with positive adults and programs at the parks.

» Free programs make recreation accessible to all residents in the community. While many other towns and cities are transitioning to a pay-to-play model for providing recreation services, the MPRB is finding ways to offer no-cost recreation activities, as well as some financial support for fee-based activities. City residents in general are encouraged to participate (especially youth), and higher costs are passed on to non-residents, colleges and universities, commercial groups, and non-MPRB youth teams and associations.

» MPRB’s facility funding formula influences programming options. A formula is used to determine individual facility budgets to cover program staff, materials, and supplies. This budget is based on 1.5 part time staff hours times the number


Program Assessment

of hours the facility is open, plus a flat rate for certain types of activity space, such as gymnasiums, warming rooms, etc. This formula does not take into account factors such as the size of the facility or activity space, how well the facility is designed for supervision, the numbers of people served daily, the numbers of youth served (with younger children needing higher staff-participant ratios), other cultural and demographic factors (e.g. income and languages spoken by the surrounding community), or even the number of programs offered. As a result, some facilities appear very short staffed. This funding formula affects the choices Recreation Center Staff are making about what types of programs they can offer and who they can serve.

» Revenue-generation is key to programming options. Given the standardized funding formula, most Recreation Center Staff maximize where possible facility rentals, revenue-generating programs, and in some cases grants, donations, partnerships and sponsorships to offset costs. Sites that are able to generate revenue have greater funds to reinvest in programs and program-related materials and equipment. Programs that generate revenue are therefore more valuable than services that do not. Clearly, higher income neighborhoods have an advantage in generating revenue. Incidentally, a few of the recreation centers in neighborhoods with the greatest resource challenges have had a greater amount of success in obtaining outside funds (e.g. grants and donations) to support free-programming options for under-served youth. That leaves many centers in lower to middle-income areas without the resources that other centers have for programming and operations.

» Funding and staffing influence the diversity of programs available. Many Recreation Center Staff are aware that recreation center users would like to see more diverse programming options, and they are seeking ways to adapt the programs offered to changing recreation trends and community needs.

However, available resources may limit the ability to provide programs with high staffing or supervisory needs, non-English language classes and programs, or other programs with specialized equipment or materials.

» A balance between organized programs and community gathering space is needed. As a consequence of budgeting factors, Recreation Center Staff make difficult choices in providing unprogrammed, non-revenue generating opportunities to hang out and socialize versus offering more organized, fee-based programs.

» Recreation Recreation Center Staff maximize resources to provide programs that respond to local needs. Despite challenges in funding, staffing, facility infrastructure and other resources, many staff are highly adept and efficient at stretching existing resources to provide programming that responds directly to resident requests and local community needs.

» Central support and outreach create opportunities for more innovative programs. Funded through the Park Board’s Leadership Funds, Recreation and Community Outreach staff have met with community members and agency representatives to plan and organize innovative programs and activities that met current interests and needs. Examples of resulting projects include Family Zumba at three parks with Spanish speaking instructors to better serve Latino families; archery at four parks to engage youth in a lifelong sport; a cultural music festival in an urban core neighborhood to unite multiple cultures through music, art, dance and food; boys’ youth groups to positively engage teens in activities, and the employment of part-time multi-cultural, multi-lingual outreach staff to connect new populations to Minneapolis’ park programs, activities and services.

» Volunteerism is cultivated to enhance

opportunities. Volunteerism is cultivated to enhance opportunities. It is critical to note that volunteers in recreation are vital to the programs existence and without the volunteer’s fee would be significantly higher. The MRPB promotes and provides opportunities for volunteerism and resident involvement in program planning. MPRB provides staff volunteer coordinators to create effective relationships. Volunteerism is a valuable leisure activity that develops a strong sense of connection between volunteers, MPRB and the community. It also is an important way to augment the available personnel for programming and services.

» Recreation Center Staff influence the character of each facility. Besides making decisions on programs, the staff also influences factors such as the comfort and aesthetics of the facility, quality of maintenance, relationship with local neighborhood groups and partners, communication about recreation opportunities, as well as the welcoming character of the site to community members. These indirect elements likely affect the numbers of people visiting each facility.

» Recreation Center Staff have added responsibilities. It is a misnomer to characterize Recreation Center Staff as recreation facility managers. Recreation Center Staff oversee not only programming and operations of the recreation center, but also the surrounding park, and frequently a nearby park with no recreation facility. Their programming and supervisory duties may take them off-site and away from the recreation centers.

» Infrastructure issues affect how and when centers are programmed. Several Recreation Center Staff report that building constraints affect program attendance and facility use. For example, centers without air conditioning see a notable drop in facility use as indoor temperatures climb, sometimes into triple digits. Other centers report that winter activities and programs are influenced by poor


Program Assessment

heating or cold air seepage in some rooms. Some facilities have reservable rooms with poor lighting, no windows, or old features, which decreases interest in renting or using the rooms in general.

» Partnerships help extend operations. The MPRB is able to increase recreation opportunities through a variety of partnerships, joint use agreements, and collaborative efforts. Three recreation facilities are operated by non-profit organizations, such as the Boys & Girls Club and Pillsbury United Communities. A few recreation centers, such as Armatage Recreation Center, share school facilities or sites. In addition, MPRB has other specialized partnerships. These types of partnerships and facility use agreements increase the resources devoted to programming and services.

Key Findings from the Program Assessment Process

» Programming » Recreation centers are hubs for indoor and

outdoor programming

» Although most programming is decentralized, MPRB supports centralized programming in five categories: RecPlus, aquatics, environmental, youth sports, and events.

» Indoor centers more strongly support passive recreation opportunities

» The MPRB emphasizes youth programming

» Staff » Staff actively outreach to under-served

communities to promote recreation programming

» Recreation Center Staff influence the character of each facility

» Resources » Many free programs make recreation

accessible to all residents in the community

» MPRB funding, revenue generation, and staffing influence the diversity of programs available

» Recreation Center Staff maximize resources to provide programs that respond to local needs, including cultivating volunteerism and partnerships

» Central support and outreach creates opportunities for more innovative programs

» Facility » Infrastructure issues affect how and when

centers are programmed

» A balance between organized programs and community gathering space is needed


Trend Analysis

In order to set local tendencies in a broader context and help predict future needs and desires, we analyzed national facility and activity trends. Local trends will emerge as part of the community engagement process, but it is important to recognize what is going on nationally in order to help anticipate needs not currently evident locally. We might also find that there are innovations happening here that predict national trends. We also use national trends in combination with demographic analyses to better understand how Minneapolis specifically might fit with what we see nationally and to predict how demographic shifts might affect needs. The following section highlights different resources that track participation in recreation and sports, including the National Sporting Goods Association (NSGA), Sports and Fitness Industry, Recreation Management Association, and Physical Activity Council.

Summary of Sports Participation

Figure 1.21 summarizes participation in both indoor and outdoor activities utilizing information from the 2014 National Sporting Goods Association survey.

» Nat’l Rank: Popularity of sport based on national survey.

» Nat’l Participation: Percent of population that participate in this sport on national survey.

» Primary Service Rate: The rank order of the activity within the MPRB Service Area (by participation %)

» Primary Service %: Ranking of activities based upon participation percentage within the MPRB service area.

Figure 1.21 Summary of sports participation chart1This rank is based upon the 55 activities reported on by NSGA in their 2014 survey instrument.2Includes all types of aerobic exercise and Zumba.

