Park Master Plan

Transcription

Park Master Plan

TOWN OF LEO-CEDARVILLE, INDIANA
FIVE YEAR PARK + RECREATION MASTER PLAN
2015 - 2020
FORWARD + ACKNOWLEDGES
TOWN COUNCIL
Ray Pulver
Tim Richards
Paul Steffens
Greg Peck
Kevin Veatch
John Eastes - Clerk Treasurer
FORWARD
The Leo-Cedarville Park Board would like to thank all
the people that took time out of their busy schedules
to provide us with some really good information about
their recreational habits and desires. As you will see,
we have used this information to come up with what
we think is an awesome plan for the future of our
parks. With your continued support, I believe our park
system will serve us well for a long time. See you at the
parks!
Mark Hamilton
Park Board President
APPROVED
Approved on April 13, 2015.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
On behalf of the Leo-Cedarville Town Council and Park
Board, I would like to thank Martin Riley and Associates
for their guidance during this master plan project. I
would also like to acknowledge the many contractors,
subcontractors, vendors, citizenry, volunteers, churches, schools, local businesses, and organizations that
have contributed to our park system. Lastly, with great
respect, I thank all previous staff, park board members,
advisory members, steering committees, clerk treasures, and town council men and women for without
them our past plans and now our dreams of tomorrow
would not be possible.
Peg Garton
Town Manager
2|
P + R MASTER PLAN
PLAN COMMISSION
Lou Mohlman
Jan Linn
Brian Gerig
Paul Steffens
John Clendenen
Peggy Garton
LEO-CEDARVILLE MUNICIPAL PARK BOARD
Mark Hamilton
Dirk Schmidt
John Eastes
Terry Jo Lightfoot
Tiffany Multon
TOWN STAFF
Ron Tipton
Dave Bonta
Tina Clark
J. Stephen Thompson
Tom Rediger
Tara Kimm
Tiffany Multon
THIS PLAN WAS PREPARED BY:
Aimee Shimasaki
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION
Park Board . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Plan Author . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Park System Contact Information . . . . . . . . . 7
Park Board Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7
Park Department Staff Information . . . . . . . 7
Planning Area Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Chapter 5: ACCESSIBILITY + UNIVERSAL DESIGN
Designated ADA coordinator . .. . . . . . . . . . 88
Self-evaluation of accessible facilities . . . . 71
Self-evaluation of inaccessible facilities . . . 71
ADA Public Notice requirements . . . . . . . . 62
ADA grievance procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Section 504 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .54
Chapter 2: GOALS + OBJECTIVES
Park Board . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Park + Recreation Department . . . . . . . . . .12
Master Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Chapter 6: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Random survey information . . . . . . . . . . . 89
User + Non-user Group Input . . . . . . . . . . 89
Chapter 3: FEATURES OF SERVICE AREA
Natural and Landscape
Geographic Features . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Geologic + Topographical Features . 16
Watershed Information . . . . . . . . . 17
Man-made + Historical + Cultural
Man-made Features . . . . . . . . . . . .19
Historical Features . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Cultural + Ethnic Offerings. . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Festivals + Special Events . . . . . . . 22
Social + Economic Factors
Population Statistics . .. . . . . . . . . 24
Economics of Area . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Chapter 4: SUPPLY ANALYSIS
Of Sponsoring Agency
Narrative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
System Wide Map . . .. . . . . . . . . . 38
Related Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48
Chapter 7: NEEDS ANALYSIS
Needs indicated by standards analysis . . . 107
Chapter 8: NEW FACILITIES LOCATION MAP
Needs indicated by analysis of public input . New Facilities Location Map. . . . . . . . . . . 113
Chapter 9: PRIORITIES + ACTION SCHEDULE
Needs indicated by analysis of public input .118
Statement of specific Park Board action(s) . 119
Priority Action Schedule . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
Time frame for Park Board action(s) . . . . 119
Estimated costs of action plan items . . . . . 119
Potential sources of funding . . . . . . . . . .120
Chapter 10: PUBLIC PRESENTATION
Public Presentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
Chapter 11: RESOLUTION FOR ADOPTION
Resolution for Adoption . . . . . . . . . . . . . .125
Chapter 12: APPENDICES:
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
Individual Survey results . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
Surveys (following survey results)
Note:
The graphics in the Five Year Park + Recreation Master Plan, including illustrative plans, cross-sections, sketches, and photographs, are
intended to portray design intent and not final architectural or site
design. Creative and innovative design is encouraged.
P + R MASTER PLAN
|3
(Page Intentionally Left Blank)
4|
P + R MASTER PLAN
Chapter 1:
INTRODUCTION
P + R MASTER PLAN
|5
1
INTRODUCTION
Leo-Cedarville Municipal Park Board
Mark Hamilton, President
11148 Shoreline Drive
Leo-Cedarville, IN 46765
Terry Jo Lightfoot
9819 Gerig Road
Tiffany Multon
15215 Beulah Drive
Dirk Schmidt, Vice President
9621 Pioneer Trail
John Eastes, Treasurer
111428 Grabill Road
PLAN AUTHOR
Aimee R. Shimasaki, AIA, IIDA, LEED AP, Principal
MARTINRILEY architects-engineers
6|
P + R MASTER PLAN
INTRODUCTION
PARK SYSTEM CONTACT INFORMATION
Leo-Cedarville Municipal Parks
13909 Pony Express Run
(P.O. Box 408)
260.627.6321
[email protected]
leocedarville.com/Parks_and_Recreation.html
1
PARK DEPARTMENT STAFF INFORMATION
TOWN OF LEO-CEDARVILLE Leo-Cedarville
Municipal Park Board
The Leo-Cedarville Municipal Park Board
existed as a volunteer community organization
from 1939-1996. In 1997, it became an advisory
board for the newly incorporated town of LeoCedarville. For the next ten years, advisory
boards for each park managed the parks.
Then in 2007, The Town Council established
an independent Leo-Cedarville Municipal Park
Board according to the requirements of Indiana
Code 36-10-3-3. Leo-Cedarville has a four
member board that serves staggered four year
terms.
Peggy Garton, Town Manager
Park Superintendent, Maintenance Supervisor, and
Volunteer Coordinator
PARK STAFF
Ron Tipton, Dave Bonta, Stephen Thompson, Tara
Kimm, Tiffany Multon, and Tom Rediger
VOLUNTEERS
In these times of shrinking budgets, rising energy costs and increasing recreation demand, volunteers from
Leo-Cedarville and the surrounding areas provide us with invaluable assistance by leading programs and
assisting us in maintaining and improving the parks themselves, and much more. Without our dedicated
group of volunteers we would not be able to provide the quality of parks and programs that we currently
enjoy. If you would like to volunteer contact the Leo-Cedarville Parks and Recreation Department at
260.627.6321.
PARK SYSTEM HISTORY
Prior to its incorporation, Leo-Cedarville existed as two separate unincorporated towns. Cedarville was
platted in May 1838 and Hamilton (Leo) in February 1849. Cedarville’s location and the resident’s optimism
for increased commerce and growth put it in the running for selection as the county seat. Thus, land in the
center of town was set aside for a county courthouse square. However, when Fort Wayne was chosen as
county seat, this commons area became a staking place for the townspeople to place their milk cows. As
more children played there, the cows were moved to other vacant lots.
Riverside Gardens is located at the intersection of Grabill Road and Schwartz Road was made available
when the re-alignment of Schwartz Road took place in 1999. Part of the park is the former right of way of
Schwartz Road and part is built on fill dredged from the river when the Grabill Road cement bridge was
built in the 1960’s. The larger green space was purchased from the Clifton family, which was previously the
Schwartz family farm. For years fishermen used the land only as frontage access. In 1999, a committee of
local residents began efforts to plan a suitable use for this property. In 2001, the property became the site
for the Town’s 4th of July fireworks display which was later moved off-site so patrons could use the park to
view the fireworks. From 2003-2005, the first stage of this park’s development began by leveling donated
fill and installing a parking lot, mulched walking trail, tree plantings, electrical installation for park events
and the slabs for the two open air pavilions located adjacent to the parking lot. In 2006, a build off was
held between the local Sons of the American Legion and the Chamber of Commerce in order to install the
pavilions.
P + R MASTER PLAN
|7
1
INTRODUCTION
PARK SYSTEM HISTORY (Continued)
This brought about the completion of the second
stage of development. Throughout the last
several years, plans have been drawn up for
the restroom facility and the Grand Pavilion.
In the later part of 2007 and throughout 2008,
the Frances R. Schwartz Grand Pavilion was
designed, implemented and so named due to her
generous estate donation. This park continues to
be developed, as funds are available and remains
the largest park property in Leo-Cedarville.
PLANNING AREA
The planning area for the Leo-Cedarville Municipal Park
Board is the same as the service area. The service area
for the Town of Leo-Cedarville does not stop at the
town limits, but includes a buffer area of rural land
that extends about seven miles from the city center.
Past public input and user surveys have indicated that
Leo-Cedarville has a significant and important regional
user population, even if those users do not contribute
directly to taxes gathered from town residents to
support recreation.
Leo-Cedarville remains committed to making our
facilities and services available to anyone, regardless
of resident status, ability to pay, or physical/mental
ability.
ALLEN COUNTY MAP
(TRAILS AND PARKS ARE INDICATED)
8|
P + R MASTER PLAN
Below is a map of the county for reference. The
adjacent page shows the planning area.
INTRODUCTION
1
P + R MASTER PLAN
|9
10 |
P + R MASTER PLAN
Chapter 2:
GOALS + OBJECTIVES
P + R MASTER PLAN
| 11
2
GOALS + OBJECTIVES
PARK DEPARTMENT MISSION
To design, provide, and maintain park facilities and
recreation programs and preserve green space in a
most functional, attractive, and fiscally responsible
manner possible, is the objective of enhancing the
quality of life of Leo-Cedarville residents and visitors.
• The Leo-Cedarville Parks and Recreation
Department will offer a level of service appropriate
to the size and growth of the community.
• The department will provide new opportunities for
exercise, fitness and wellness for the community at
large.
• The department should act as a central part of
daily life in the community, providing a town
identity and focus for the people of Leo-Cedarville.
After much discussion, the Leo-Cedarville Municipal
Park Board has agreed on the following goals for the 5
Year Park + Recreation Master Plan.
• Gather feedback and input from as diverse a group
of Leo-Cedarville residents as possible and report it
in an accurate manner.
• Use national recreation standards, combined with
a careful needs analysis to create new priorities for
parks and recreation in the town.
• Create a plan that is dynamic, as well as providing
pertinent, useful information and guidance for the
next five years in Leo-Cedarville.
• Present the plan and gain its acceptance with the
Leo-Cedarville communities.
• Submit the master plan to the Indiana Department
of Natural Resources Division of Outdoor
Recreation, adhering to the required time frame
for a draft by January 15 and finalized plans by
April 15, 2015.
• Receive approval from IDNR for eligibility for
application for Land and Water Conservation Fund
(LWCF) grant programs. • Use the plan as a springboard to apply for all
applicable grants.
Following are goals from the recently completed
community master plan as they relate the LeoCecarville parks. The Leo-Cedarville Municipal Park
Board supports these goals as well and wants to ensure
the two plans work together in order to meet shared
goals.
12 |
P + R MASTER PLAN
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - ENVISION
A recent comprehensive plan was completed and
adopted on December 10, 2013. There are many
elements identified in the comprehensive plan requiring
coordination and support of the Leo-Cedarville
Municipal Park Board. We recommend the two plans
work in collaboration with one another as many items
from the surveys further support the findings in the
comprehensive plan. The Leo-Cedarville Municipal Park
Board should also be familiar with the comprehensive
plan ‘Envision’ in order for shared elements and efforts
to not be duplicated and/or elements to be overlooked.
Examples include:
• Multi-modal Plan
• Trails, Greenways and Sidewalk Planning
• Bike and Pedestrian Facilities
• 2013 Allen County Proposed Bike and Trail Plan
• Potential Annexation Areas (Additional Park Space)
• Proposed regional park, community park,
neighborhood parks , conservation, and wooded
areas.
Goal 1: Continue to expand and enhance LeoCedarville’s parks, trails, and open space
opportunities for the enjoyment of both residents
and visitors.
Strategies:
• Work to connect all parks, neighborhoods, the
downtown district and schools with a multi-use
path system.
