Minneapolis Park & Recreation Board

Resolution
2016-223

Second and Final Reading of Resolution Adding Chapter 17 to the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board Code of Ordinances – Criteria Based System for Capital and Rehabilitation Neighborhood Park Project Scheduling (In Conjunction with Chapter 16 - 20 Year Neighborhood Park Plan)

Information

Department:Superintendent's OfficeSponsors:
Category:Ordinance

Attachments

  1. Printout
  2. 2016-102 ORD

Item Discussion

Whereas, The Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board (MPRB) was created by the Minnesota Legislature with an affirmative vote by Minneapolis voters of the Park Act on April 3, 1883 establishing what has become a primary contributor to the quality of life in all parts of the city;

 

Whereas, The Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board (MPRB) is an independently elected, semi-autonomous body responsible for governing, maintaining and developing the Minneapolis Park System;

 

Whereas, Minneapolis parks encompass the city’s defining lakes and the river banks at the core of the city’s development;

 

Whereas, Acquired by purchase and donation, the parks include features of astonishing beauty, historical significance and ecological wonder, all within a thriving urban setting;

 

Whereas, Historical accounts indicate Minneapolis residents believe the park system is a unique and valuable asset, plays an important role in serving the public, and contributes to the economy;  

 

Whereas, More than this, the parks are imbued with personal meaning—the playgrounds that live in the memories of generations of people, are the soul of our communities;

 

Whereas, The 6,801-acre system consists of neighborhood and regional parks, playgrounds, wading pools, recreation centers, sports fields and courts, golf courses, gardens, biking and walking paths, nature sanctuaries, lakes and a 55-mile parkway system;

 

Whereas, Minneapolis’ neighborhood parks have the greatest number of physical assets that require greater resources to operate, maintain and replace;

 

Whereas, The Superintendent and Commissioners initiated Closing the Gap: Investing in Neighborhood Parks (Closing the Gap) in 2015 to share information with Minneapolis residents and partners about the current condition and service level of neighborhood parks;

 

Whereas, Closing the Gap looked at the impacts of the age of the system and deferred maintenance – or delayed regular upkeep past the point of repair – have had on the 160 neighborhood parks in Minneapolis;

 

Whereas, Closing the Gap gathered information from Minneapolis residents and partners about investment priorities for replacement, operating and maintenance of existing neighborhood park assets;

 

Whereas, Following the extensive Closing the Gap initiative, the City of Minneapolis and the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board, negotiated an historic agreement, the 20 year Neighborhood Park Plan, that is codified in concurrent ordinances;

 

Whereas, The 20 Year Neighborhood Park Plan protects current Park Board funding and provides additional annual funding by the City of Minneapolis for Minneapolis neighborhood park maintenance, rehabilitation and capital investments;

 

Whereas, In concert with the 20 Year Neighborhood Park Plan, the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board has developed a criteria-based system with a focus on racial and economic equity for capital and rehabilitation project scheduling;

 

Whereas, The Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board is committed to distributing the 20 Year Neighborhood Park Plan capital and rehabilitation funds through this criteria-based system, on a rolling basis; and

 

Whereas, This resolution is supported by the MPRB 2007-2020 Comprehensive Plan values of sustainability, responsiveness and innovation and independence and focus;

 

RESOLVED, That the Board of Commissioners adopt Chapter 17 of the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board Code of Ordinances; and

 

RESOLVED, That the President of the Board and Secretary to the Board are authorized to take all necessary administrative actions to implement this resolution.

 

Body

CHAPTER 17 – CRITERIA BASED SYSTEM FOR CAPITAL AND REHABILITATION NEIGHBORHOOD PARK PROJECT SCHEDULING (IN CONJUNCTION WITH CHAPTER 16 - 20 YEAR NEIGHBORHOOD PARK PLAN)

 

PB17-1. Purpose; interpretation; and application.

 

The City of Minneapolis and the Park and Recreation Board jointly enacted concurrent 20 Year Neighborhood Park Plan ordinances to achieve a shared goal of closing a neighborhood parks funding gap. An important element of the joint 20 Year Neighborhood Park Plan ordinances was a commitment to ensure that racial and economic equity criteria were utilized in determining the distribution of funds to neighborhood parks during the period of the Plan. PB17 is being adopted to implement the goals of the joint 20 Year Neighborhood Park Plan ordinances and establish objective criteria to assist the Park Board, the Park Board Superintendent and Park Board staff in evaluating the relative need of all neighborhood parks. PB17 is intended to be read in conjunction with PB16 and in furtherance of the goals outlined therein. 