Sport Nat’l Rank1

Nat’l Participation (in millions)

MPRB Service Area Rank

MPRB Service Area Participation by %

Exercise Walking 1 104.3 1 35.9%

Exercise with Equipment 2 55.1 2 19.0%

Swimming 3 45.9 5 15.3%

Aerobic2 4 44.2 3 15.5%

Running/Jogging 5 43 4 15.4%

Hiking 6 41.1 11 10.8%

Camping (overnight) 7 39.5 6 14.9%

Workout at Clubs 8 35.9 10 11.7%

Bicycle Riding 9 35.6 7 12.4%

Weight Lifting 11 34 9 11.8%

Fishing (fresh) 12 29.4 8 11.9%

Yoga 13 29.2 12 10.1%

Basketball 14 23.7 13 8.1%

Golf 17 18.4 14 6.4%

Boating (motor/power) 19 14.1 16 3.9%

Soccer 20 13.4 15 4.6%

Tennis 21 12.4 17 3.6%

Baseball 23 11.3 17 3.6%

Volleyball 24 10.2 17 3.6%

Softball 27 9.5 17 3.6%

Kayaking 29 9 21 2.9%

Football (tackle) 32 7.5 22 2.7%

Canoeing 33 7.3 22 2.7%

Ice/Figure Skating 34 7.3 24 2.6%

Martial Arts/MMA 36 6.3 25 2.1%

Gymnastics 39 5.4 26 1.9%

Skateboarding 41 5.4 27 1.8%

Cheerleading 46 3.6 30 1.0%

Boxing 47 3.4 28 1.3%

Hockey (ice) 48 3.4 29 1.1%

Wrestling 50 2.9 30 1.0%

Lacrosse 51 2.8 32 0.8%


Trend Analysis

National Activity Trends (in millions)

Figures 1.22 and 1.23 list those sport activities that would often take place either in an indoor community recreation facility, aquatic facility, or park facility, and the percentage of growth or decline that each has experienced nationally over the last ten years (2005-2014). The activities listed in the first table have experienced growth over the past ten years while the activities listed on the second table have experienced a decrease in participation over the past ten years. The bullet point to the right helps explain the evaluation tools shown in the tables:

Figure 1.22 Summary of increasing national activity trends

Figure 1.23 Summary of decreasing national activity trends

3Growth since 20074Growth since 20075Growth since 20076Growth since 20097Growth since 20068Growth since 2014

9Growth since 201310Growth since 2013

» 2005 Participation: The number of participants per year in the activity (in millions) in the United States.

» 2014 Participation: The number of participants per year in the activity (in millions) in the United States.

» Percent Change: The percent change in the level of participation from 2005 to 2014.

Sports Showing Increased Participation Rates 2005 Participation 2014 Participation Percent Change

Lacrosse3 1.2 2.8 133.3%

Kayaking4 5.9 9.0 52.5%

Running/Jogging 29.2 43.0 47.3%

Hockey (ice) 2.4 3.4 41.7%

Yoga5 20.7 29.2 41.1%

Gymnastics6 3.9 5.4 38.5%

Hiking 29.8 41.1 37.9%

Aerobic Exercising 33.7 44.2 31.2%

Exercise Walking 86.0 104.3 21.3%

Tennis 11.1 12.4 11.7%

Cheerleading 3.3 3.6 9.1%

Workout at Club 34.7 35.9 3.5%

Canoeing7 7.1 7.3 2.8%

Exercising with Equipment 54.2 55.1 1.7%

Ice/Figure Skating8 6.7 7.3 1.4%

Sports Showing Decreased Participation Rates 2005 Participation 2014 Participation Percent Change

Martial Arts / MMA9 6.4 6.3 -1.6%

Weight Lifting 35.5 34.0 -4.2%

Soccer 14.1 13.4 -5.0%

Boxing10 3.8 3.4 -10.5%

Camping 46.0 39.5 -14.1%

Bicycle Riding 43.1 35.6 -17.4%

Basketball 29.9 23.7 -20.7%

Swimming 58.0 45.9 -20.9%

Fishing (fresh water) 37.5 29.4 -21.6%

Baseball 14.6 11.3 -22.6%

Volleyball 13.2 10.2 -22.7%

Wrestling 0.0 2.9 -23.7%

Football (tackle) 9.9 7.5 -24.2%

Golf 24.7 18.4 -25.5%

Softball 14.1 9.5 -32.6%

Boating 27.5 14.1 -48.7%

Skateboarding 12.0 5.4 -55.0%


Trend Analysis

Program Planning

In 2015, the company Recreation Management authorized a national statistically valid survey that had over 2,342 agencies respond. The findings of this survey has a confidence level of 95% with a margin of error being +/-2.0 percent. One element of information the survey tracked was the most commonly planned programs and how interest in these programs changed from the previous year. The survey respondents indicated that the 10 most popular park activities are as detailed to the right.

The most commonly planned programs, along with their changing positions from 2014, include:

1. Environmental education programs (up from No. 7)

2. Mind-body/balance programs such as yoga and tai chi (up from No. 6)

3. Fitness programs (down from No. 2)

4. Educational programs (up from No. 8)

5. Programs for active older adults (down from No. 1)

6. Teen programming (down from No. 3)

7. Holidays and special events (down from No. 5)

8. Day camps and summer camps (did not appear in 2014)

9. Adult sports teams (down from No. 4)

10. Water sports such as canoeing and kayaking (did

not appear in 2014)


Trend Analysis

The 10 most common programming types currently found among community center respondents include: holidays and other special events; fitness programs; youth sports teams; day camps and summer camps; programs for active older adults; mind-body/balance programs such as yoga and tai chi; adult sports teams; educational programs; swimming; and arts and crafts.

Some 39.2 percent of community center respondents said they had plans to add programs at their facilities over the next three years.

According to the Sports and Fitness Industry Association the data continue to show a gradual increase of budgets and revenues, cities and governmental organizations are still feeling the impact of the recession—primarily in terms of the budgetary hit they took in the wake of the economic downturn. The National League of Cities in its “2015 Cities and State Fiscal Structures” report shows that city finances have been slow to recover in part because of constraints on their ability to raise revenues.

At the same time that municipalities and other governmental organizations have been adapting to a “new normal” for budgets and revenues, parks and recreation agencies across the country have been taking on an expanding role in their communities and being asked to do more with less as reported by the National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA). In its recent “NRPA’s 2015 Field Report,” the association compared data gathered and published in 1965 with new data provided by agencies between 2010 and 2014, and found that the “…field has seen a vast broadening of roles and duties over the past five decades.” It adds that in the past five years, parks have met their growing list of to-dos with “unprecedented resourcefulness, serving their communities well despite constrained budgets, lean staffs and greatly reduced revenue streams.”

The Sports and Fitness Industry Association reports that a vast majority of parks respondents (94.8 percent) said they formed partnerships with outside organizations. This compares with 79.8 percent of non-parks respondents. The most common partners for parks were local schools (76.5 percent of parks respondents’ partner with them), local government (68.5 percent), nonprofit organizations (58 percent),

The 10 most commonly planned program additions include:

1. Teen programming

2. Fitness programs

3. Educational programs

4. Nutrition and diet counseling

5. Mind-body/balance programs such as yoga and tai chi

6. Day camps and summer camps

7. Festivals and concerts

8. Active senior programming

9. Sport training such as golf instruction or tennis lessons

10. Sports tournaments and races


Trend Analysis

corporate or local businesses (42.6 percent), and state government (40.4 percent.)

The Physical Activity Council’s (PAC) annual study tracks over 120 sports and their report provides a general participation overview along with program trends. One facet of the PAC study is tracking inactivity and obesity trends with young people. According the Physical Activity Council, the overall levels of inactivity increased slightly from 27.6% in 2013 to 28.3% in 2014.

Gen Z or those born in this millennium continue to dominate team sports categories. While the Gen Y and Gen X groups maintain the fitness sports. All three generations are actively involved in outdoor sports and individual sports. In terms of interest, all groups continue to look at swimming as a means for future fitness, followed heavily by outdoor activities. Fitness activities are featured high on the list for most adult age groups while team sports are important for the younger age groups. A list of the ten most popular activities by age group are diagrammed to the right.