• The Cedarville Reservoir should be viewed as an
open space amenity which should be appreciated
for what it is. Dredging to create a deeper channel
that is not for shipping is likely cost prohibitive and
ecologically destructive.
• Create a continuous pathway/linear park that
follows the banks of the reservoir as much as
possible and connects to other multi-use paths and
sidewalks within the City of Fort Wayne 15-foot
access easement. Where an easement cannot be
acquired, divert path onto existing street right-ofway.
• Consider the use of the Leo Memorial Park
cemeteries as open space of cultural and historical
value and as a habitat for wildlife. Pursue
improvements including fencing, sidewalks,
and landscaping that promote the protection,
beautification, and respectful use of these civic
spaces.
GOALS + OBJECTIVES
• Increase the density of tree planting at Riverside
Gardens so that it will grow into a mature,
landscaped park.
• Provide at grade-level street crossings, provide
highly-visible crosswalks, including pedestrianscale lighting, reflective pavement markings, and
variations in color and texture. Create overflow
parking with permeable surface for Riverside
Gardens on site to the east. Ensure that how
parking is sited does not conflict for future
development goals for the hilltop site.
• Ensure that the Subdivision Control Ordinance
requires all new development of a certain size to
provide open space, a park, and a plaza as part of
the site to enhance livability for new and existing
residents.
Goal 2: Continue to provide programming for parks
and open space.
Strategies:
• Continue to incrementally build Riverside Gardens
and amenities (seating, bollard lighting, public art)
within.
• Investigate and apply for various grants for park
development through the State of Indiana and
private foundations.
• Consider a four-season community center with pool
in town or across from Riverside Gardens that can
be used for recreational programming by the YMCA
and can be leased out for community and private
events.
• Enhance recreation services for all ages from preschool to senior citizens.
Goal 3: Maximize the Cedarville Reservoir potential
amenities to the community.
The reservoir / lake is probably the greatest amenity
that Leo-Cedarville has to offer, though it is a wellkept secret. The reservoir should not just be thought
of as a drinking water source, but also as an economic
development tool and recreational amenity.
2
Though there is much private development surrounding
the reservoir, there is a 15-foot wide easement at the
top of the bank that other communities have used to
provide a public access trail. The design of the path
should center an 8 to 10 foot path in the middle of the easement.
Issues:
• Current lack of easements and agreements from
private property owners
• Community should work with the County to
coordinate efforts to gain easements both in and
adjacent to Town
Long-Term Recommendations
• Create access points on the town-owned properties
along the creek
• Acquire easements/ROW’s (right-of-way) a
minimum of 25 feet wide from property owners
along the creek to provide a trail and allow for
maintenance and erosion prevention
Process to work with Fort Wayne Water Department for
Trail Easement
• Contact the City of Fort Wayne, Planning & Design
Services/Water Resources Department, Program
Manager for Dam Rehabilitation/Safety.
• After making the above contact speak with the City
of Fort Wayne, Planning & Design Services/Water
Resources Department, Land Acquisition Specialist
State and Regional Trail Linkages
• State Trail Planning: IDNR Division of Outdoor
Recreation
• Regional Planning: Greenways Manager, City of
Fort Wayne
The compreheNsive plan also indicated general design
guidelines for all parks, focusing on accessibility, native
plants, and lighting. Additionally the plan outlined
potential funding opportunities at the State level,
IDNR, and Federal Level.
The flow of the St. Joseph River and water levels
controlled by the City of Fort Wayne is a desirable body
of water that most communities do not possess.
P + R MASTER PLAN
| 13
14 |
P + R MASTER PLAN
FEATURES OF SERVICE AREA
3
Chapter 3:
FEATURES
ChapterOF
3:
SERVICE
AREA
FEATURES
OF
SERVICE AREA
P + R MASTER PLAN
| 15
3
NATURAL + LANDSCAPE
UNIQUE GEOGRAPHIC FEATURES OF AREA
Leo-Cedarville is located at: 41 degrees 12’54 N 85
degrees 0’56’W (41.214899, -85.015475)
According to the United States Census Bureau, the
town has a total area of 3.9 square miles (10 km/
squared), of which, 3.7 square miles (9.7km/squared)
of it is land and 0.1 square miles (0.4km/squared) of it
(3.63%) is water.
Northern Allen County and Leo-Cedarville Indiana
sits astride the Eastern continental drainage divide,
encompassing some of the most complex and interesting geology and groundwater issues found anywhere
in the eastern United States. The rocks and sediments
beneath the surface span more than 400 million years
of geologic time and reveal a fascinating history of
environmental change that ranges from reefs formed
in ancient tropical seas to catastrophic floods of frigid
water pouring from ice sheets thousands of feet thick.
(2010 Park and Rec. Plan)
UNIQUE GEOLOGIC FEATURES OF AREA
The principal bedrock units found in the Leo-Cedarville
area are composed of Paleozoic limestone, dolomite,
and shale ranging in age from the Silurian to Upper
Devonian period of formation. Limestone is composed
of calcium carbonate, dolomite is composed of calcium
magnesium carbonate, and shale is composed of
clay and some silt. The predominate limestone and
dolomite bedrock was deposited in an ancient sea basin
centered in Michigan (Bleuer and Moore, 1978).
The marine rocks dip, or are slightly tilted, to the
north. The dip of the bedrock in the Leo-Cedarville
area dips to 30 ft. (Fleming, 1994). The dip of the rock
is influenced by the position of Allen County in relation
to two structural features: the Michigan Basin, as a
structural low to the north, and Cincinnati Arch, a
structural high to the south (Rupp, 1997).
16 |
P + R MASTER PLAN
UNIQUE TOPOGRAPHICAL FEATURES OF AREA
Northern Indiana and Leo-Cedarville area is in the
Tipton Till Plain. This flat to gently rolling surface is
the product of continental glaciations during the Ice
Age. Sediments borne by the ice sheets were deposited
as till (an unsorted mixture of sand, silt, clay and
boulders) when the glaciers advanced into Indiana and
as outwash sand and gravel when the ice melted. Thick
accumulations of the till and outwash filled the bedrock
valleys and covered the bedrock hills of Northern
Indiana to produce the flat to gently rolling landscape
thought by many as monotonous.
Parts of glaciated Indiana and the Leo-Cedarville area,
are hilly and many features show relatively high relief
throughout. The Northern Moraine and Lake Region of
Northeastern Indiana including Leo-Cedarville typifies
this kind of terrain and is noted for its spectacular
scenery. The same glaciers that masked relief on
the bedrock surface also produced the bold upland
surfaces of northern counties like Allen County. Part
of the topographic expression is the result of moraine
formation by active ice and by overspreading of the
region with ablation, or flowing till, that formed during
times of glacial retreat.
The bedrock surface, or topography, in Allen County
and Leo-Cedarville is erosional in origin and the relief
on the bedrock surface is approximately 200 ft. The
bedrock is covered by as much as 300 ft. of glacial
material in some areas. (Fleming, 1994). Although the
buried bedrock surface cannot be directly observed,
Fleming made the following inferences concerning the
characteristics of the subsurface bedrock landscape.
The topography of the bedrock surface underlain by
the relatively soft Antrim Shale forms a broad northto-northeast sloping lowland cut by small northeast
trending valleys (Hasenmueller, 1986) (Fleming, 1994).
WATERSHED INFORMATION, WILDLIFE, VEGETATIVE
COVER
Allen County lies in two major watersheds of North
America. The Western part of the county is in the
Mississippi River watershed, which flows west and
south to the Gulf of Mexico. The rest of the county
is in the Great Lakes watershed, which flows east to
the Atlantic Ocean. The St. Joseph River flows south
from Michigan and Ohio. It flows through Steuben and
DeKalb counties before flowing into the Maumee River.
(Frankenberger, 2000).
Within the watershed of Allen County and the LeoCedarville area are ditches, namely: Nettlehorst Ditch
and Warner Ditch.
3
FOREST RESOURCES
Northeastern Indiana and the Leo-Cedarville area of
Allen County have the lowest percentage (less than
10%) of forestland in the State. The forests of Allen
County are comprised of Oak, Hickory, Beech and
Maple trees.
In the northern Allen County, Leo-Cedarville Area there
are three (3) named forest preserves: Popp Nature
Preserve, 40 acres; Foxfire Woods Nature Preserve, 7.9
acres and Vandolah Nature Preserve, 47 acres.
The only county park in the Leo-Cedarville area is
Metea Park, a 250-acre park containing the 120- acre
Meno-ake Nature Preserve. The north and south
areas of the park are separated by Cedar Creek, a
state designated Scenic River. Town Parks: Riverside
Gardens established in 2003 and Leo-Cedarville Park,
established in 1996.
Considering the natural features and landscape of the
Leo-Cedarville and northern Indiana area; it can be
concluded that the activities and programs of the LeoCedarville Municipal Park Board should capitalize on
the waterfront of the St. Joseph River while preserving
and restoring the native flora and fauna. The park
department will continue to plan activities that blend
the communities’ interest with the natural landscape
within the parks and around the area. In view of the
recreational focus of our citizens, any future expansion
in the park system should provide for facilities that
lend to exercise and health while incorporating the
varied terrain.
GROUND WATER
Ground water includes all water below the surface of
the earth. Aquifers are commonly interconnected with
one another and with surface water, to form aquifer
systems. According to a recent study (the Hydrogeology
of Allen County, by A Fleming, 1994) Huntertown
aquifer system is the principal aquifer system in LeoCedarville. Huntertown aquifer system appears to be
the most productive ground water resource in the area
and is further distinguished by a hummocky, internally
drained landscape.
P + R MASTER PLAN
| 17
3
RESOURCES
Fleming, A. H., 1994, the hydrogeology of Allen County, Indiana - a geologic and ground-water atlas: Indiana
Geological Survey Special Report 57,111.
Hasenmueller, n. R., 1986, Antrim Shale, in Shaver, R. H., and others, 1986, Compendium of Paleozoic rock-unit
stratigraphy in Indiana- a revision; Indiana Geological Survey Bulletin 59, p. 5; Indiana Geological Survey Web page
http://iqs.indiana.edU/Geoloav/struture/compendium/html./comD3n6s.cfm. date accessed January 20, 2009.
Hasenmueller, N.R., Rowell, R. L.t Buehler, M A, and Sowder, K. H., 2002(Copyright date), Karsts in Indiana: Indiana
Geological Survey Web page http://iqs.indiana.edu/Geoloqy/karst/karstlnlndiana/index.cfm.
Date accessed January 20, 2009
Moore, M. C., and Ault, C. H, 1978. Mineral Aggregates, in Bleuer, N. K., and Moore, M. c., 1987, Environmental
geology of Allen County, Indiana; Indiana Geological Survey Special Report 13 p. 21-31.
Jane R. Frankenberger, Extension Agricultural engineer. Allen County Water Resources.
Bleuer, N. K., and Moore, M. C., 1978. Environmental geology of Allen County, Indiana; Indiana Geological Survey
Special Report 13, 72P.
Indiana Geological Survey: A research institute of Indiana University. Retrieved on January 27, 2009
from http://iqs.indiana.edu/qeoloqv/index.cfm.
Rupp, J. A., 1997 {Copyright date}, Tectonic features of Indiana: Indiana Geological Survey Web Page, http://iqs.
lndiana.edu/Geoloqy/structure/tectonicfeatures/index.cfm>. Date accessed January 27, 2009.
ACRES Land Trust. Nature Preserves by County. Retrieved on January 27, 2009, from http://www.acreslandtrust.
org.
Allen County Parks; Metea Park: http://allencountyparks.org/parks/metea Retrieved, January 27,2009.
18 |
P + R MASTER PLAN
3
MAN-MADE, HISTORICAL + CULTURAL
TRANSPORTATION LINKS
Leo-Cedarville is basically divided in half by Indiana
State Road 1 (referenced at various sections as Leo
Road, Main Street, and Center Street). This main road
provides direct linkage to Interstate 69 five miles to
the south and connects to the towns of Spencerville,
St. Joe and Butler to the north. Most local traffic uses
this state highway, Grabill (Leo-Grabill) Road and
the local municipal streets for primary travel. Due to
the central location of the state highway, the park
facilities are best accessed by motor vehicle. Town
Council is studying potential routes to make pedestrian
access throughout the community safer. The focus is
to connect between parks, schools, and other primary
destinations in town.