 

PB17-2. Definitions. The terms defined in PB16-2 apply to this Chapter.  In addition, the terms below have the following meanings:

 

Crimes against a person means Criminal Homicide, Forcible Rape, Robbery and Aggravated Assault.

 

Neighborhood means that section of the City defined by the bylaws of the relevant neighborhood organization required by the Neighborhood Revitalization Program Law, Minn. Stat. § 469.1831, subd. 6(b), and reference by City of Minneapolis Geographic Information Systems map Neighborhoods & Communities.

 

Park staff means any employee of the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board.

 

Superintendent means the Superintendent of the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board.

 

PB17-3 Equity evaluation required.

 

Prior to the Annual Report required by PB16-3(G)(2), the Superintendent shall direct park staff to complete a criteria-based equity evaluation of each neighborhood park as outlined in PB17-4.

 

PB17-4 Equity evaluation procedure.

 

Each neighborhood park shall receive a criteria-based equity rating to be calculated as follows:

A.      Community Characteristics

1.      The City is divided into eighty seven (87) neighborhoods.

2.      Each neighborhood park within a single neighborhood shall receive the same score for the Community Characteristics defined by this section

3.      Racially Concentrated Areas of Poverty

a.      Finding: Individuals who live in poverty are less likely to have access to private transportation which can result in less access to parks and recreation opportunities beyond their neighborhood parks. Residents who live in poverty often have less access to open space and recreation options and are more likely to experience a variety of chronic health problems, some of which are impacted by their physical environment, including access to parks and open space. Additionally, communities of color and areas of poverty often experience a lack of public and private investment relative to other areas.

b.      Park staff shall use the latest data and estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau to identify Areas of Concentrated Poverty, Racially Concentrated Areas, and Racially Concentrated Areas of Poverty. Park Staff shall provide the Superintendent with the raw data used to make calculations.

c.       Neighborhoods where 40% or more of residents earn less than 185% of the federal poverty threshold and where 50% or more of residents are people of color are Racially Concentrated Areas of Poverty will score 5 points.   Neighborhoods where 40% or more of residents earn less than 185% of the federal poverty threshold are Areas of Concentrated Poverty will score 3 points. 

4.      Population Density

a.      Finding: Developed areas with more people can mean many local park users and may also indicate fewer acres of open space, either public or private, for recreation or leisure.

b.      Park staff shall calculate the population density per square mile using the latest data or estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau. Park Staff shall provide the Superintendent with the raw data used to make calculations.

c.       Neighborhoods with ten thousand (10,000) or more people per square mile will score 3 points. Neighborhoods with six thousand seven hundred and fifty to nine thousand nine hundred and ninety-nine (6,750-9,999) people per square mile will score 2 points. Neighborhoods with less than six thousand seven hundred and forty-nine (6,749) people per square mile will score 1 point.

5.      Youth Population

a.      Finding: Parks and their physical assets provide opportunities for an active lifestyle for households with children. The MPRB strives to serve the youth of Minneapolis through both facilities and programming by ensuring that neighborhoods with large populations of children have well-funded recreation options nearby.

b.      Park staff shall calculate the neighborhood youth population using the latest data or estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau. Park Staff shall provide the Superintendent with the raw data used to make calculations.

c.       Park staff shall calculate the number of residents under 18 years old as a percentage of the population. Neighborhoods with a youth population greater than 24% will score 2 points. Neighborhoods with a youth population between16% and 24% will score 1 point.

6.      Neighborhood Safety

a.      Finding: Well-designed and maintained parks create safer places for people to gather and provide a sense of community. Developing and maintaining a vibrant neighborhood park that promotes community safety, both real and perceived, is important to building and sustaining strong neighborhoods.

b.      Park staff shall use the most recent Minneapolis Police Department Uniform Crime Program reporting data, for a time period of one (1) year, to calculate the number of crimes against persons per thousand residents for each neighborhood. Park staff shall provide the Superintendent with the raw data used to make calculations.

c.       Neighborhoods with more than 10 crimes against persons per thousand residents will score 2 points. Neighborhoods with between 4.1 and 9.99 crimes against persons per thousand residents will score 1 point.