Ages 6-12

Ages 13-17

Ages 18-24

Ages 25-34

Swimming for Fitness

Fishing

Camping

Hiking

Bicycling

Soccer

Running/Jogging

Team Swimming

Basketball

Working Out w/ Weights

Camping

Hiking


Running/Jogging

Bicycling

Shooting


Trail Running

Working Out w/ Machines

Fishing

Camping

Running/Jogging


Backpacking

Bicycling


Hiking

Climbing


Trail Running


Running/Jogging

Bicycling


Camping

Backpacking

Hiking

Canoeing


Trail Running


Trend Analysis

Ages 35-44

Ages 45-54

Ages 55-64

Ages 65+

Hiking



Running/Jogging

Camping

Canoeing

Bicycling

Backpacking


Rafting


Birdwatching

Camping


Bicycling

Canoeing

Hiking

Fishing


Backpacking

Bicycling

Fishing



Camping

Camping

Birdwatching

Hiking

Canoeing


Fitness Class


Bicycling

Birdwatching



Fitness Class

Hiking Fishing

Golf


Level of Service Analysis

The purpose of a level of service (LOS) analysis is to determine how well the existing MPRB system is meeting the needs of City residents. According to the National Recreation and Parks Association (NRPA), the basic definition of LOS is expressed as an allocation mechanism for the delivery of park and recreation facilities throughout a community. By adopting LOS standards, a community in essence says that all residents, regardless if they pay taxes or use the park

Figure 1.24 Comparison of quantity of recreation centers in major metropolitan areas

and recreation facilities, have equal opportunity to share in the basic services in the standards.

Several strategies may be used to assess and measure needs for park and recreation facilities and programs. One method compares the supply of park and recreation facilities against demand. If demand is less than supply then there is a surplus or excess capacity and no immediate need for additional facilities. One technique that has proven to be effective and

In addition to applying LOS standards to the existing inventory of MPRB facilities, a comparison of recreation centers per capita with other large cities is possible. One of the noted assets of the MPRB system is the number of recreation centers. To verify, a measurement of recreation centers ratio with other large metropolitan park systems is highlighted below. The table below illustrates that MPRB has one of the highest number of recreation centers of any large city in the country.

LOS Benchmark Comparison

1.3

1.2

0.9

0.9

0.7

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.1

0.6

Minneapolis

Washington DC

Los Angeles

Seattle

Boston

Baltimore

Philadelphia

San Francisco

Long Beach

New York City

Average

Community Centers per 10,000 population



facilities, plus limited financial resources, places a major challenge on the MPRB to respond to these needs.

Recreation Program and Service Delivery Trends

To assist in the process of developing a recreation master plan for MPRB it is helpful to understand some of the trends that are being seen nationally with recreation programming. This compliments the demand trends described in the Trends Analysis chapter, but focuses on the specific programs that cities are delivering and how they are doing so. It should be noted that each city is unique and the area of the country has a strong bearing on trends and other operational factors.

Recreation departments now often serve as a coordinating agency and a clearinghouse for multiple recreation agencies and providers, in an effort to bring a comprehensive scope of recreation programs to a community. This has also increased the number of partnerships that are in place to deliver a broader base of programs in a more cost effective manner. There is also a much stronger emphasis on revenue production and raising the level of cost recovery to minimize tax dollar use to offset recreation programming.

» Sports » Youth » Adult

is relatively easy to understand is to develop a level of service standard. Park and recreation facility LOS illustrates the opportunities through the availability of park and recreation facilities in a community and is typically calculated in terms of facilities per 1,000 population.

When the NRPA standards for park and recreation facilities are compared against the MPRB inventory of existing facilities in 2015, the MPRB system is currently deficient in:

» Indoor Swimming » Basketball/Volleyball Courts

In addition to applying LOS standards to the existing inventory of MPRB facilities, a comparison of recreation centers per capita with other large cities is possible. One of the noted assets of the MPRB system is the number of recreation centers. To verify, a measurement of recreation centers ratio with other large metropolitan park systems is highlighted in Figure 1.24 to the left. This graph illustrates that the MPRB has one of the highest number of recreation centers of any large city in the country.

Recreation Programs and Services

While MPRB has a strong foundation of recreation facilities, programs and services, there are significant unmet needs as identified by the community. This combined with an aging inventory of existing

» Team » Individual » Camps and clinics » Tournaments » Non-traditional sports (BMX, in-line hockey,

etc.) » Fitness/Wellness

» Fitness classes » Personal training

» Education » Cultural Arts

» Performing arts (dance, theater, music, etc.) » Visual arts (painting, ceramics, pottery, etc.) » Arts events (concerts, etc.)

» Youth » Before and after school » Summer day camps/playground programs » Preschool programs » Teen

» Seniors » Fitness/wellness » Cultural arts » Self-improvement » Education » Trip programs

» Aquatics » Lessons » Fitness » Competitive (swim teams) » Specialty

» General Programs » Personal development » Education » Specialty

» Adaptive Needs » Special Events



» Community events » Tournaments

Many agencies are now offering programs with shorter sessions (two to three classes) or on a drop-in pay-as-you-go basis (especially fitness). In addition, there has also been a concerted effort to integrate conventional recreation programming with community based social service programs and education. Most of the social service programs are offered by other community based agencies and education is often coordinated with school districts. The following are the most common specific activities being delivered by cities across the United States:

» Sports » Youth lacrosse » Youth camps and clinics » Youth sports specific training » Individual sports » Non-traditional sports (skateboarding, BMX,

mountain biking, fencing, etc.) » Fitness/Wellness

» Personal training » Yoga/pilates/massage therapy » Healthy lifestyle education » Group exercise classes

» Cultural Arts » Music production for youth

» Youth » After school programs in recreation centers

and/or schools » Summer camps – themed camps » Eco tourism (where appropriate) » Environmental education

» Seniors

» Fitness/wellness » Younger, more active seniors

» Aquatics » Fitness

» General Programs/Enrichment » Education – computer, finance, etc.

» Special Events » Community wide celebrations

Beyond these trends in what types of programs and activities are offered, public recreation providers across the nation are experiencing recognizable trends in how they deliver services. Keys to providing recreation programs and services in the future include:

» Use of Other Service Providers. There has been a movement away from the principle of public recreation departments having to be the actual provider of all recreation programs and services, to the concept of public agencies being the general coordinator and enabler of overall community recreation needs and resources. This has resulted in a great deal of programming now being conducted by volunteer youth sports organizations, adult sports associations, non-profit groups such as the YMCA and other social service organizations, as well as the private sector. This has reduced the financial obligations of the public sector, placed programming in the hands of organizations with the specific expertise (and often the facilities as well), and allowed the private sector to have a more active role in public recreation. There has also been an increase in the number of public agencies collaborating to bring a higher level of recreation service on more of a regional basis especially for more specialized services (adaptive needs, outdoor

education, etc.). This concept has become much more prevalent across the country with recreation departments being a clearinghouse of information and services offered by others while focusing its own efforts on providing more basic recreation services.

» Facilities. For many communities that provide indoor programs, school buildings are still the primary location for most activities with public recreation centers and other provider’s facilities being the additional sites. With the demand for recreation programs and services continuing to expand, a new, more innovative approach has been undertaken to find appropriate sites for many activities. This has resulted in partnering with private facilities (fitness centers, dance studios, outdoor aquatic clubs, etc.), non-profits (YMCA’s, Boys & Girls Clubs, cultural arts centers, etc.) and even private schools for certain activities.