INDUSTRIAL PARKS
Leo-Cedarville has filled a niche as a “bedroom
community” for the city of Fort Wayne. Thus, our
businesses are grounded in the service fields such as
a welding shop, well driller, lumber company, hair
dresser, barber shop, insurance agencies, post office,
and financial institutions, etc. The town government
has aspirations to establish a light industrial park on
the outskirts of town.
RESERVOIRS
There are two major reservoirs in Allen County:
Cedarville Reservoir and Hurshtown Reservoir. Both
store water from the St. Joseph River which flows
through our town.
P + R MASTER PLAN
| 19
3
HISTORICAL SITES + MARKERS +
CELEBRATED HISTORIC EVENTS
History and Opportunity
A Potawatomi village was located near what is now
Leo-Cedarville in the early nineteenth century. The
Potawatomi were forcibly removed to Kansas during the
1830s. Americans of European descent began to settle
the area after 1833 and Cedar Creek Township was
laid out within Allen County in 1837. Jacob Notestine
planted the township’s first orchard in 1836 using seeds
brought by John Chapman (1774-1845), better known as
Johnny Appleseed.
Cedarville was platted in 1838 and was the first town
in Cedar Creek Township. A post office operated at
Cedarville from 1844 to 1905. St. Leo’s Catholic Church
was established nearby before 1838 and a settlement
developed near the church. A post office called Leo
was established at this settlement in 1846. In 1849
a town called Hamilton was platted around the Leo
settlement, taking its name from James Hamilton, a
member of the group who filed the plat, but the town
continued to be known as Leo.
Cedarville experienced growth during the mid
nineteenth century but its population declined by more
than half, from 113 to 50, between 1880 and 1900. Leo continued to grow during this period, reaching a
population of 500 by 1900. The two towns remained
small, rural communities through the middle of the
twentieth century. The context of both communities
was changed by the damming of the St. Joseph
River to create the Centerville Reservoir. Suburban
development during the late twentieth century
increased the population of the area and the towns
came together to incorporate as Leo-Cedarville in 1996.
Leo-Cedarville retains a handful of significant historic
buildings that provide a connection to its history and
contribute to the town’s distinct sense of place.
These historic resources should be preserved to help
maintain the community’s unique identity, authentic
sense of place, and a connection to its history.
20 |
P + R MASTER PLAN
Historic buildings help to define the State Road 1
corridor in downtown Leo; the Klopfenstein Building
has been a major landmark in downtown Leo since its
construction in 1913.
View of the Klopfenstein Building in 1926.
The historic core of Leo along State Road 1 contains
several historic buildings that help to define the
community’s character. Most notable is the W. B.
& F. Klopfenstein Building (1913), the town’s most
imposing historic commercial building. Other historic
commercial buildings may reveal more of their unique
character through appropriate rehabilitation. These
include buildings at 14927 State Road 1 and 10426
Walnut Street. Historic houses at 14914 State Road
1 and 10600 Hosler Road which also retain characterdefining elements and could reveal more of their
historic character through appropriate rehabilitation.
3
The Ludwig Shoe Repair Shop building at 14801 State
Road 1 and the historic houses at 14805 and 14811
State Road 1 help to define the gateway into the former
downtown area of Leo. Although altered, the former
Leo Methodist Church (c. 1861) is among the earliest
remaining public buildings in Leo-Cedarville. Historic
buildings outside of the town center that help to define
the community’s character include the Apostolic Church
(now Harvest Fellowship) on Grabill Road, the Joseph
D. Schlatter House at 11107 Grabill Road, and the
house at 11134 Grabill Road.
The former Leo Methodist Chruch was built c. 1861 and
moved to its present site in 1915.
Ludwig Shoe Repair building along State Road 1 helps
to define the gateway into downtown Leo
The former Leo Methodist Church was built c. 1861 and
moved to its present site in 1915.
The historic Cedarville School at 12927 Elsworth Street
fronts the historic Cedarville Public Square. Although
altered, the c.1890 building retains several characterdefining elements including the stone arched entrance,
brick corbelling over the original window openings, and
a corbelled brick cornice. Appropriate rehabilitation
could reveal more of the building’s historic character
and could reinforce the identity of Leo-Cedarville.
The historic Cedarville School (above ) originally
matched this standard Cedar Township schoolhouse
design. (next page)
P + R MASTER PLAN
| 21
3
Cedar Township schoolhouse design. (above)
Historic open spaces are integral parts of LeoCedarville’s sense of place. Leo-Cedarville Park,
originally the public square of Cedarville, is
representative of the type of civic open spaces set
aside by Indiana’s nineteenth century town planners. The Cedarville school once stood on the square
before it was replaced by a later building fronting
the square on Elsworth Street. The park’s mature
trees, playground, and community building reflect
investment in public space by several generations of
town residents.
The old Leo Memorial Cemetery and the later Leo
Memorial Park are also significant historic open spaces. Cemeteries were regarded as park spaces during the
nineteenth century and were often used for picnics and
other recreational activities. The stone fence posts
and gateways of the Leo Memorial Park are significant
historic landscape features along the State Road 1
corridor. The old St. Leo Roman Catholic Cemetery,
now known as St. Michael’s Cemetery, is another
historic cemetery off Amstutz Road.
These historic resources provide a connection to LeoCedarville’s past, lend the community a distinct sense
of place, and offer opportunities for redevelopment.
Preservation, appropriate rehabilitation, and
sustainable long-term use of the community’s historic
resources will reinforce Leo-Cedarville’s identity and
enhance its charming, small-town character.
22 |
P + R MASTER PLAN
Cemetery Gateway (above)The Leo Memorial Cemetery
and Leo Memorial park are significant historic open
spaces; the stone fence posts and gateways help define
the State Road 1 corridor.
3
CULTURAL + ETHNIC OFFERINGS OF THE AREA
Leo-Cedarville offers a diverse array of programs that
attract many different kinds of users. Leo-Cedarville
has responded to the needs of our community by
providing traditional programs for our youth such as the
Fall Festival and Santa Night in the Park. We have also
provided a few non-traditional activities (at the request
of users). Some of these non-traditional programs
include coloring contest, youth pavilion sale “by kids
for kids” and community service day in the park.
The following is a snapshot of some of the recreational
classes and activities that have been offered by LeoCedarville Parks and Recreation Department, volunteers
or that the park supports with the use of our facilities.
Festivals + Special Events + Music + Arts
Festivals
• Freedom Festival - July
• Freedom 5K Run - July
• Freedom Cruise In + Concert - July
• Leo-Cedarville Park Fall Festival - October
• Art at the Park - Riverside
Area Festivals
• Auburn Fair - September
• Grabill Days - first weekend of September.
• Harlan Days - last weekend in July
• Spencerville Covered Bridge Dinner - July
• Spencerville Covered Bridge Festival - September
Music
• Leo Jr.-Sr. High School Concerts and local musicians
Art
• Annual Quilt Show - The Old Church Shoppes,
Downtown Leo
• Annual Craft Bazaar - The Cedars Retirement Home
• Art Exhibition - downtown Leo
• Mime Time - affiliation with Good Shepard Church
• Chainsaw Carving - Cedar Creek Produce
Area Attractions
• Grabill Historical Museum (3.8 miles )
• Auburn-Cord Duesenberg Museum (10.17 miles)
Park Activities
• Santa Night in the Park (Leo-Cedarville Park) December
• Annual Lighting of the Santa Sign (Riverside
Gardens) - first week of December
• Bass Tournaments - May, July and August
• Spring clean up day in the park
• Farmer’s Market
• Ice Cream Social
• Fourth of July Activities
• Community Service Day at the Park - Partnered with
Leo Jr. - Sr. High School
• Hot Air Balloon Rides - Sponsored by Windswept
Aeronauts Inc.
• Hamm Operator Exhibits - Sponsored by Allen
County Amateur Radio Technical Society - Fort
Wayne Radio Club
• Youth Community Services - Partnered with Allen
County Probation Department
• Girl Scout Meetings and Activities - Partnered with
local troops
• Boy Scout Meetings and Activities - Partnered with
local troops
• Family Camp Out Night
• YMCA Youth Camps
• Free Friday Night Concert Series
• Vendor/Craft Day at the park
Leo-Cedarville Parks
• Riverside Gardens
• Leo-Cedarville Imagination Station
• Metea Park - Allen County Park
Area Parks
• Grabill Sports Complex
• Grabill Park
• Jack Harris Park - Prairie Gardens
• Harlan Park
• Cook’s Landing - Allen County Park
• Payton Park - Allen County Park
• Auburn Park
P + R MASTER PLAN
| 23
3
Park Department Calendar of Park Activities
January
February
March
• Spring clean up day in the park
April
• Community service day at the park - Partnered with
Leo Jr.-Sr. High School
May
• Bass Tournaments
• Vendor/Craft Day at the park (Riverside Gardens
Park)
June
• Farmer’s Market (Riverside Gardens Park)
• Free Concert in the Park (Riverside Gardens Park)
• Ice Cream Social
July
• Freedom Festival (Riverside Gardens Park)
• Freedom 5K Run
• Freedom Cruise In + Concert
• Free concert (Riverside Gardens Park)
• YMCA Youth Camps (LCP and RGP)
August
• Free Concert (Riverside Gardens Park)
• Family Camp Out Night (Riverside Gardens Park)
• YMCA Youth Camps (LCP and RGP)
September
• Art at the Park (Riverside Gardens Park)
October
• Leo-Cedarville Park Fall Festival
November
• Community Service Day at the Park Partnered with Leo Jr.-Sr. High School
24 |
P + R MASTER PLAN
December
• Annual Lighting of the Santa Sign (Riverside
Gardens)
• Santa Night in the Park (Leo-Cedarville Park)
No Dates
• Hot Air Balloon Rides - Sponsored by Windswept
Aeronauts Inc.
• Youth Community Services - Partnered with EACS
• Girl Scout Meetings and Activities - Partnered with
local troops
• Boy Scout Meetings and Activities - Partnered with
local troops
• YMCA activities
3
SOCIAL + ECONOMIC FACTORS
POPULATION STATISTICS HISTORY
Leo-Cedarville became incorporated as a Town on
January 1, 1996. Since the incorporation of the Town
only two population censuses have been conducted.
Leo-Cedarville’s population jumped nearly 30 percent
(821 people) between 2000 and 2010 to 3,606 persons. In 2011 Leo-Cedarville’s population had increased from
the 2010 census number by 0.7 percent to 3,634 (STATS
Indiana). Allen County as a whole, has experienced
similar trends. STATS Indiana estimates an increase
of .7 percent for the county. Over this same year
long period the state of Indiana grew 0.4 percent.
Allen County (including Leo-Cedarville) population is
projected to increase by almost 23% by 2050. LeoCedarville’s population is different than Indiana in most
cases. The percent of individuals in retirement (65+)
is about 4 percent lower in Leo-Cedarville than in the
state as a whole. As for the working age population
(roughly 16 to 65), the town is 2 percent lower than the
state level.
While these differences are small, Leo-Cedarville has a
much younger population than the state average with
the number of individuals under the age of 19 roughly 8
percent higher.
Leo-Cedarville’s current median age is 37.5. This is
slightly higher than the state and Allen County’s at 36.8
and 35.8, respectively.
(2013 Comprehensive Plan)
ECONOMICS OF THE AREA HISTORY
The percentage of Leo-Cedarville residents with
at least a high school degree has increased by 3
percentage points to 96.2 since 2000. The percentage
of Leo-Cedarville residents with at least a bachelor’s
degree has increased over 11 percentage points to
37.4% since 2000 and has surpassed the state average
increase of only a little over 3 percent.
Leo-Cedarville’s median income has decreased from
2000 to 2011, but is still higher than the state median
income. Leo-Cedarville’s median income has decreased
by 29% ($69,564) since 2000 to $67,411. The pattern
shown here is one that was seen around the country,
with the economic downturn. Despite the downturn
Leo-Cedarville’s poverty rate (6.3%) is less than half of
the Allen County and state averages.
Major employers in Leo-Cedarville are education
services, healthcare, and social assistance. According
to the 2007-2011 American Community Survey 5-Year
Estimates, Leo-Cedarville has a total labor force
(16+) of 1,684. The number of unemployed is 118
(or 7 percent) of the total labor force. According to
the 2007-2011 American Community Survey 5-Year
Estimates, almost 10 percent of Leo-Cedarville’s labor
force worked in town and around 90 percent worked
outside of the town. All of this commuting for LeoCedarville residents equates to a mean travel to work
time of 22 minutes, which is a minute under that of all
total Indiana residents.