 

B.      Park Asset Characteristics

1.      Each park shall receive a unique Park Asset Characteristic score to be determined as follows:

2.      Asset Condition

a.      Finding: Assets need regular inspection and preventative maintenance to identify elements that are unsafe or have now become noncompliant according to changing federal or state code requirements. Assets or facilities that need to close for repair work can displace programs and interrupt service to the community. Therefore, the condition of individual park amenities is a critical factor in determining whether capital funds are necessary for that location.

b.      At least yearly, the Superintendent shall direct the park staff from both the local maintenance service area and citywide trade shops to rate each asset within the neighborhood park.

c.       When appropriate, the Superintendent may also contract outside experts, including, but not limited to, engineering firms, to rate neighborhood park assets.

d.      It is the goal of this section for the Superintendent to direct multiple park staff members or outside experts to rate each park asset.

e.      Assets that present a safety concern or could be taken out of service due to deficiencies will score 5 points. Assets that function as a result of numerous and ongoing repairs will score 4 points. Assets that are functional, but could benefit from rehabbing or replacement will score 3 points. Assets that are functional and reliable will score 2 points. Assets that are new or like new will score 1 point.

f.        Multiple Asset Condition ratings of individual assets shall be averaged to figure the asset’s final Asset Condition rating.

g.      The average Asset Condition rating of all of a neighborhood park’s assets shall be averaged to figure the park’s final Asset Condition score.

3.      Asset Lifespan

a.      Finding: Individual park assets have a projected lifespan from the time they are first built. Once the asset exceeds its lifespan, cost for maintenance and repair increases and chances of breakage, injury, or closure of the amenity are much higher. Park assets later in their lifespan need more attention and increased investment to ensure they remain available to the public.

b.      Park staff shall use the MPRB’s Comprehensive Plan inventory and As-built plans to determine which assets are nearing or beyond the end of their useful lifespans.

c.       Each park asset shall receive an Asset Lifespan score.

d.      Assets whose lifespan expired more than five years before the current year will score 3 points. Assets whose lifespan expired less than 5 years before the current year or will expire within the next 5 years will score 1 point.

e.      The Asset Lifespan scores of all assets of a neighborhood park shall be averaged to determine the park’s final Asset Lifespan score.

4.      Proportionality of Investment

a.      Finding: Parks where a small proportion of the capital asset value was reinvested in the past 15 years are much more likely to be due for significant reinvestment.

b.      Park staff shall use the MPRB’s Capital Improvement Plan and projected asset values, to determine the amount of capital invested in a neighborhood park in the past 15 years relative to the total cost to replace all existing park assets.

c.       Neighborhood Parks with zero percent (0%) of the total cost to replace existing park assets invested as capital within the past 15 years will score 3 points. Neighborhood Parks with one-tenth to nine and nine-tenths percent (0.1% to 9.9%) of the total cost to replace existing park assets invested as capital within the past 15 years will score 2 points. Neighborhood Parks with ten to twenty-four and nine-tenths percent (10%-24.9%) of the total cost to replace existing park assets invested as capital within the past 15 years will score 1 point.

 

The Superintendent shall direct park staff to produce an ordered ranking of neighborhood parks by combining each park’s Community Characteristic and Park Asset Characteristic scores annually. Such ordered ranking shall be included in the Superintendent’s Recommended Budget to the MPRB Board of Commissioners and the final budget recommendations shall be included in the Annual Report required by PB16-3(G)(2) and used to update the MPRB’s five-year project schedule.  This ordered ranking will be used to determine equitable distribution of capital and rehabilitation funding, on a rolling basis, for the 20 Year Neighborhood Park Plan beginning 2017 and ending 2036.

 

 

Meeting History

Jun 15, 2016 5:00 PM  Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board Regular Meeting

First Reading approved on a Roll Call Vote

RESULT:ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER:Jon Olson, Commissioner District 2
SECONDER:John Erwin, Commissioner At Large
AYES:Liz Wielinski, Scott Vreeland, Brad Bourn, John Erwin, Meg Forney, Steffanie Musich, Jon Olson, Anita Tabb, Annie Young
Jul 6, 2016 5:00 PM  Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board Regular Meeting

Approved on a Roll Call Vote

RESULT:ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER:John Erwin, Commissioner At Large
SECONDER:Scott Vreeland, Vice President, Commissioner District 3
AYES:Liz Wielinski, Scott Vreeland, Brad Bourn, John Erwin, Steffanie Musich, Annie Young
ABSENT:Meg Forney, Jon Olson, Anita Tabb