» Staffing. In order to continue to grow the number of recreation programs and services that are offered to a community, adequate staffing is necessary to not only conduct the program itself but also to supervise and administer the activities. With staffing costs being the single greatest expense item for parks and recreation departments, many agencies have attempted to minimize the number of full-time staff by contracting for certain programs or partnering with other providers for services (see service providers above). The need to reduce full-time staff has become even more acute with the poor financial condition of many municipal governments. However, even with this approach there still needs to be adequate full-time staff to oversee and coordinate such efforts. Part-time staff is still the backbone of most recreation departments



and make up the vast majority of program leaders and instructors. Many departments have converted program instructors to contract employees with a split of gross revenues (usually 70% to the instructor and 30% to the city) or developed a truer contract for services that either rents facilities and/or takes a percentage of the gross from another organization. The use of volunteers can help to augment paid staff but should not be seen as a substitute for them.

» Funding. The basic requirement for the provision of recreation programs and services is a funding commitment associated with the development of facilities to support programs and staff to manage and provide the programming. This usually requires a tax dollar commitment but also other sources of funding including program fees, grants, and partnering with other agencies can also help with additional funding. In many recreation departments, funding limits have been the greatest single challenge to providing not only existing programs but also bringing on any new services.

» Administration. Essential to developing a comprehensive recreation program is a strong administrative overview of the process. It starts with the development of an overall philosophy that will direct programming efforts by the public organization and determine the role of other providers. The philosophy should emphasize areas of focus by age group as well as program areas and also prioritize future program development options. Key aspects of administration include:

In-house vs. contracted. As part of the programming philosophy a determination of what programs and services will be offered directly by the recreation staff and which will be

contracted to other individuals or organizations must be determined. Increasingly recreation departments are turning to contracted services or the outright rental of facilities to other providers to broaden programming and limit the role of in-house employees.

Before determining which programs, and services to contract or have provided by others, an assessment of the specific pros and cons of such a move needs to be completed. A major aspect of this analysis should be to determine the financial impacts and quality of the services that will be provided. Key questions to be asked include:

» Will this be the most cost effective method to obtain the program, service or function?

» Does the department have the knowledge and equipment to provide the program, service or function?

» Will the quality of the program, service or function suffer if it is contracted to other organizations?

» Are there other more qualified organizations that should provide the program, service or function?

» Is the service, program or function only available from a contract provider?

» Are the safety and liability risks too high to provide the program or service in house?

Marketing. There has to be the realization that recreation programming is a discretionary expenditure and as a result it is critical that there is a strong marketing effort to promote the recreation activities that are offered by public providers.

Registration. An aspect of marketing for recreation services is the ease of being able to register for these activities. This requires a fully computerized registration software package, the ability to register on-line, the acceptance of credit cards for service, and the ability to make payments over time.

Record keeping. To determine the relative success of programming and the markets being served, accurate and timely record keeping is necessary. Registration numbers by class and activity area need to be kept and comparisons by programming season conducted. In addition expense and revenue numbers for each activity must be noted and compared to determine financial viability. Demographic records of who are taking recreation programs and where they live will determine specific markets that are being served and more importantly ones that may be overlooked. The only way to adequately keep such records is through complete computerization of not only registration but all records associated with programming.

Evaluation. Ultimately the success of recreation programming must be measured by the community it serves. A determination of the satisfaction with existing programs and services as well as the needs and expectations for future programming must be measured through a formal evaluation process.



Current Recreation Programs and Services Assessment

The MPRB offers a number of recreation programs and services to the residents of Minneapolis and the surrounding area. The following inventory of program categories was collected from the MPRB Service Area Program Guides. Important issues with programming at the recreation centers include:

» MPRB focuses much of its programming efforts on youth, seniors, youth sports, camps/after school and special events that operate out of the recreation centers.

» Recreation programs and services are generally planned and delivered on a recreation center level to be responsive to varying needs and expectations of the neighborhood served.

» Current MPRB programs and services include the general areas listed in Figure 1.25

Area Focus Programs

Computer and Technology Youth Computer Lab, Robotics, Video Games, Lego Contraptions

Cooking and Nutrition Youth, AdultsKitchen Creation, Cooking with Heather, Pretty Little Cupcakes, Holiday Cooking, Top Chef, Healthy Cooks, Urban Farming, Preserve Your Garden

Arts Youth, AdultsPottery, Ceramics, Dance with Me, Theater Nest, Instrument Lessons, Art in the Park, Creative Movement, Ballet, Beading and Braiding, Gingerbread House Making

Hobbies and Clubs Youth, Adults, Families

Card Club, Chess, Crafts, Board Games, Game Room, Comic Book Club, Nite Owlz, Parent and Tot Playtime, Parent’s Night Out, Senior Luncheon

Health Fitness Adults Yoga, Tai, Chi, Zumba, Self Defense

Language and Cultural Youth Spanish Adventure, Cultural Camp, Spanish for Kids

Mentoring and Development Youth Boys and Girls Groups, Talking Circles, Girls Empower Together, Homework

Environment and Nature Youth, AdultsAll About Dragonflies, Plant Swap, Nature Tots, Naturalist Roundup, Nature of Engineering, Science Rules, Fishing, Intro to Camping, Birding, Geo-Caching, Gleaning

Pre-School Youth Peewee Tennis, Parent and Tot Playtime, Lil Flipsters, Gymnastics, Lil Kickers, Sports Sampler, Swim Lessons

Special Events Community Ice Cream Social, Cornfeed, Cinderalla Ball, Earth Day, Pollinator Part, Art Festival, Truck Extravaganza, End of Summer BBQ

Sports Community Fundamental Youth Sports, Teens, Adults

Trips/Tours Youth, Senior Field Trips, Senior Trips, Tours

Volunteer Adults Instructional Youth Soccer, Special Event Attendants

Water Activities Youth, Adults Log Rolling, Swim Lessons, Sailing, Canoeing

Self-Directed CommunityCanoeing, Kiting, Sail Boats, Paddle Boats, Sand Volleyball, Ice Fishing, Geocaching, Croquet, Sledding, Horse Shoes, Athletic Equipment, Games

Figure 1.25 Current MPRB programs and services


Gap Analysis

The gap analysis examines the programs and activities being offered by the MPRB and the facility components offered in the MPRB facilities. Program analysis was based on review of a sampling of 4,000 programs, activities, and classes offered. The component analysis compared the volume of existing facilities against the level of service standards.

The MPRB recreation center serves many thousands of people each year. Over 100,000 drop-in uses are recorded among youth who have ActivePass accounts alone. When combined with class participation, private reservations, daycare or preschool services, major events, and the many other activities supported by these centers, their impact on the community is clear.

86% of class participants were less than 18 years old. In some cases, such as Webber, programming is entirely for youth. On average, users were slightly more likely to be male than female. At some individual sites, however, the percentage of either males of females was very high (Folwell, Stewart, etc). Specific information on the age and gender of class participants for each center is provided in Appendix G.

In light of the sheer volume of use and the variety of users, it is important to make sure that the investment being made to support that use is being wisely and equitably spent. This summary examines the available data on program and facility use and determines where there is a gap between the potential need or demand in the community, and the ability of the current system to meet that need. It is important to note that serious data limitations were encountered during this process and, while every attempt has been made to account for those inconsistencies, all

findings should be viewed in the larger context of the other evaluation tools, such as interviews and community input, used for the RecQuest project.

Program Assessment

A sampling of 4,000 MRPB program class offerings were analyzed as a part of this process to assess the general type of programs currently offered. The analysis place activities, programs, sports and events into one of four general demographic categories including youth, adult, senior, and community.

» Without question, the MPRB program offerings are dominated by youth programs which represents 71.7% of the 4,000 programs sampled. The MRPB has a strong commitment to youth activities, programs and sports that is reflected in the programs and activities offered. Clearly the need for youth programming is being met based on the volume of programs and activities offered for this general category.

» The adult category represents 17.6% of the sample activities and programs analyzed. It should be noted that the adult age group (18-54yrs) represents almost 60% of the service area population. Given the population of the adult category in comparison to the percentage of the sampling size for adult programs and activities it would suggest that the adult market is under-served. However, it must be remembered that there are multiple opportunities for adults to find activities and programs offered by alternative service providers. In addition, the majority of existing MPRB facilities are designed to support youth activities and have limited space for adult programs.