2007 to 2010 American Community Survey Data
indicates Indiana’s median home value at $123,300
and Leo-Cedarville’s at $163,200. Similar to household
income, the median home values at the town level
dropped by almost 6 percent from 2000 to 2011 (due in
part to the economic downturn and the bursting of the
so-called “housing bubble”). There were 1,100 housing
units in Leo-Cedarville. Owner-occupied housing
equates for 93% of housing and renter-occupied housing
is near 7%. The Leo-Cedarville owner-occupied rate is
much higher than the state average (30% above) and
the renter-occupied rate is much lower than the state
average (19% below). P + R MASTER PLAN
| 25
3
SOCIAL + ECONOMIC FACTORS
(POPULATION ANALYSIS)
26 |
P + R MASTER PLAN
3
Approximately 1818 people were estimated at the time of incorporation.
P + R MASTER PLAN
| 27
3
28 |
P + R MASTER PLAN
P + R MASTER PLAN
3
| 29
3
30 |
P + R MASTER PLAN
P + R MASTER PLAN
3
| 31
3
32 |
P + R MASTER PLAN
P + R MASTER PLAN
3
| 33
3
34 |
P + R MASTER PLAN
P + R MASTER PLAN
3
| 35
3
FINAL SNAPSHOT
With 3,790 people, Leo-Cedarville is the 152nd
most populated city in the state of Indiana out of 680
cities. But watch out, Leo-Cedarville, because Aurora
with 3,736 people and Hebron with 3,731 people are
right behind you.
The largest Leo-Cedarville racial/ethnic groups
are White (95.4%) followed by Hispanic (2.1%) and Two
or More (1.4%).
In 2013, the median household income of
Leo-Cedarville residents was $62,865. Leo-Cedarville
households made slightly more than Amo households
($62,500), Kouts households ($62,431), and Monroe City
households ($62,500). However, 4.3% of Leo-Cedarville
residents live in poverty.
The median age for Leo-Cedarville residents is
39.2 years young.
36 |
P + R MASTER PLAN
SUPPLY ANALYSIS
4
Chapter 4:
SUPPLY ANALYSIS
P + R MASTER PLAN
| 37
4
SUPPLY ANALYSIS
(Intentionally Left Blank)
38 |
P + R MASTER PLAN
SUPPLY ANALYSIS
4
5o
3
2o
6o
2o
2
4o
2o
4
1o
1
1o
5
1 Leo-Cedarville Park
1o Metea Park
2 Riverside Gardens
2o East Allen County School District
3 The Cedarville Boat Landing-DNR
3o Leo United Methodist Church
4 Bike Trail
4o Harvest Fellowship Church
5 The Cedarville Boat Landing
5o North Leo Mennonite Church
6o Church of the Good Shepherd
P + R MASTER PLAN
| 39
4
SUPPLY ANALYSIS
In 1939, a volunteer group organized in a Cedarville
auto repair garage to form the park association. As time
went on, the centralized rope swing gave way to a row
of swings, teeter totters, and other playground equipment. Even before an official baseball diamond was laid
out, there were always “pick up” games.
In the 1940’s, Harold Kryder and other WWII veterans,
set out to improve the square into a more park like setting. An open-air shelter was built in the same location
as the current pavilion. The ball diamond was located
in the northwest corner where the large parking lot
now exists. A basketball/tennis court was located in the
northeast comer where today’s Imagination Station sits.
Funds were raised for improvements by: renting the
pavilion, holding suppers and sponsoring a small fair
on alternate years with the Leo Businessman’s Association. Funds raised by these means eventually paid for
partial enclosure of the shelter with kitchen facilities
in the late 1950’s, installation of additional playground
equipment in the early 1960’s, and complete enclosure
and installation of indoor restrooms in the pavilion in
the early 1970’s. In the late 1970’s, the Cedar Creek
Women’s Club and the Steffens family donated funds to
install the basketball court. As the number of facilities in the park grew, it became impossible to sponsor
the biennial fair. The fair was held on the Leo School
grounds for a number of years until a lack of space at
that site ended the activity. Up until the mid 1990’s,
the park survived through the efforts of the residents of
Cedarville who volunteered time and money to provide
a safe place for children to play. The park remained
mostly grass and trees until 1996.
In 1996, the Town of Leo-Cedarville was incorporated
and the Town assumed custody of the park. At that
time, the park became the “Leo-Cedarville Park”.
1 Information obtained from the Leo-Cedarville Comprehensive Plan
2 Paul Steffens, lifelong resident and current Town
Council President
A volunteer Leo-Cedarville Municipal Park Board
continued to maintain the park, continuing to provide
community activities and renting the pavilion for family
reunions. In 1997, the Town received a grant from the
state through the efforts of Senator Dick Worman to
improve the park. After much discussion about how to
use the grant moneys, it was decided to improve the
playground equipment.
Rather than purchase the usual playground equipment,
it was decided to do something different. Brenda
Schinnerer who was Leo-Cedarville Municipal Park
Board president and Jody Stapler had learned of
Leathers Associates who designed unique playgrounds.
This company was hired and they came and analyzed
the site and surveyed the children of the community as
to what they would like to see in the park. Next came
the plan that incorporated the children’s ideas with
the slides, swings and other playground equipment
constructed of wood and plastic for safety. It provided
activities for all ages from infants with their parents
to older children. During an intense one-week period
in October 1997, the project was built with the
assistance of donated funds, materials, and labor.
Where possible, large trees were spared and the station
built around them. This structure continues to be a
frequent destination for local children and people
from surrounding communities. The volunteer effort
continues during park events and workdays.
In 1997, it was also decided to improve the pavilion
as a part of a general park improvement plan. The
central portion was demolished, leaving only the two
limestone faced ends. A new, cathedral ceiling hall
was constructed including a fireplace and an outdoor
overhang. The electrical and mechanical portion of the
building was upgraded to provide year round utility.
A remodeled kitchen was installed for use by renters
and Leo-Cedarville Municipal Park Board activities.
Sidewalks and parking were also installed to make
the park more accessible. In 1999, a storage shed was
added to the west of the pavilion and the existing
Leo-Cedarville Park - 1.84 acres
• Features: Enclosed pavilion, a locally prominent wood playground structure (known as “The Imagination
Station”), a cement sidewalk encompassing the primary features of the site, one full-size basketball court with
“Gorilla” Hoops, benches, and several picnic sites.
40 |
P + R MASTER PLAN
SUPPLY ANALYSIS
4
1
P + R MASTER PLAN
| 41
4
SUPPLY ANALYSIS
2 Riverside Gardens
Riverside Gardens - 9 acres
Features:
• This large green space lies adjacent to the St.
Joseph River and was made available as a result of
redesigning Schwartz Road.
• Today, the park includes a grand pavilion
overlooking the river, two separate large open-air
pavilions with picnic tables adjacent to the main
parking lot, a restroom facility, a 1/2 mile concrete
walking trail which connects to the 3-mile concrete
trail between Leo-Cedarville and Grabill, benches,
fishing access points, open picnic area, splash pad,
playground, play creek, sand volleyball courts,
four horse shoe pits, shade structures with benches
and picnic tables (ADA compliant), pond, and trail
signage.
42 |
P + R MASTER PLAN
SUPPLY ANALYSIS
4
2
P + R MASTER PLAN
| 43
4
SUPPLY ANALYSIS
3 The Cedarville Boat Landing- DNR
At the same time that Cedarville was platted in 1838,
land was set aside for a town landing. In the early
days of the town it was often easier to come up the
St. Joseph River from Fort Wayne than to go overland.
The landing is located on a small bluff overlooking the
river at the corner of Main St. and Pearl. The building
of the Cedarville Dam in the mid 1950’s ended this
form of navigation from Fort Wayne. However, the
ensuing reservoir provided a great area for boating and
fishing. In the early 1960’s, high-speed power boats
manufactured in nearby Harlan were tested on the
reservoir by astronauts looking for fun and relaxation.
As time went on and the river became more silt-filled
and less navigable, the use of the landing declined. By
the early 1990’s all that remained was a dirt trail down
to a broken concrete ramp. The land around the ramp
was a weed-choked thicket laden with poison ivy and
trash. With the incorporation of the Town, it was felt
that this property needed to be cleaned up.
In the late 1990’s, much of the undergrowth, trash,
and dead trees were removed. Parking was installed,
the drive to the ramp was paved with stone and picnic
tables placed. As the water level in the St. Joseph
River was lowered to do repairs to the dam in 2007,
the town council moved on this opportunity to repair
the concrete ramp. Today, this boat launch is available
to launch small to medium watercraft as well as
picnicking.
DNR Boat Access - North Grabill Road across from
Riverside Gardens.
Features: 8-10 parking spots with one handicapped
parking spot. The landing accesses the St. Joseph River
via a short channel.
3
44 |
P + R MASTER PLAN
SUPPLY ANALYSIS
4
4 Bike Trail
Bike Trail - Three miles of 8-foot wide trail connecting
Leo-Cedarville and Grabill. The trail originates in
Riverside Gardens and connects to the sidewalk system
in Leo-Cedarville proper to the west and to the east in
the neighboring town of Grabill.
4
P + R MASTER PLAN
| 45
4
SUPPLY ANALYSIS
Cedarville Boat Landing - 0.45 acres. A small
watercraft access to the St. Joseph River off Main and
Pearl Streets at the south end of town.
Features: Two picnic tables and two trailer parking
spots with an additional four vehicle parking area.
46 |
P + R MASTER PLAN
SUPPLY ANALYSIS
4
The St. Joseph River can be credited for the existence
of Cedarville and Hamilton (Leo). As settlers made
their way down this river they found this area to be a
prime spot to locate. As a trade route between Detroit
and Fort Wayne, the town would have great potential
for accommodating commerce and travelers along the
way. In the 1950’s the flooding of the lowlands along
the river created a reservoir for drinking water storage
for the nearby city of Fort Wayne. Unfortunately, as a
result of erosion and sediment this reservoir does not
hold near the capacity that it once did. On the other
hand, the winding river and backwaters provide great
opportunities for fishing and low impact water sports
such as canoeing and kayaking.
5
P + R MASTER PLAN
| 47
4
SUPPLY ANALYSIS
OTHER RECREATIONAL PROVIDERS
The following is a partial list of other recreation providers in the Town of Leo-Cedarville:
1o Metea Park
County park with trails, pond, open field, guided walks,
nature center, summer camps, cross-country ski rental,
bird watching and instructional workshops.
1o
1o
48 |
P + R MASTER PLAN
SUPPLY ANALYSIS
4
Playgrounds, soccer fields, baseball fields, and softball
fields; summer soccer and cheerleading camps.
2o
2o
2o
P + R MASTER PLAN
| 49
4
SUPPLY ANALYSIS
Small play area on site open to public use when church
is not in session.
3o
50 |
P + R MASTER PLAN
3o
SUPPLY ANALYSIS
4
is not in session.
4o
P + R MASTER PLAN
| 51
4
SUPPLY ANALYSIS
is not in session.
5o
52 |
P + R MASTER PLAN
SUPPLY ANALYSIS
4
Restored to glory dance classes offered.
6o
P + R MASTER PLAN
| 53
4
SUPPLY ANALYSIS
(Intentionally Left Blank)
54 |
P + R MASTER PLAN
Chapter 5:
ACCESSIBILITY +
UNIVERSAL DESIGN
ACCESSIBILITY + UNIVERSAL DESIGN
P + R MASTER PLAN
5
| 55
5
56 |
P + R MASTER PLAN
P + R MASTER PLAN
5
| 57
5
58 |
P + R MASTER PLAN
P + R MASTER PLAN
5
| 59
5
60 |
P + R MASTER PLAN
P + R MASTER PLAN
5
| 61
5
62 |
P + R MASTER PLAN
P + R MASTER PLAN
5
| 63
5
64 |
P + R MASTER PLAN
P + R MASTER PLAN
5
| 65
5
66 |
P + R MASTER PLAN
P + R MASTER PLAN
5
| 67
5
68 |
P + R MASTER PLAN
P + R MASTER PLAN
5
| 69
5
70 |
P + R MASTER PLAN
P + R MASTER PLAN
5
| 71
5
72 |
P + R MASTER PLAN
P + R MASTER PLAN
5
| 73
5
74 |
P + R MASTER PLAN
P + R MASTER PLAN
5
| 75
5
76 |
P + R MASTER PLAN
P + R MASTER PLAN
5
| 77
5
78 |
P + R MASTER PLAN
P + R MASTER PLAN
5
| 79
5
80 |
P + R MASTER PLAN
P + R MASTER PLAN
5
| 81
5
82 |
P + R MASTER PLAN
P + R MASTER PLAN
5
| 83
5
84 |
P + R MASTER PLAN
P + R MASTER PLAN
5
| 85
5
86 |
P + R MASTER PLAN
Chapter 6:
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
DEMAND ANALYSIS
6
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION - DEMAND ANALYSIS
Four boards with inspirational images were shared with
community leaders and the public at the meeting on
November 3, 2014 at 2:00 p.m. a Community Leader
meeting was held at Leo-Cedarville Park Pavilion.
Surveys were given to the leaders, the results of the
11 surveys are included in the summary of the results
and individual results can be found in the supplemental
information in chapter 12.
On February 9, 2015 an open house was held from 5:30
-7:30 p.m. at the leo-Cedarville park Pavilion. Seven
surveys, one letter, one e-mail were collected and are
included in the survey summary and can be found in the
supplemental information in chapter 12. Eighteen (18)
individuals from the community attended and provided
ideas for the future.
The following inspiring images were selected by the
community as features they would like considered
in green spaces and open spaces. The public also
indicated they would like barbecue stands throughout
the parks.
*River walk to commercial space
88 |
P + R MASTER PLAN
*Trails always a good idea
6
*North toward Spencerville
*Fishing pier
*Downtown
P + R MASTER PLAN
| 89
6
*Wireless hotspots throughout downtown
*Cedarville Park and Riverside Gardens
90 |
P + R MASTER PLAN
P + R MASTER PLAN
6
| 91
6
*Zip line
92 |
P + R MASTER PLAN
Public participation was developed through surveys
handed out at the Art Festival, Fall Festival,athletic
events, backpack surveys, local businesses, churches,
councilmen, council meetings, stakeholder meetings
and an open house. Following are the results of the
information collected.
6
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION SURVEY
On September 27, 2014 surveys were handed out at the
Leo-Cedarville Art Festival held at Riverside Gardens.
Approximately 500 number of individuals attended
the festival. A total of 55 surveys were collected.
Following are the results of the 15 question survey.
On October 14, 2014, 664 surveys were sent home with
Cedarville Elementary students and 587 surveys were
sent home with Leo Elementary students. We received
357 surverys.
Lastly, 18 surveys were collected from the public
meetings.
The following graphs, charts, etc., are a combination
of all the surveys.
Q.1: HOW DID YOU FIND OUT ABOUT PARKS, RECREATION
FACILITIES AND RECREATION PROGRAMS IN
LEO-CEDARVILLE?
Facebook
21%
Town of Leo-Cedarville
Website
14%
Other
43%
Youth Sports
2%
Television Twitter
2%
3%
Emails from Town
of Leo Cedarville
8%
Park and Recreation
Department Flyers
7%
P + R MASTER PLAN
| 93
6
Q.2: WHICH AGE GROUPS IN YOUR HOUSEHOLD HAVE
PARTICIPATED IN A TOWN OF LEO-CEDARVILLE RECREATION
PROGRAM IN THE LAST 12 MONTHS?
None
8%
60 or Older
11%
50-59
7%
Under 10
35%
40-49
2%
25-39
12%
20-24
3%
10-19
22%
Q.3: HOW OFTEN DO YOU OR OTHER HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS
USE OR VISIT THE PARK FACILITIES LISTED BELOW IN THE
TOWN OF LEO-CEDARVILLE?
PARKS
Once a year or
less
6%
Several times
per year
41%
94 |
P + R MASTER PLAN
At least once a
week
26%
At least once a
month
27%
6
Q.3AF: HOW OFTEN DO YOU OR OTHER HOUSEHOLD
MEMBERS USE OR VISIT THE PARK FACILITIES LISTED BELOW
IN THE TOWN OF LEO-CEDARVILLE?
ATHLETIC FIELDS At least once a
week
17%
Don’t Use
36%
At least once a
month
10%
Several times
per year
23%
Once a year or
less…
Q.3R: HOW OFTEN DO YOU OR OTHER HOUSEHOLD
RECREATION
PROGRAMS
At least once a
week, 6
Don’t Use
33%
At least once a
month, 8
Several times
per year 29%
Once a year or
less 26%
P + R MASTER PLAN
| 95
6
Q.3T: HOW OFTEN DO YOU OR OTHER HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS
TRAILS
At least once a
week 13%
At least once a
month 9%
Don’t Use
30%
Several times
per year 28%
Once a year or
less 20%
Q4: WHAT AGE GROUPS ARE REPRESENTED IN YOUR
HOUSEHOLD (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)?
60 or older
9%
50 to 59
10%
40 to 49
10%
25 to 39
15%
20 to 24
2%
96 |
P + R MASTER PLAN
Children under
10
28%
10 to 19
26%
6
Q5: IF YOUR HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS DO NOT USE LEOCEDARVILLE PARKS, FACILITIES, PROGRAMS OR EVENTS, WHAT
IS THE PRIMARY BARRIER THAT PREVENTS THEM FROM USING
THEM MORE FREQUENTLY?
No safe paths
6%
Other reason
24%
No free time for
leisure activities
57%
Parks not
accessible due to
disabilities
0%
Inadequate
parking
7%
Parks/facilities
do not meet our
needs
6%
Parks lack
adequate
security
0%
Q6: PLEASE RATE THE EXISTING PARKS, PARK FACILITIES,
PROGRAMS AND SPECIAL EVENTS IN THE TOWN OF
LEO-CEDARVILLE.
Needs Some
Improvement
2%
Needs Much
Improvement
0%
Satisfactory
33%
Above Average
65%
P + R MASTER PLAN
| 97
6
Q7: If the Town provided more opportunities like those listed, which would you and your
household members (any age) be most interested in participating?
90
84
80
65
70
55
60
50
49
42
40
32 31 30 30
29 28 28
30
20
10
24 24
21 19
18 18 16
15 14 13 13
9
9
9
8
0
Q8: Which facilities or amenities do you feel are
MOST needed or should be expanded in LeoCedarville?
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
98 |
P + R MASTER PLAN
6
4
1
6
Q9: Which ATHLETIC facilities do you feel are MOST
needed in Leo-Cedarville?
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Q10: Which THREE park types are the most important for the Parks and
Recreation Department to focus on within the next five years?
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
P + R MASTER PLAN
| 99
6
Q11: To assist the Town of Leo-Cedarville develop
future funding priorities rank how you feel the funding
should be prioritized.
10%
9% 11%
10%
11%
9%
10%
11%
9%
10%
Build a swimming center
Build a community center
Develop new parks and facilities
Provide additional recreation programs/classes
Renovate exsisting parks and facilities
Develop new hike/bike/walk/jog trails
Better maintain existing parks
Provide new and improved special events
Acquire parkland, open space and natural areas
100 |
P + R MASTER PLAN
6
Q12: In order to develop and maintain the park and
recreation facilities/amenities you have suggested herein,
how strongly would you support EACH of the funding options
listed below?
5
4
3
2
1
0
Corporate
Increased park fees Voter approved An increase in user Increased property
advertising/naming for developers
bond programs fees(paying a fee
taxes
rights
to use a
facility/program)
Q13: How much more per year in additional property taxes
would you be willing to pay in order to fund the improvement
priorities you have suggested in this survey?
40
33
26
30
25
23
20
8
10
0
Up to
$50/year
Up to
$75/year
Up to
$100/year
Series1
Up to
$200/year
More than
$200/year
8
No increase
Series2
P + R MASTER PLAN
| 101
6
Q14: Are you interested in volunteering, joining the park
board, donating, and/or sponsorship of an existing park or
park feature?
50
41
40
30
15
20
14
6
10
0
Volunteering
Park Board
Donating
Sponsorship
Series1
Q15: What is
your zipSeries2
code?
other___
7%
46845
23%
46765
47%
46835
3%
46788
14%
46741
6%
46765
102 |
P + R MASTER PLAN
46741
46788
46835
46797
46774
46845
other___
NEEDS ANALYSIS
7
Chapter 7:
NEEDS ANALYSIS
P + R MASTER PLAN
| 103
7
NEEDS ANALYSIS
5o
3
2o
6o
2o
2
4o
2o
4
1o
1
1o
5
1o Metea Park
2 Riverside Gardens
4 Bike Trail
104 |
P + R MASTER PLAN
NEEDS ANALYSIS
FACILITY CLASSIFICATION AND STANDARDS
In developing design principles for parks it is important
that each park be programmed, planned, and designed
to meet the needs of its service area and classification
within the overall system. The term programming,
when used in the context of planning and developing
parkland, refers to a list of uses and facilities and does
not always include staff run recreation programs. The
program for a site can include such elements as ball
fields, spray parks, shelters, restrooms, game courts,
trails, natural resource stewardship, open meadows,
nature preserves, or interpretive areas. These types
of amenities are categorized as lead or support
components. The needs of the population should be
considered and accommodated at each park. Every
park, regardless of type, needs to have an established
set of outcomes including operational and maintenance
costs. The information should be communicated to the
park designer in order for them to meet the established
goals.
Each park classification category serves a specific
purpose, and the features and facilities in the park
must be designed for the number of age segments the
park is intended to serve, the desired length of stay
deemed appropriate, and the uses it has been assigned.
Recreation needs and services required differ based
on the age segments that make up the community. A
varying number of age segments will be accommodated
with the park program depending on the classification
of the park.
The age segments are:
Ages
Ages
Ages
Ages
Ages
Ages
Ages
Ages
Ages
Ages
Ages
2-5
6-8
9-12
13-17
18-24
25-34
35-44
45-54
55-64
65-75
76+
The following principles should be considered for the
Town of Leo-Cedarville in developing standards for
each category of park:
7
Mini Parks
Mini Parks are the smallest type of park. Terms such
as “pocket park” or “tot lot” have also been used to
identify a mini park. The amenities provided usually
focus on apparatus for young children; however,
some include passive activities for adults and seniors
depending on the needs of the adjacent population.
Other amenities typically include small shelters,
benches, game tables, and ornamental landscaping. In
addition, residents should not have to cross any major
roads. Mini park service levels are 0.25 to 0.5 acres
per thousand residents.
For Leo-Cedarville this would result in 1.9 acres for the
current population of 3,790 residents.
The Cedarville Boat Landing - South boat launch - 0.45
acres
Neighborhood Parks
While these parks are typically set to serve 1.5 acres
per 1,000 population, in many cases serve more
people. To accommodate a population this size, a
neighborhood park should be 2 to 10 acres, however,
some neighborhood parks are determined by use and
facilities offered and not by size alone. The service
radius for a neighborhood park is one half mile or
six blocks. Neighborhood parks should have safe
pedestrian access for surrounding residents; parking
may or may not be included.
For Leo-Cedarville this would result in 7.58 acres for
the current population of 3,790 residents.
Leo-Cedarville Park - 1.84 acres
Community Parks
Larger parks that provide active and passive
recreational opportunities for all city residents.
Accommodates large group activities and organized
sports play. Range in size from 13-50 acres.
For Leo-Cedarville this would result in 11.37 acres for
the current population of 3,790 residents.
Riverside Gardens - 9 acres
Regional Park/Sports Complex
Currently does not exist.
P + R MASTER PLAN
| 105
7
NEEDS ANALYSIS
Page Intentionally Left Blank
106 |
P + R MASTER PLAN
NEEDS ANALYSIS
PARK CATEGORY
DEFINITION
BENEFITS
Urban Plaza
Public plazas/town square, historical markers
High-use public area within high-density
urban developments and along transit
corridors. Public plazas/town squares are
publicly owned and used spaces that act as
civic neighborhood activity focal points.
Provides for the day to day rest/leisure
needs of nearby residents and employees,
as well as shoppers, transit, users, and
recreators. Provides space for community
events. Communicates community
character.
SIZE/SCOPE
1/2 acre to 3+ acres
Provides for the day to day rest/leisure
needs of nearby residents and employees,
Mini Park (pocket park, tot lot)
Used to address limited, isolated, or unique
as well as shoppers, transit, users, and
Between 2500 square feet and 1
(The Cedarville Boat landing - south boat launch)
recreational needs
recreators. Provides space for community
acre in size
0.45 acres)
events. Communicates community
character.