» Senior programs and activities represent less than 1% of the sampled programming. However, many of the adult programs are open to the senior population although the individual program or activity might not be designated a specifically senior

program. The senior age group (over 55) represents almost 20% of the service area population and this age category represents the greatest increase in population by the year 2020. When factoring the size of the senior population and the percent of senior programs represented in the sample size it appears that the senior category is under-served but, like the adult category, there are multiple other service providers in the community which offer senior activities.

» The remaining 8.4% of the analyzed sample represents community activities, events, and programs. These activities are some of the most popular programs offered by the MPRB in terms of participation. They play an important a role in bringing the community as a whole together. Many of these popular events occur in park spaces adjacent to MPRB recreation centers, though they may utilize the building facilities to support a larger event. The type and size of indoor community events is restricted by the size of recreation centers.

Figure 1.26 Comparison of existing programs by demographic category to the percentage of the general population that demographic category represents

Comparison of Existing Programs by Demographic Category to General Demographics

Age Category

Percent of Sample Size from MPRB Class Offering Analysis1

Age Category General Population Percentage2

Youth 71.7% 20.2%

Adult 17.6% 59.8%

Senior 8.4% 19.9%

Community .25% N/A

Total 99.95% 99.9%

1Figures based on analysis of 4,000 class sampling done for the RecQuest project by Ballard*King


Gap Analysis

Using the National Sporting Goods Association (NSGA) information gathered during the market analysis process it is possible to establish the market potential for activities.

» Closer analysis of the existing programs and activities reveals that 31% of the program sampling represent sports (various forms). Many centers within the MPRB system offer both Rev Sports and their own sport programs specific to an individual center. Based on participation estimates, the MPRB is offering an adequate number of sports programs to the community it serves. It should be noted that most of the sports programs offered through the MPRB are recreational in nature and focus on skill development and fun. See Figure 1.27 for participation estimates.

» Fitness activities and programs within the MPRB program sampling represents 9% of the sample size. Fitness activities remain the most popular physical activity according to the American College of Sports Medicine. Group fitness classes that include all forms of Aerobic Exercise, Spinning, Zumba, Yoga and Pilates continue to drive membership and participation in fitness. More recently another fitness trend has been function fitness. The National Sporting Goods Association conducts extensive survey research each year and fitness activities that include exercise walking, exercise with equipment, running/jogging, aerobic exercise and yoga are consistently in the top 12 activities in popularity in the country. Given the popularity and growing interest in health and wellness the volume of fitness offerings through the MPRB is low and this program segment is under-served. Fitness interest cuts across a wide spectrum of the population and age. See Figure 1.28 for participation estimates.

» Enrichment activities, including arts, music, drama, language, science and crafts, make up about 16% of the sample size. While there is not an abundance of information available for participation in these types of activities as compared to sport

activities, there are statistics that can be utilized to help determine the market for cultural arts activities and events. That being said, it appears that the volume and diversity of MPRB programs meet the enrichment needs of art, language and culture, cooking, nature, and development for the MPRB service area. See Figure 1.29 for participation estimates.

Overall, the gap analysis reveals that the MPRB does have some areas of deficit in the level of service. MPRB park facility programming has a heavy emphasis on youth programs and activities. While this target market is clearly a priority for the MPRB, there should be a better balance with other type of programs including senior programming and fitness activities at some of the recreation centers, which is likely to require investment in building renovations or expansion, as well as equipment.

Estimated Participation in Sports

Activity Estimated Participation in the MPRB Service Area1

Basketball 29,308

Soccer 16,772

Volleyball 13,216

Baseball 13,077

Tennis 13,045

Softball 12,930

Football 9,620

Gymnastics 6,720

Hockey 3,826

Lacrosse 2,9411All numbers from NSGA Figure 1.27 Estimated participation in sports

Estimated Participation in Fitness


Exercise Walking 129,909

Exercise with Equipment 68,796

Aerobics 56,254

Running/Jogging 55,712

Weight Lifting 42,877

Yoga 36,5281All numbers from NSGA Figure 1.28 Estimated participation in fitness

Estimated Participation in the Arts


Photography 46,605

Painting/Drawing 28,533

Creative Writing 21,876

Pottery/Ceramics 19,022

Choir/Chorus 16,486

Dance 6,6582All numbers from National Endowment for the Arts

Figure 1.29 Estimated participation in the arts


Gap Analysis

Facility Assessment

The MPRB operates 47 different recreation centers with a variety of activity spaces and components. These are primarily smaller buildings, distributed widely across the city with the original intention of serving their immediate neighborhoods with recreation and gathering space. For the most part, the facilities still serve that original intention, although in many cases the specific size or condition of a facility may not match the current need. In some cases, larger facilities may offer amenities or programming that gives that center a larger geographical draw. More information on the geographic draw of each facility, based on the zip codes of class registrants, is provided in Appendix G.

Most of the recreation centers have a similar group of room types, including multi-purpose rooms, arts and craft rooms, and meeting rooms. Figure 1.30 is an inventory of program spaces within the recreation centers.

Recreation Center Inventory of Spaces

Recreation Center Spaces Number

Multi-purpose Room 53

Arts and Crafts Room 40

Meeting Room 36

Gymnasiums 25

Warming Room 23

Game Room 21

Class Room 10

Computer Room 10

Pre-School Room 4

Music Room 3

Library Room 3

Figure 1.30 Inventory of spaces within MPRB recreation facilities

One of the best attributes of the existing inventory of spaces is the volume of space dedicated to multi-purpose use including classrooms, meeting rooms, and warming areas. This allows for maximum flexibility for MRPB staff from a programming perspective. However, the age and condition of some of the recreation centers means that these important spaces are in need of repair, renovation, and updating. Maintenance and operational needs should also be considered in order to ensure that these, and other spaces, can continue to meet the needs of the community.

As noted elsewhere in this report, it is difficult to determine exactly how heavily used specific spaces are throughout the system. Using the best data currently available, it appears that overall recreation center spaces are reserved for use 12.6% of the available hours (based on each room being available for reservation 5,508 hours each year). While that number appears low, it was noted in interviews with Recreation Center Staff, as well as with community members, that many centers experience a high rate of drop-in use and other uses that would not appear in that statistic. In addition, of those 5,508 hours of available time, there is often a much smaller window of peak hours when there can be a great deal of competition to reserve specific spaces. More specific information on reservations is presented in Appendix F.

Close examination of the current level of service and inventory of spaces indicates there are some deficiencies and over time investment in recreation centers should be made to address the gaps in services and facility space, including:

» Fitness. One of the areas where there is potential for increased participation levels, and therefore a

need for additional facility space, is to support fitness programming. There is adequate space within the Recreation Centers to provide group fitness classes but the opportunity for access to cardiovascular equipment and weight machines is under-served. Fitness plays a key role in combating health and wellness initiatives including obesity. With the aging demographic of the MPRB service area, the growing baby boomer population and the active lifestyle of the over 55 age group, adult fitness and wellness is an area that is expected to see even more growth.

» Gymnasium. The MPRB system has 25 gymnasium spaces, but based on the community access and the overall lack of flexibility to support programs, gymnasium space is inadequate. However, it should be noted that in many communities, the school district facilities become public spaces and serve as a supplemental provider of gymnasium space and public access.

» Indoor Swimming. Swimming is one of the most popular recreation activities in the country. The MPRB system, with numerous wading pools, splash pads, outdoor pools, and beaches, meets the swimming need of the MPRB service area in the summer. However, the need for four-season swimming access is largely unmet. Indoor swimming pools would provide additional indoor recreation, fitness, lessons, and aquatic opportunities and would address the community need in this area.

» Enrichment. MPRB supports enrichment type programs that include arts, cooking, technology, language, development, and pre-school program areas. Although the volume of space available for these programs is adequate, the quality of the spaces is not. Many of the spaces used for these programs lack the space, equipment, and technology that would make these program spaces more desirable. This is especially true of the kitchen facilities located in several of the centers.

42 Phase I Summary Community Engagement

Community EngagementCommunity engagement is a cornerstone of the effort to identify the current and projected park and recreation needs of Minneapolis residents and park users from surrounding communities. A team composed of MPRB staff and expert consultants is seeking participation from residents and a broad range of community stakeholders representing individuals, users and non-users of the current recreation centers and programs, community partners and various other interests. Through a collaborative approach, both unique and common needs and preferences are being revealed. From these findings a vision for recreation programming and community center enhancement is emerging that will guide the planning process and serve as the foundation for developing a system-wide recreation plan.


Community Engagement Plan

Although demographic and recreation trends in Minneapolis have changed greatly in recent decades, recreation centers are not keeping pace with these changes nor the need for facility updates as buildings age. Since RecQuest will set the vision for the next generation of park users citywide, the approach to community engagement is one that is deliberate in its effort to be representative of the City’s rapidly growing diverse populations.

Too often, policies and programs are developed and implemented without thoughtful consideration of racial equity. When racial equity is not explicitly brought into operations and decision-making, racial inequities are likely to be perpetuated. To ensure that equity is a careful consideration in this process, staff and consultants will utilize a racial equity tool which is designed to integrate explicit consideration of racial equity in decisions, including policies, practices and programs. A racial equity tool:

» Pro-actively seeks to eliminate racial inequities and advance equity.

» Identifies clear goals, objectives and measurable outcomes.

» Engages community in decision-making processes.

» Identifies who will benefit or be burdened by a given decision, examines potential

unintended consequences of a decision, and develops strategies to advance racial equity and mitigate unintended negative consequences.

» Develops mechanisms for successful implementation and evaluation of impact.

A community engagement plan was created in May 2015 to identify target engagement audiences, as well as the tools, techniques and timeline to involve participants in building consensus around RecQuest directions and an implementation plan. Engagement targets are:

» Recreation center users » Recreation center non-users » Underrepresented populations » Recreation interest groups » Community partners » Government entities

As part of the effort to include the diverse perspectives of Minneapolis residents, distinct population characteristics were identified. The subsequent engagement strategies are tailored to reach as many users and non-users within the following categories as possible:

» Race and ethnicity » Primary language spoken (English, Hmong,

Somali and Spanish)

» Gender/gender identity » Sexual orientation » Education level » Socio-economic status/employment status » Type of household (family composition,

renters or homeowners) » Geographic location » Age (youth, young adults/college students,

seniors) » Disability status

In addition to these characteristics, an outreach strategy was developed to involve participants from five different geographic areas within the City. Figure 1.31, the Community Engagement Dashboard, provides a snapshot of outreach participants involved to date.

The Community Engagement Plan is a living document that can be modified as the project progresses and additional stakeholders and engagement methods are identified. Key elements of the plan include a project description, engagement recommendations, stakeholder roles and responsibilities, an overview of the advisory committee and a project schedule. A full copy of the plan, including a description of each outreach technique, is included in Appendix H.



Figure 1.31 The Community Engagement Dashboard captures the most up to date data collected from demographic and geographic ranges as well as when each type of community engagement event represented in the data took place.

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT DASHBOARD

52+48+P 9+21+24+20+13+13+P 2+5+17+10+59+4+3+P50+50+P 12+21+14+12+10+8+23+P 2+6+18+10+64+P

35-44 24%

65+ 13%

25-34 21%

55-64 13%

18-24 9%

45-54 20%

35-44 13.8%

65+

unreported

8%

23%

25-34 21%

55-64 9.7%

18-24 11.5%

45-54 12.2%

49.7%

50.3%Male

Female

LOCATION - NORTH

LOCATION - SOUTHWEST AGE - YOUNG PEOPLE

LOCATION - SOUTH

NON-PARK & FACILITY USERSPARK & FACILITY USERS

LOCATION - NORTHEAST/SOUTHEAST

LOCATION - DOWNTOWN ETHNICITY - PEOPLE OF COLOR

KEY - Approximate numbers of people in this category who participated (in comparison to the total numbers of people who participated in the outreach activity overall):

SURVEY DEMOGRAPHICS COMPARED TO MINNEAPOLIS’ OVERALL POPULATION DEMOGRAPHICS

SELECTED TARGETS

Closing the Gap

Closing the Gap Closing the Gap

Closing the Gap

Closing the GapClosing the Gap

Closing the Gap


None:

Intercepts

Intercepts Intercepts

Intercepts

InterceptsIntercepts

Intercepts


Some:

Listening Session

Listening Session Listening Session

Listening Session

Listening SessionListening Session

Listening Session


Many:

Survey

Survey Survey

Survey

SurveySurvey

Survey

Survey Survey

Most:

No data collected:

APRIL

MARCH

ENGAGEMENT AND OUTREACH ACTIVITY CALENDARKEY

MAY

JUNE

JULY

AUGUST

Listening SessionsIntercept EventsResidential SurveyNeighborhood Closing the Gap Meetings

ADDITIONAL SURVEY DEMOGRAPHICS

SEPTEMBER

75+17+8+P50+50+P23+43+19+4+11+P

English

Spanish

Hmong

Somali

Employed

<$35,000

Arabic

Retired

$35,000-$75,000

Renters

Scattered

Not Working

$75,000-$100,000

>$100,000

Don’t know/refused

Homeowners85+6+3+2+2+2+P

2014 Survey Outreach



Minneapolis (based on 2013 ACS)



LANGUAGE SPOKEN AT HOME RENTERS VS. HOMEOWNERS

EMPLOYMENT STATUS INCOME

52%

48%Male

Female

GENDER AGE POPULATION

Am. Indian 2%

Somali 4%

Hmong 3%

White 59%

Hispanic 10%

Black 17%

Asian 5%

Am. Indian 2%

Somali N/A

Hmong N/A

White 63.8%

Hispanic 10%

Black 18%

Asian 5.6%


Community Engagement PlanCOMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT DASHBOARD

52+48+P 9+21+24+20+13+13+P 2+5+17+10+59+4+3+P50+50+P 12+21+14+12+10+8+23+P 2+6+18+10+64+P

35-44 24%

65+ 13%

25-34 21%

55-64 13%

18-24 9%

45-54 20%

35-44 13.8%

65+

unreported

8%

23%

25-34 21%

55-64 9.7%

18-24 11.5%

45-54 12.2%

49.7%

50.3%Male

Female

LOCATION - NORTH

LOCATION - SOUTHWEST AGE - YOUNG PEOPLE

LOCATION - SOUTH

NON-PARK & FACILITY USERSPARK & FACILITY USERS

LOCATION - NORTHEAST/SOUTHEAST

LOCATION - DOWNTOWN ETHNICITY - PEOPLE OF COLOR

KEY - Approximate numbers of people in this category who participated (in comparison to the total numbers of people who participated in the outreach activity overall):

SURVEY DEMOGRAPHICS COMPARED TO MINNEAPOLIS’ OVERALL POPULATION DEMOGRAPHICS

SELECTED TARGETS

Closing the Gap


Closing the Gap

Closing the GapClosing the Gap

Closing the Gap


None:

Intercepts


Intercepts

InterceptsIntercepts

Intercepts


Some:

Listening Session


Listening Session

Listening SessionListening Session

Listening Session


Many:

Survey

Survey Survey

Survey

SurveySurvey

Survey

Survey Survey

Most:

No data collected:

APRIL

MARCH

ENGAGEMENT AND OUTREACH ACTIVITY CALENDARKEY

MAY

JUNE

JULY

AUGUST

Listening SessionsIntercept EventsResidential SurveyNeighborhood Closing the Gap Meetings