Neighborhood Park
(Leo-Cedarville Park 1.84 acres)
Community Park
(Riverside Gardens 9 acres)
Provides convenient access to active
Local park located within biking and walking
recreation opportunities for nearby
distance of users.
residents of all ages.
Contributes to
neighborhood identity
Larger park that provides active and passive
recreational opportunities for all city
residents.
Accommodates large
group activities and organized sports play
Provides a variety of active and passive
recreation opportunities for all age groups,
provides environmental education
opportunities, serves recreation needs of
families, provides opportunities for
community social activities, provides for
sports facilities
2 to 12 acres
13-50 acres
SERVICE AREA
LEO-CEDARVILLE REQUIRED ACRES
BASED ON POPULATION
INCLUDES
ACRES PER 1,000 POULATION
N/A
Multi purpose paved areas. Children's
play areas. Public art/Fountains.
Landscaping. Seating Small cafes, retail
or dining areas
Multipurpose performance space Civic
structures and kiosks. Signage, lighting,
news racks, banners, etc.. Vendor areas
0.50
0.25 to 0.5 acres/1000 population
Apparatus for young children, passive
activities for adults and seniors, small
shelters, benches, game tables,
ornamental landscaping
Residents should not have to cross any
major roads.
1.90
1 to 2 acres/1000 population
Children's play areas, Sports facilities
including paved courts and sports fields
with or without lighting, Picnic areas,
seating, Access to restrooms, Paths
Flat areas (1/2 of site minimum) public
street access/face (minimum of two sides),
lighting (poles or bollards), electrical
outlets, open space, parking, public art,
community gardens
7.58
2-3 acres/1000 population (5 acres/1000
in combination with neighborhood park)
Children's play areas, sports facilities
including tennis and basketball courts,
multiple sports fields, skate parks, On
and off street parking, public
art/fountains, single and group picnic
areas, paths
Lighting (poles or bollards), seating,
natural areas, open space, water features,
swimming pools, interpretative facilities,
multi-purpose centers, large expansive flat
areas (7 to 10 acres), public street
access/face (minimum of two sides)
11.37
Serves entire region
5 to 10 acres/1000 population
Children's play areas, off-street parking,
public art/fountains, paths, natural
areas, community
centers/amphitheaters, swimming
pools, water features, public street
access/face minimum of two sides
Competitive sports facilities, permanent
restrooms, single and group picnic areas,
lighting, botanical gardens, festival space,
interpretive facilities, multi-purpose
centers, expansive flat areas (15 acres
minimum)
37.90
Variable
Sufficient to protect resources and to
accommodate activities
seating, signage, vehicle control
barriers, landscaping,
Trailhead amenities such as bike racks and
trash receptacles (picnic areas, small scale
parking, and restrooms are provided in
parks along the path)
Pedestrian crosswalks, curb ramps,
seating, lighting, signage/traffic signals,
vehicle control barriers
Landscaping, staging areas with amenities
such as bike racks and trash receptacles
(picnic areas, small scale parking and
restrooms are provided in parks along the
path)
N/A
N/A
Service area - variable
Less than a 1/4 mile distance in
residential setting
Serves neighborhoods within 1/2 miles
Service area radius of 2 miles
Regional Park/Sports Complex
Provides a variety of accessible recreational
Larger park that provides active and passive opportunities for all age groups, provides
recreational opportunities for all city and
environmental education opportunities,
regional residents. Accommodates large
serves recreational needs of families,
group activities
provides opportunities for community social
activities
50 or more acres
Connector Trail
(Bike Trail from Leo-Cedarville to Grabill.
An 8-10 ft. wide hard-surfaced multi-use
path separated from motor vehicle traffic
Type II Separate/single-purpose hardby an open space or barrier. Its route may
surfaced trails for pedestrians or
be aligned with or independent of the
bicyclists/in-line skaters. Typically located
street right-of-way. It will often be found in
within road ROW.
the greenways. This is a Class I bikeway.
Adjacent to designated natural
resource areas, within open
space parts of community parks
Park Trail
(Riverside Gardens)
An 8-10 ft. wide hard-surfaced multi-use
path separated from motor vehicle traffic
by an open space or barrier. Its route may
be aligned with or independent of the
street right-of-way. It will often be found in
the greenways. This is a Class I bikeway.
Reduces auto-dependency, provides
opportunities for trail related recreation,
provides environmental education
opportunities, provides a full accessible
outdoor experience for people with
disabilities, maximizes bike user and
pedestrian safety
Within every greenway, along
selected collectors and within
selected neighborhoods, along
parkway streets
Variable
Sufficient to protect resources and to
accommodate activities
All-Terrain Bike Trail
Off-road trail for all-terrain (mountain)
bikes. Single-purpose loop trails usually
located in larger parks and natural resource
areas.
Provides additional recreational
opportunity.
Within park
Variable
N/A
7
P + R MASTER PLAN
| 107
3790
7
NEEDS ANALYSIS
Page Intentionally Left Blank
108 |
P + R MASTER PLAN
NEEDS ANALYSIS
7
GREENWAYS AND PARKWAYS
CLASSIFICATION AND DESCRIPTION
GREENWAYS
Effectively tie park system components together to
form a continuous park environment.
PARK TRAILS
Multi-purpose trails located within greenways, parks,
and natural resource areas. Focus is on recreational
value and harmony with natural environment.
Type I: Separate/single-purpose hard-surfaced trails
for pedestrians or bicyclists/in-line skaters.
Type II: Multi-purpose hard-surface trails for
pedestrians and bicyclists/in-line skaters
Type III: Nature trails for pedestrians. Hard or soft
surface.
CONNECTOR TRAILS
Multi-purpose trials that emphasize safe travel
for pedestrians to and from parks and around the
community. Focus is as much on transportation as it is
on recreation.
Type I: Separate/single-purpose hard-surfaced trails
for pedestrians or bicyclists/in-line skaters located in
independent ROW.
Type II Separate/single-purpose hard-surfaced trails
for pedestrians or bicyclists/in-line skaters. Typically
located within road ROW.
ON-STREET BIKEWAYS
Paved segments of roadways that serve as a means to
safely separate bicyclists from vehicular traffic.
BIKE ROUTE
Designated portions of the roadway for the preferential
or exclusive use of bicyclists.
Bike lane: Shared portions of the roadway that provide
separation between motor vehicles and bicyclists, such
as paved shoulders.
ALL-TERRAIN BIKE TRAIL
Off-road trail for all-terrain (mountain) bikes.
Single-purpose loop trails usually located in larger
parks and natural resource areas.
CROSS-COUNTRY SKI TRAILS
Trails developed for traditional and skate-style crosscounty skiing.
Loop trails usually located in larger parks and natural
resource areas.
EQUESTRIAN TRAILS
Trails developed for horseback riding.
Loop trails usually located in larger parks and natural
resource areas. Sometimes developed as multi-purpose
with hiking and all-terrain biking where conflicts can be
controlled.
(Source: James D. Mertes and James R. Hall, Park,
Recreation, Open Space and Greewway Guidelines
(Alexandria, VA: National Recreation and Park
Association and American Academy for Park and
Recreation Administration, 1995).
GREENWAYS AND PARKWAYS
NEEDS ANALYSIS SUMMARY
Currently trails exist in the form of park trails, Type
II and connector trails (Riverside Gardens), and Type I
(Bike Trail from Leo-Cedarville to Grabill). Currently there are no all-terrain bike trails.
Currently there are no on-street bikeways, bike routes,
cross-country ski trails, or equestrian trails.
EQUITY MAPPING
Service area maps and standards help staff and key
leadership to assess where services are offered, how
equitable and service delivery is across Leo-Cedarville,
and how effective the service is as it compares to
the demographics of where the service is provided.
In addition, reviewing facility standards against the
population allows the Department to assess gaps
in service and identify locations which are under
served or over served by a specific facility. This
allows the Department to develop appropriate capital
improvement needs to make decisions on what level of
contributions they will make against what other service
providers are providing. The following maps were
developed to illustrate.
P + R MASTER PLAN
| 109
7
NEEDS ANALYSIS
EQUITY MAPPING ANALYSIS
As indicated by the mapping and graph, there is
a lack of mini parks serving neighborhoods and a
regional park to serve the area.
The previous section, Demand Analysis, indicated
a priority should be given to an athletic complex,
community parks and neighborhood parks.
Neighborhood parks may actually be referencing
the definition for mini parks. Community Park
Service Area: 2 Mile Radius
Neighborhood Park
Service Area: 1/2 Mile Radius
Mini Park
Service Area: Less than 1/4 mile
*Has to have walkable access
110 |
P + R MASTER PLAN
NEEDS ANALYSIS
7
EACS Elementary Playground
Mini Park
3
2o
2
4
Community Park (Large Yellow
Circle is area covered)
Neighborhood Park (large blue)
Leo-Cedarville Park
1
5
Mini Park
1o Metea Park
2 Riverside Gardens
4 Bike Trail
P + R MASTER PLAN
| 111
7
NEEDS ANALYSIS
(Page Intentionally Left Blank )
112 |
P + R MASTER PLAN
NEW FACILITIES LOCATION MAP
8
Chapter 8:
NEW FACILITIES
LOCATION MAP
P + R MASTER PLAN
| 113
8
REFERENCE MAP FOR LOCATION OF NEW FACILITIES
Various new facilities are planned over the next five years. Their locations, as noted
on the following pages, can be see in the aerial map below.
5o
3
2o
6o
2o
2
4o
2o
4
1o
1
1o
5
1o Metea Park
2 Riverside Gardens
4 Bike Trail
6 EACS Property
114 |
P + R MASTER PLAN
ITEM/ YEAR
8
SITE
ACTION
To be determined
Athletic Complex ‐ select property for athletic complex ‐ approximately 80 acres
Riverside Gardens
Fire Pit ‐ adjacent to pond
Riverside Gardens
Fire Pit ‐ adjacent to mesic garden
Riverside Gardens
Ice Skating Hut ‐ adjacent to pond
Riverside Gardens
Shade Structures, picnic tables, concrete slab, additional seating at splash pad
To be determined
Athletic Complex ‐ purchase property for Athletic complex (80 acres at $5000/acre)
To be determined
Athletic Complex ‐ Development
Riverside Gardens
Wi‐Fi
Riverside Gardens
Outdoor Furniture, for working, lounging
To be determined
Aquatic Facility Feasibility Study
To be determined
Aquatic Facility ‐ Fundraising
To be determined
Aquatic Facility Design
Leo‐Cedarville Park
Water Feature
Riverside Gardens
Additional Playground Equipment
Kitchen Renovation
Grill
South Boat Launch
Shade Structure, picnic tables, concrete slab
Trail Head (North of Leo‐Cedarville Park)
Trail Head sidewalk connection (500'x8')
To be determined
Aquatic Facility Property (7 acres)
Riverside Gardens
Concession Stand/Additional Restrooms
To be determined
Aquatic Facility Construction
Riverside Gardens
Additional Parking ‐ Asphalt
Replacement of Leo‐Cedarville Playground Equipment/Maintenance
Riverside Gardens
Bleachers
Riverside Gardens
Regrading for Amphitheater
North Boat Landing
Develop Additional Parking ‐ Asphalt Pavement (41,000 sf)
Riverside Gardens
Board Walk
2015
2016
2017
2018
P + R MASTER PLAN
2019
| 115
8
Grill
South Boat Launch
Shade Structure, picnic tables, concrete slab
To be determined
NEW
FACILITIES LOCATION MAP
Riverside Gardens
To be determined
Riverside Gardens
Riverside Gardens
Bleachers
Riverside Gardens
North Boat Landing
Riverside Gardens
Board Walk
North Boat Launch
Community Center
Electric Sign
Wi‐Fi
North Boat Launch
Wi‐Fi
South Boat Launch
Restrooms
Outdoor Furniture, for working/lounging
Ride/Unique Activity
South Boat Launch
Purchase Additional Property and Develop Parking Area
South Boat Launch
Pier
EACS Property
Field House
Additional Shade/Picnic Areas
Riverside Gardens
Various
Trails/Bike Paths (200 lineal feet)
Various
Various
Various
Reservoir
Cleaning of Reservoir
2018
2019
2020
116 |
P + R MASTER PLAN
Chapter 9:
PRIORITIES +
ACTION SCHEDULE
P + R MASTER PLAN
| 117
9
PRIORITIES + ACTION SCHEDULE
PRIORITIES
Based on the feedback from the public meetings and
surveys the following priorities resulted:
• Priority should be given to athletic complex,
community parks, neighborhood parks.
• Funding priorities should be to build swimming
center, develop hike/bike/walk/jog trails, build a
field house, and a community center.
• Expanded facilities or amenities should be hiking
trails, bike trails, indoor pool, tennis courts, field
house, community center, and additional shaded
areas adjacent to playgrounds. The desire for
additional shade structures may also be supported
through additional tree plantings, due to the area
having the lowest percentage of forestland in the
State.
• Funding options supported, in order of popularity,
were corporate advertising/naming rights, no
increase in taxes, voter approved bond programs,
and an increase in user fees, up to $50/year
increase in taxes, and increased developer fees.
• High response for residents willing to volunteer.
This should be tapped as a major resource.
Several of the projects desired exceed the park
departments budget and would need to be addressed
through other funding sources. When these projects
move forward, operating costs should be considered
and the Leo-Cedarville Municipal Leo-Cedarville
Municipal Leo-Cedarville Municipal Leo-Cedarville
Municipal Park Board budget may have to be addressed
in order to manage the additional facilities and/or
amenities. Examples of these projects include the
following:
• Athletic Complex
• Aquatic Facility (Indoor/Outdoor Pool Facility)
• Water Feature (Leo-Cedarville Park)
• Trail Head and bike/walk/jog trail connection
• Concession Stand
• Replacement of Leo-Cedarville Playground
• Community Center
• Ride/Unique Activity (Leo-Cedarville Park)
• Field House
• Trails/Bike Paths
118 |
P + R MASTER PLAN
9
ITEM/ YEAR
SITE
ACTION
COST
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDING SOURCES
X
‐
X
$400,000
X
$5,500,000
2015
To be determined
Athletic Complex ‐ select property for athletic complex ‐ approximately 80 acres
Riverside Gardens
Fire Pit ‐ adjacent to pond
Riverside Gardens
Fire Pit ‐ adjacent to mesic garden
$5,000
Riverside Gardens
Ice skating Hut ‐ adjacent to pond
$9,000
Riverside Gardens
Shade Structures, picnic tables, concrete slab
Athletic Complex ‐ purchase property for Athletic complex (80 acres at $5000/acre)
$25,000
To be determined
$5,000
$44,000
2016
To be determined
Athletic Complex ‐ Development
Riverside Gardens
Wi‐Fi
$13,000
Riverside Gardens
$10,000
To be determined
To be determined
Aquatic Facility Feasibility Study
$30,000
Aquatic Facility ‐ Fundraising
X
X
$53,000
2017
To be determined
Aquatic Facility Design
X
$300,000
Water Feature
X
$50,000
Riverside Gardens
$25,000
Kitchen Renovation
$10,000
Grille
$1,500
South Boat Launch
Shade Structure, picnic tables, concrete slab, additional seating at splash pad
$25,000
$195,000
X
X
$16,000
To be determined
Riverside Gardens
X
$35,000 to $70,000
X
$75,000 to $250,00
$3,500,000 to $6,500,000
$61,500
2018
To be determined
X
Riverside Gardens
X
$195,000
X
$150,000
X
$270,000
Riverside Gardens
Bleachers
$10,000
Riverside Gardens
North Boat Landing
$30,000
$40,000
2019
Riverside Gardens
Board Walk
X
$250,000
North Boat Launch
Community Center
X
$300,000
X
$90,000 to $120,000
X
$30,000 to $100,000
X
$150,000 to $200,000
X
$5,000,000 to $10,000,000
Electric Sign
Wi‐Fi
$13,000
North Boat Launch
Wi‐Fi
$13,000
South Boat Launch
Restrooms
$20,000
$10,000
Ride/Unique Activity
$56,000
2020
South Boat Launch
Purchase Additional Property and Develop Parking Area
South Boat Launch
Pier
$2,500
EACS Property
Field House
Additional Shade/Picnic Areas
$25,000
Riverside Gardens
$15,000
Various
X
$100,000 to $150,000
Various
X
$100,000 to $150,000
Various
Various
X
$100,000 to $150,000
X
$100,000 to $150,000
Reservoir
Cleaning of Reservoir
X
$42,500
P + R MASTER PLAN
| 119
9
POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES
FUNDING AT THE STATE LEVEL
The Bicentennial Nature Trust
• 402 W. Washington St., Executive Office, Room
W-256, Indianapolis, IN 46204.
• The primary intent of BNT is property protection/
acquisition that will become part of the public trust
for all Hoosiers to enjoy. Project types eligible
for funding under the BNT include the acquisition
of property of conservation. Public/private
partnerships are encourage.
• The maximum amount of money from BNT for any
single project proposal is $300,000. Projects will
have a 1:1 match. So for every dollar requested
from BNT there will be at least one dollar of nonBNT fund match with the project.
• The Project Committee meets quarterly to consider
project proposals and deadlines for submission of
project proposals are: February 1, May 1, August 1,
and November 1.
IDNR - DIVISION OF OUTDOOR RECREATION
Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF)
• Since 1965, the LWCF program has been
instrumental in land protection and outdoor
recreation development. On the national level, it
acquires land for the National Park Service, Fish
and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management,
and the USDA Forest Service. It also benefits
state and local governments by providing 50%/50%
matching reimbursement grants for outdoor
recreation and park land acquisition and facility
development.
• The minimum grant amount is $10,000 with a
maximum award of $200,000. The applicant must
be a town, city, township, or county park and
recreation board established by ordinance under
current Indiana code, IC.36-10-3 or IC 36-10-4),
and the Leo-Cedarville Municipal Leo-Cedarville
Municipal Leo-Cedarville Municipal Leo-Cedarville
Municipal Park Board must have a current IDNR-OR
approved five-year park and recreation master plan
on file.
120 |
P + R MASTER PLAN
• Possible projects include: Acquiring park or
natural area, picnic areas; sports and playfields,
such as playgrounds, ballfields, court facilities
and golf courses; water oriented facilities for
boating, swimming, access to lakes, rivers and
streams; natural areas and interpretive facilities;
campgrounds; fishing and hunting areas; winter
sports facilities; amphitheaters and bandstands;
parks adjacent to schools for mutual use; outdoor
natural habitat zoo facilities; roads, restrooms,
utilities, park maintenance buildings; or nature
centers.
Recreational Trails Program (RTP)
• The Recreational Trails Program (RTP) is part of the
Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP21) funding. It is a matching assistance program
funded through the Federal Highway Administration
that provides funding for the acquisition and/
or development of multi-use recreational trail
projects. Both motorized and non-motorized
projects may qualify for assistance. It represents a
portion of the federal motor fuel excise tax paid by
users of off-road recreational vehicles.
• All units of government and agencies incorporated
as not-for-profit corporations are eligible to
participate.
• The minimum grant amount is $10,000 with a
maximum award of $150,000. The project sponsor
will not receive a cash grant at the time of project
approval. Instead, the sponsor must pay the bills
and then be reimbursed for a maximum of 80% of
the expenses incurred for the project according to
the terms of project agreement. Reimbursement
is not permitted for work that takes place prior to
project approval. At the time of application, the
project sponsor must have at least 20% of the total
project cost available. The local share may include
tax sources, bond issues, Community Development
Funds, Farmers Home Administration Loans, or
force account contributions. The donated value of
land, cash, labor, equipment and materials may all
be used.
9
• Projects will be eligible if they provide public
access to trails. Funds from RTP can be used
for: development and rehabilitation of trailside,
trailhead facilities, and trail linkages, construction
of multi-use trails; acquisition of easement of
property for trails; operation of educational
programs to promote safety and environmental
protection related to trails (limited to 5% of State’s
funds); providing stream and river access sites;
construction of bridges, boardwalks and crossings;
signage; or building of sanitary facilities and other
support facilities (e.g., water fountains, etc.).
• The IDNR-OR Shooting Range Program / Wildlife
Restoration
• The DNR Shooting Range Grant Program offers
assistance to all units of government and
agencies incorporated as 501(c)(3) not-for-profit
corporations open to the public at least 20 hours
per month, for the development of rifle, handgun,
shotgun, and archery facilities available to the
public. The intent of this program is to train the
public, hunter education, and to provide additional
safe places for target practice.
• The Shooting Range Program will provide 75%
matching reimbursing assistance for eligible
projects. The sponsor must pay the bills and be
reimbursed for a maximum of 75% of the expenses
incurred for the project according to the terms of
the project agreement. Applicants may request a
minimum of $10,000 and a maximum of $100,000. Land acquisition is not eligible for reimbursement
of local match contribution under this program.
• Eligible projects include: Development of
backstops; target holders; field courses;
classrooms; sanitary facilities; accessible pathways.
Indiana Heritage Trust (IHT)
• The Indiana General Assembly created the Indiana
Heritage Trust in 1992 for the sole purpose of
buying public natural areas from willing sellers.
It is funded by the sale of Environmental license
plates, general appropriations, and contributions
from corporations, foundations, and individuals.
Representative projects include the purchase of
properties that have examples of outstanding
natural or cultural features, and provide areas for
conservation, recreation, and restoration of native
biological diversity. Since the beginning of the
program, the trust has acquired more than 50,000
acres.
IDNR - Division of Forestry
• Community Forestry Grant Programs
• Forest Management Cost Share Programs
IDNR - Fish and Wildlife
• Lake & River Enhancement (LARE) Program
• Indiana Association for Health, Physical Education,
Recreation and Dance (IAHPERD) - Programming
grants
FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL
Corporation for National and Community Service
• AmeriCorps provides support to nonprofits, faithbased and community organizations, and public
agencies committed to meeting critical needs
in education, public safety, health, and the
environment. Helps in identifying programs and
volunteers for community service projects.
The Small Grants Program (US Fish & Wildlife Service)
• A competitive, matching grants program that
supports public-private partnerships carrying out
projects in the United States that further the goals
of the North American Wetlands Conservation Act.
These projects must involve long-term protection,
restoration, and/or enhancement of wetlands and
associated uplands habitats for the benefit of all
wetlands-associated migratory birds.
• This program supports the same type of projects
and adheres to the same selection criteria and
administrative guidelines as the U.S. Standard
Grants Program. However, project activities are
usually smaller in scope and involve fewer project
dollars.
P + R MASTER PLAN
| 121
9
Grant request may not exceed $75,000, and funding
priority is given to grantees or partners new to the
Act’s Grants program.
National Park Service
• Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance Program
• The Mission of the Rivers, Trails and Conservation
Assistance Program (RTCA) is to assist community
led natural resource conservation and outdoor
recreation initiatives. RTCA staff provide guidance
to communities so they can conserve waterways,
preserve open space, and develop trails and
greenways.
• Historic Preservation Grants
• National Park Foundation
• Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century
(MAP-21) - FHA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
• Environmental Education Grants
• Brownfields Grants and Funding
Non-Profit National Funding Providers
• America the Beautiful Fund
• American Hiking society - National Trails Fund
• American Rivers
• Defenders of Wildlife
• Garfield Foundation
• Tony Hawk Foundation
• Turner Foundation, Inc.
• Ball Brothers Foundation
Corporate Foundations
• Alcoa Foundation
• Lowe’s Charitable and Educational Foundation
• Nike, Inc. Community Programs
• Walmart Foundation
• SIA (Subaru of Indiana Automotive) Foundation
• Vectren Foundation
EXISTING FUNDING RESOURCES
The Leo-Cedarville Parks Department (LCPD) has
experienced great support from the town in recent
years. However, due to being a small portion of the
Town’s larger budget, our allocations are expected
to remain at our current level or reduced level from
now on. This has a direct effect on several aspects
of our operations and maintenance, including the
number of staff hired, level of maintenance performed,
replacement of vital equipment, and amount of new
programming created. The following table shows the
past years of budget for LCPD by three main categories;
operations and programming, maintenance, and capital
projects. (All major capital projects have been funded
Operations and
Programming Maintenance
122 |
Capital
Projects
2007 (prior to RSG addition)
$16,550
$27,650
$1,500
2008
$18,994
$39,506
$201,500
2009
$31,714
$31,615
$131,671
2010
$32,848
$31,114
$6,038
2011
$30,751
$35,264
$8,186
2012
$33,652
$38,315
$24,033
2013
$36,701
$39,960
$9,339
2014
$44,402
$53,353
$9,245
2015 (Projected)
$44,901
$58,834
$3,046
P + R MASTER PLAN
PUBLIC PRESENTATION
10
Chapter 10:
PUBLIC
PRESENTATION
P + R MASTER PLAN
| 123
10
PUBLIC PRESENTATION
Public presentations were held on;
February 9, 2015 from 5:30 to 7:30 in the form of an
open house. This allowed for interaction with the
public to gather input from the citizens.