ADDITIONAL SURVEY DEMOGRAPHICS

SEPTEMBER

75+17+8+P50+50+P23+43+19+4+11+P

English

Spanish

Hmong

Somali

Employed

<$35,000

Arabic

Retired

$35,000-$75,000

Renters

Scattered

Not Working

$75,000-$100,000

>$100,000

Don’t know/refused

Homeowners85+6+3+2+2+2+P







LANGUAGE SPOKEN AT HOME RENTERS VS. HOMEOWNERS

EMPLOYMENT STATUS INCOME

52%

48%Male

Female

GENDER AGE POPULATION

Am. Indian 2%

Somali 4%

Hmong 3%

White 59%

Hispanic 10%

Black 17%

Asian 5%

Am. Indian 2%

Somali N/A

Hmong N/A

White 63.8%

Hispanic 10%

Black 18%

Asian 5.6%



Community Engagement Strategy

Engagement tasks are divided into three phases to collect feedback and involve different stakeholders at key times in the process. Figure 1.32 illustrates this planning process:

Phase I: What is. (June 2015-December 2015)

During this phase, staff and the consultant team conducted broad-based outreach to introduce residents to RecQuest, gather information on the current facility use, programs, and partnerships, and identify community recreation needs.

Engagement activities in this phase include:

» Intercept events

» Listening sessions

» Neighborhood (CTG)1 meetings

» Residential survey

Engagement targets:

» Users

» Non-users

» Underrepresented populations

Phase II: What can be. (January 2016-March 2016)

During this phase, staff and the consultant team will collaborate with the community to develop a vision and possible scenarios for recreation centers.


» Community workshops

» Focus groups

» Questionnaire

» Stakeholder interviews

Engagement targets:

» Users

» Non-users


» Recreation interest groups

» Community partners

» Government entities

Phase III: What will be. (April 2016-June 2016)

During this phase, staff and the consultant team will collaborate with the community to determine the preferred scenario.


» Community workshops

» Focus groups

» Workshop kits

Engagement targets:

» Users

» Non-users


» Recreation interest groups

» Community partners

In addition to the engagement activities noted above, a Community Advisory Community has been appointed to represent different geographies and stakeholders and serve as liaisons to community members, review key deliverables, communicate key findings and assist in developing the vision, goals and objectives for this plan. MPRB staff members and a Project Steering Committee will meet to ensure coordination with other simultaneous planning efforts.

1Closing the Gap, or CTG, is an initiative to address the funding shortfall for Minneapolis neighborhood parks. As part of a combined effort with RecQuest, questions about recreation centers and programming were added to CTG neighborhood meetings and intercept events.

WHAT IS WHAT CAN BE WHAT WILL BE



Figure 1.32 RecQuest Community Engagement Schedule

PHASE I PHASE II PHASE III

JULY MARCHJUNE

CAC Meeting Notes

Contact List Updates


Intercept Summary

Listening Sessions Summary

Neighborhood (CTG) Meetings Summary

Phase II Community Workshops Summary

Phase III Community Workshops Summary

Phase II Focus Group Summary Memo

Phase III Focus Group Summary Memo

Questionnaire Summary

Stakeholder Interviews Summary

Workshop Summary

Listening Sessions

Stakeholder Interviews

Workshop Kit

Questionnaire

Focus Groups

Focus Groups

Community WorkshopsCommunity Workshops

Public Hearing

CAC CAC CAC

Project Comment Email

Public Information Updates • Written Updates• Social Media Updates• Traditional and Multi-cultural/Multi-lingual Media Updates

Ong

oing

Tas

ksEn

gage

men

t Act

iviti

esEn

gage

men

t Del

iver

able

s

FEBRUARYAUGUST APRIL MAY JUNESEPTEMBER OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER JANUARY

2015 2016

Communications Plan

Preliminary Outreach Findings (Phase I Summary Report)

Intercepts

Neighborhood (CTG) Meetings

Flyers/Business Cards

Info Posters

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT SCHEDULE


Communications Plan

Key components of the RecQuest Communications Plan

» Key Messages

» Branding

» Media Relations

» Online Communications

» Events

RecQuest Elevator Speech from the Communication Plan

“RecQuest, led by the MPRB, is a comprehensive planning, design, community engagement, and recreation program evaluation and needs assessment for MPRB recreation centers. The plan developed from the assessment will serve the next 25-30 years of capital improvements for recreation centers, and is an opportunity to tailor recreation center facilities and programs to meet the current and projected needs of communities across the city.”

“Community’s Vision. Tomorrow’s

Recreation.”

In July 2015, the consultant team provided the MPRB a communications plan for the RecQuest project (See Appendix I). The communications plan formalized the methodology for communicating within the organization as well as with the public to maintain transparency throughout the project process.

The communications plan was utilized for media relations, online communications, in-person communications, and events promotions. A logo and tagline developed specifically for the RecQuest project is detailed in the communications plan and was used on all RecQuest related releases, publications, reports, and presentations (see Figure 1.33).

One of the most important aspects of the communications plan was the explicit identification of the project description, the project elevator speech, and an elevator speech describing the relationship of RecQuest to other ongoing planning efforts within the MPRB. These narratives continue to be key in communicating the intent of the RecQuest project and the importance of the work to the future of the recreation facilities in the MPRB system.

Figure 1.33 Official RecQuest tag line (left) and branding imagery (above) as determined in the communications plan


Community Engagement Findings

Figure 1.35 Community engagement events outside the Loring Community Arts Center in August 2015

Figure 1.34 Community engagement event inside the Loring Community Arts Center in August 2015

Phase I engagement activities were underway and in process at the time data was compiled for this summary report. This section provides a status report on Phase I tasks and notes preliminary directions and key findings based on data available.

Phase I Engagement Activities and Data Collection

The following activities have been completed for Phase I of the RecQuest community engagement process:

» Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board 2015 Residential Survey. This survey was completed during March and April of 2015 by the Morris Leatherman Company, a research firm located in Minneapolis. A random sample of 500 residents shared their perspectives about current and future park needs and issues. Participants answered questions on the telephone and responses were recorded by the Morris Leatherman Company. Questions focused on perceptions of the park and recreation system, usage of the park and recreation system and demographic data. A summary of the findings can be found in Appendix J.

» Listening Sessions. These informal events were designed to encourage participation from communities of color. MPRB staff collaborated with Voices for Racial Justice and Hope Community to schedule eight listening sessions. Seven of the sessions were successfully held during the summer

of 2015; the sites included Bottineau, Coyle, Folwell, Harrison, Pearl, Peavey and Waite. The eighth session, at Corcoran, was staffed but no participants attended, potentially as a consequence of the rainy weather. The sessions included open-ended discussion of various questions and notes were taken on responses. Questions focused on perceptions of parks and recreation centers, what works and what does not at recreation centers, whether needs are being met in terms of facilities, programming and staffing and which programming and facilities are desired. Staff also recorded the number and approximate age of participants. A summary of the feedback collected to date can be found in Appendix J.

» Neighborhood (CTG) Meetings. These meetings provided neighborhoods with an outlet for expressing their ideas and concerns about parks and recreation. A total of 30 meetings were held throughout the summer and early fall of 2015, with more than 300 individuals participating. Additionally, a supplementary survey was used to gather more information. The survey was posted online, distributed through each recreation center, through email and at CTG meetings. Questions at meetings and online focused on perceptions of parks and recreation centers, what works and what does not at parks and recreation centers, which programming and facilities are desired, investment priorities, favorite parks and the importance of certain services and



amenities. A summary of the data collected to date can be found in Appendix J.

» Intercept Events. Intercepts were set up at community events that were already occurring and locations where people were already gathering throughout the summer and early fall of 2015. Using posters with questions, people contributed feedback on the spot. A total of 25 intercept events were held throughout the city, with more than 1,200 individuals participating in some aspect of the events. Several were held in conjunction with Closing the Gap events; others were located at events such as the Ownami Falling Water Festival, National Night Out, Urban League Family Day and a gathering of the community group Mujeres en Accion. Participants used stickers on posters to answer questions about their recreation center usage, benefits they believed were important and what they liked about the centers and programs. Staff was on hand to provide assistance and record the observable demographic characteristics of the broader participant pool, such as whether participants were primarily people of color or in a particular age category. A summary of the data collected to date can be found in Appendix J. More intercept events are anticipated through the end of the engagement process.

At-A-Glance Community Engagement Activities and Data Collection

» Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board 2015 Residential Survey

» Listening Sessions

» Neighborhood (Closing the Gap) Meetings

» Intercept Events

Emerging Themes

This section provides a snapshot of key themes emerging from participant feedback to date. Findings will continue to shift and evolve as the engagement process continues.

» The community values its recreation centers, even though they are not widely used. As noted in the representative residential survey, approximately one-fourth of city residents use recreation centers, with only 27% of respondents visiting recreation centers during the previous two years. However, other engagement activities still in process continue to highlight the importance of recreation centers for recreation and other community benefits. Across outreach activities, a general agreement is emerging that recreation centers are important

community assets that should be prioritized for investment.

» Cost of programs is a major consideration for users. Across all activities held to date, participants repeatedly cited cost as a factor in their usage. Low cost and/or free programs were identified as favorite aspects of center programs and as potential motivation for using recreation centers more frequently. Conversely, increasing fees for users rated poorly as a revenue-generating option.

» Individuals prefer to share the burden of funding recreation center improvements. According to survey responses, increased fees are among the least desirable options for generating revenue to support facility improvements and service enhancements. The most popular options for generating additional revenue included cultivating private sponsorships, corporate sponsorships and concessions. Approximately ¾ of survey respondents, however, supported a tax increase to maintain MPRB assets and services at their current levels system-wide. This suggests that while not all facility users could afford increased fees, the community at large recognizes the need to maintain these facilities as community assets.

» Overall responses to recreation center programming are generally positive, but more diverse programming options are desired. Most engagement participants in early Phase I engagement activities



suggested that programs are at least ‘good’ or ‘interesting.’ However, many also noted that different types of programs, expanded access to existing programs and more culturally relevant programs would encourage them to use recreation centers more frequently. Programs more closely tailored to surrounding communities were identified as one possible solution.

» Recreation centers were noted for their potential to provide a community gathering space. Participants frequently noted their desire for centers that provide varied types of group and gathering spaces. This includes reservable rooms equipped with technological support for meetings, more socially oriented spaces for ‘hanging out’ and engaging in casual activities or cultural meals, and spaces such as learning centers to support community services.

» Participants would like more adult programming, but youth programming remains their priority. Programming for adults, especially seniors, was identified frequently in engagement activities as an important need. However, participants overwhelmingly prioritized services for children and youth, both programmatically and in terms of investment preferences. In the listening sessions, youth expressed a strong desire for inclusive, welcoming spaces that would help connect them to skills and opportunities. This included having places to congregate with friends, receive help

with homework, and engage in a range of activities and skill development programs. From an equity perspective, youth programs have a very high return on investment in the most under-resourced communities, leading to greater health, success in schools, and a stronger connection to the community.

» Participants believe recreation centers are in need of improvements. Many participants in initial Phase I activities have indicated that MPRB’s recreation facilities are in adequate condition. Many more, however, suggested that improvements to recreation centers would facilitate greater usage. Participants indicated that facilities are outdated and need improvements to bathrooms, drinking fountains and other features to make the buildings comfortable and safe. Additional needs include air conditioning and fitness/athletic space (gymnasiums), as well as improved litter control and general maintenance.

» Staffing is an important component of successful recreation centers. As noted in intercept results, ‘friendly staff’ was among the top three reasons for liking recreation centers and programs, rated closely behind ‘low-cost programs’ and ‘interesting programs.’ Similarly, in several listening sessions, participants noted that having staff with language and cultural ties to the surrounding community is a valuable way to encourage program participation and facility use. Staff also play an important role

in linking communities to the MPRB and to available opportunities. Youth in particular value staff who make them feel welcome and safe. Some participants travel to more distant recreation centers where they feel staff is particularly excellent. Some listening session participants indicated that the MPRB could offer more staff training and support to help ensure that staff feel supported and fully engaged in the important roles they play.

» Welcoming, inclusive and engaging centers are desired. Both the physical environment of the recreation centers and the relationships offered by recreation center staff are believed to be critical in creating places where residents feel welcomed and treated with respect. Outreach feedback included a desire to improve the physical environment of the recreation centers to make them more welcoming, such as creating comfortable spaces to gather, recognizing different cultures, etc. Some listening session participants also discussed ways to make relationships and interactions more inclusive by varying programming, increasing staff familiarity and cultural competency, and providing opportunities for residents to be involved in choosing the types of programs offered.

» Desired enhancements and new facility needs vary. Preliminary feedback across public engagement activities in Phase 1 reveal a significant variation in the types, size and



Figure 1.37 Ranking of community based results of MPRB 2015 Residential Survey, Morris Leatherman Company

Figure 1.36 Ranking of community based results of MPRB 2015 Residential Survey, Morris Leatherman Company

At-A-Glance Emerging Themes from the Community Engagement Process

» The community values its recreation centers, even though they are not widely used

» Cost of programs is a major consideration for users

» Individuals prefer to share the burden of funding recreation center improvements

» Overall responses to recreation center programming are generally positive, but more diverse programming options are desired

» Recreation centers were noted for their potential to provide a community gathering space

» Participants would like more adult programming, but youth programming remains their priority

» Participants believe recreation centers are in need of improvements

» Staffing is an important component of successful recreation centers

» Welcoming, inclusive and engaging centers are desired

» Desired enhancements and new facility needs vary

scale of improvements that residents feel are needed. Some feedback includes desires for bigger ticket items, such as new gymnasiums or community center renovations. In the listening sessions, which were held in under-resourced neighborhoods, the theme of needed improvements to physical space also came up repeatedly. There, the equity priority is to improve these spaces and bring them up to the standard that wealthier neighborhoods experience. Many comments in the listening sessions related to improving drinking fountains, lighting, maintenance, playground, striping on courts, as well as adding other amenities that residents think are standard in suburban and white, wealthy neighborhoods. The return on investment is high because there are important community spaces when community members have fewer alternatives (like gym memberships). Survey results also illustrated the variation in desired enhancements, which ranged from improved infrastructure, access and safety to enhanced programs and diverse facilities supporting more recreation options (Figure 1.36). While 63% of survey respondents indicated that no additional amenities or facilities were needed, a few others noted needs for more music, art and teen programs, drop-in gym time, bathrooms and even pools (Figure 1.37).

Source: MPRB 2015 Residential Study, Morris Leatherman Company.

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

What Minneapolis Park and Recreation System infrastructure, programs and services would you like to

see enhanced?

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%

What additional/other amenities or facilities would you like to see the Park Board offer its residents at a

Recreation Center?

Source: MPRB 2015 Residential Study, Morris Leatherman Company.

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

What Minneapolis Park and Recreation System infrastructure, programs and services would you like to

see enhanced?

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%

What additional/other amenities or facilities would you like to see the Park Board offer its residents at a

Recreation Center?


Next StepsThis RecQuest Phase 1 Summary Report provides a snapshot of “What Is...?” in the MPRB Recreation Center system today. In the coming months, the community and staff will explore “What Can Be?,” and then determine “What Will Be?” for this important and much-loved system. This report will be combined with the findings of those efforts to create a document that guides future investment to support the community’s vision for recreation in Minneapolis.

recquest phase i summary reportare being delivered. it is clear that minneapolis has a higher amount...

Documents