April 6, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. a public meeting was held
in order to receive public comment on the Five Year
Park + Recreation Master Plan 2015-2020. The plan
had been available for public review since February 23,
2015. No changes were suggested.
Images from February 9, 2015, See Chapter 12, Supplemental Information for surveys and public comments.
124 |
P + R MASTER PLAN
Chapter 11:
RESOLUTION FOR
ADOPTION
P + R MASTER PLAN
| 125
12
Chapter 12:
SUPPLEMENTAL
INFORMATION
P + R MASTER PLAN
| 127
12
Public participation was developed through surveys
handed at the art festival, backpack surveys, town
council meeting, stakeholders meeting, public open
house, and survey monkey. Following are the results of
the information collected into distinct separate surveys
rather than combined as in the Chapter 6.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION SURVEY
On September 27, 2014 surveys were handed out at the
Leo-Cedarville Art Festival held at Riverside Gardens.
Approximately 500 individuals attended the festival. A
total of 55 surveys were collected. Following are the
results of the 15 question survey.
Q.1: HOW DID YOU FIND OUT ABOUT PARKS, RECREATION FACILITIES AND RECREATION PROGRAMS IN LEO‐CEDARVILLE?
Youth Sports
2%
Park and Recreation Department Flyers
9%
Twitter
4%
Emails from Town of Leo Cedarville
10%
Town of Leo‐Cedarville Website
17%
128 |
P + R MASTER PLAN
Television
2%
Other
30%
Facebook
26%
12
Q.2: WHICH AGE GROUPS IN YOUR HOUSEHOLD HAVE PARTICIPATED IN A TOWN OF LEO‐CEDARVILLE RECREATION PROGRAM IN THE LAST 12 MONTHS?
60 or Older
11%
None 8%
Under 10
35%
50‐59
7%
40‐49
1%
25‐39
12%
20‐24
4%
10‐19
22%
PARKS
Once a year or
less
9%
Several times
per year
30%
Don’t Use
2%
At least once a
week
27%
At least once a
month
32%
P + R MASTER PLAN
| 129
12
ATHLETIC FIELDS
At least once a week
21%
Don’t Use
38%
Once a year or
less
9%
At least once a
month
11%
Several times
per year
21%
RECREATION PROGRAM
5%
Don’t Use
34%
Once a year or
less
25%
130 |
P + R MASTER PLAN
At least once a month
7%
Several times
per year
29%
12
Q.3T: HOW OFTEN DO YOU OR OTHER HOUSEHOLD
TRAILS
13%
Don’t Use
29%
At least once a
month
10%
Several times
per year
29%
Once a year or
less
19%
Q4: WHAT AGE GROUPS ARE REPRESENTED IN YOUR HOUSEHOLD (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)?
50 to 59
10%
60 or older
10%
Children under 10
27%
40 to 49
10%
25 to 39
15%
20 to 24
3%
10 to 19
25%
P + R MASTER PLAN
| 131
12
Q5: IF YOUR HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS DO NOT USE LEO‐
CEDARVILLE PARKS, FACILITIES, PROGRAMS OR EVENTS, WHAT IS THE PRIMARY BARRIER THAT PREVENTS THEM FROM USING THEM MORE FREQUENTLY?
Other reason
25%
No safe paths 6%
Inadequate parking
8%
No free time for leisure activities
55%
Parks/facilities do not meet our needs
6%
Q6: PLEASE RATE THE EXISTING PARKS, PARK FACILITIES, PROGRAMS AND SPECIAL EVENTS IN THE TOWN OF LEO‐
CEDARVILLE.
Needs Some Improvement
2%
Satisfactory
18%
Needs Much Improvement
0%
Above Average
80%
132 |
P + R MASTER PLAN
12
Q7: If the Town provided more opportunities like those listed, which would you and your household members (any age) be most interested in participating?
40
39
35
31
30
25
20
15
10
5
28
22
19
17
15 15
14 14
13
12
11
10
9
9
8
8
7
7
7
6
4
4
4
4
3
2
2
1
0
Q8: Which facilities or amenities do you feel are MOST needed or should be expanded in Leo‐Cedarville?
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
P + R MASTER PLAN
| 133
12
Q9: Which ATHLETIC facilities do you feel are MOST needed in Leo‐Cedarville?
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
16
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
134 |
P + R MASTER PLAN
16
14
11
10
2
2
1
12
Q11:
To To
assist
the
developfuture
future
Q11:
assist
theTown
TownofofLeo-Cedarville
Leo-Cedarville develop
funding
priorities
fundingshould
shouldbe
be
funding
prioritiesrank
rankhow
howyou
youfeel
feel the
the funding
prioritized.
prioritized.
9%
11%
10%
50%
11%
50%
10%
10%
9%
10%
11%
9%
Renovate exsisting parks
and facilities
Develop
new parks and facilities
Better maintain existing
parksadditional recreation
Provide
programs/classes
Provide new and improved
special events
Renovate
exsisting
parks
and
Acquire parkland, open
space and
natural
areas
facilities
Build a Fieldhouse for indoor track and basketball
Q12: IN ORDER TO DEVELOP AND MAINTAIN THE PARK AND RECREATION
FACILITIES/AMENITIES YOU HAVE SUGGESTED HEREIN, HOW STRONGLY
WOULD YOU SUPPORT EACH OF THE FUNDING OPTIONS LISTED BELOW?
Increased property
taxes
7%
An increase in user
fees(paying a fee to
use a
facility/program)
33%
Corporate
adverstising/naming rights
27%
Voter approved
bond programs
13%
Increased park fees
for developers
20%
P + R MASTER PLAN
| 135
12
Q13: How much more per year in additional property taxes would you be willing to pay in order to fund the improvement priorities you have suggested in this survey? 17
20
13
11
10
0
8
4
Up to
$50/year
No increase
Up to
$100/year
Up to
$75/year
Up to
$200/year
4
More than
$200/year
Q14: Are you interested in volunteering, joining the park board, donating, and/or sponsorship of an existing park or park feature? 25
21
20
15
8
10
7
3
5
0
136 |
Volunteering
P + R MASTER PLAN
Sponsorship
Donating
Park Board
12
Q15: WHAT IS YOUR ZIP CODE? other___ 46835
3%
7%
46741
7%
46788
13%
46765
47%
46845
23%
BACKPACK SURVEY
On October 14, 2014, 664 surveys were sent home
with Cedarville Elementary students and 587 surveys
were sent home with Leo Elementary students in there
backpacks. We received 357 surveys back. Below are
the results of the survey.
Q.1 Please rate the exsisting parks, park facilities, programs and special events in the Town of Leo Cedarville.
160
141
140
115
120
100
100
80
60
40
1
20
0
Above Average
Satisfactory
Series1
Needs Some
Improvement
Series2
Needs Much
Improvement
Series3
P + R MASTER PLAN
| 137
12
Q2: Which THREE parks types are the most important for the Parks
and Recreation Department to focus on within the next five years?
100
0
Q3. To assist the Town of Leo‐Cedarville develop future funding priorities, rank how you feel the funding should be prioritized.
Build swimming center
3
2.888888889
2.625
2.25
1.857142857
1.8
Acquire parkland, open space, natural area
1.5
1.5
Renovate exisiting parks and facilities
1.333333333
1.285714286
0
0.5
1
Series1
138 |
P + R MASTER PLAN
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
12
Q4. If the Town provided more opportunities like those listed, which would you
and your household members (of any age) be most interested in participating?
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
7
5 5 5
4 4
3 3 3
2 2 2 2 2 2 2
1 1 1 1 1 1
Swimming programs
Summer youth programs
Youth camps
Biking
Fitness classes/events
Walking/hiking
Concerts/amphitheater
Baseball
Basketball
Festivals
Arts and crafts
Soccer
Softball
Disc golf
Volleyball
Tennis
Health/wellness classes
Music/dance/drama
Archery range
Mountain biking
Sand volleyball
Other
Preschool/Toddler programs
Community gardening
Nature/interpretive…
Senior programs
Horsehoes
Races
Lacrosse
None/not interested
7
Q5. Which facilities or amenities do you feel are MOST needed or should be expanded in LeoCedarville?
Q5. Which facilities or amenities do you feel are MOST needed or should be expanded in LeoCedarville?
3.5
3
2.5
2
3.5
1.5
3
1
2.5
0.5
0
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
P + R MASTER PLAN
| 139
12
Q6. In order to develop and maintain the park and recreation facilities/amentieis you have suggested herein, how strongly would you support EACH of the funding options listed below?
Corporate advertising/naming rights
No increase
Voter approved bond programs
An increase in user fees (paying a fee to use a facility/program)
Up to $50/year
Increased park fees for developers
Up to $75/year
Increased property taxes
Up to $100/year
Up to $200/year
More than $200/year
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
Q.7 Are you interested in volunteering, joining the park board, donating, and/or sponsorship of an existing park or park feature?
18
18
16
14
12
9
10
8
8
6
6
4
2
0
140 |
Volunteering
P + R MASTER PLAN
Donating
Park Board
Sponsorship
4
4.5
12
Q.8 What is your zip code?
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
46765
46845
46741
46788
46835
Other
46797
46774
Town Council Survey
On November 3, 2014, surveys were handed out to
Town Council Members. Below are the results of the
Q.1: HOW DID YOU FIND OUT ABOUT PARKS, RECREATION
FACILITIES AND RECREATION PROGRAMS IN LEO-CEDARVILLE?
Other
43%
Facebook
29%
Town of LeoCedarville Website
14%
Park and Recreation
Department Flyers 14%
P + R MASTER PLAN
| 141
12
None
17%
Under 10
16%
40‐49
17%
10‐19
33%
20‐24
17%
Q.3: HOW OFTEN DO YOU OR OTHER HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS USE OR VISIT THE PARK FACILITIES LISTED BELOW IN THE TOWN OF LEO‐CEDARVILLE?
PARKS
Once a year of less
8%
Don’t Use…
27%
Several times per year
35%
At least once a month
27%
142 |
P + R MASTER PLAN
12
ATHLETIC FIELDS
At least once a
week
40%
Don’t Use
40%
20%
RECREATION PROGRAMS
Don’t Use
20%
Once a year or
less
40%
At least once a
week
20%
Several times
per year
20%
P + R MASTER PLAN
| 143
12
TRAILS
Don’t Use
40%
At least once a
week
20%
Several times
per year
40%
50 to 59
20%
Children under 10
10%
10 to 19
30%
40 to 49
30%
144 |
P + R MASTER PLAN
20 to 24
10%
12
Other reason
14%
Parks/facilities
do not meet our
needs
29%
No free time for
leisure activities
57%
Q6: PLEASE RATE THE EXISTING PARKS, PARK FACILITIES, PROGRAMS AND SPECIAL EVENTS IN THE TOWN OF LEO‐
CEDARVILLE.
Satisfactory
20%
Above Average
80%
P + R MASTER PLAN
| 145
12
Q7: If the Town provided more opportunities like those listed, which would you and your household members (any
age)be most interested in participating?
4
4
3.5
3
3
3
3
3
2.5
2
2
2
1.5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.5
0
Q8: Which facilities or amenities do you feel are MOST needed or should be expanded in LeoCedarville?
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
146 |
P + R MASTER PLAN
P + R MASTER PLAN
12
| 147
12
Q11: To assist the Town of Leo-Cedarville develop future
funding priorities rank how you feel the funding should be
prioritized.
9%
8%
3%
9%
14%
14%
12%
14%
3%
Renovate existing parks and facilities
14%
Q12: IN ORDER TO DEVELOP AND MAINTAIN THE PARK AND
RECREATION FACILITIES/AMENITIES YOU HAVE SUGGESTED HEREIN,
HOW STRONGLY WOULD YOU SUPPORT EACH OF THE FUNDING
OPTIONS LISTED.
Increased property
taxes
20%
Corporate advertising/naming
rights
24%
An increase in user
fees(paying a fee to
use a
facility/program)
20%
Increased park fees
for developers
15%
Voter approved
bond programs
21%
148 |
P + R MASTER PLAN
12
Q13: How much more per year in additional property taxes
would you be willing to pay in order to fund the improvement
priorities you have suggested in this survey?
3
2
3
1
2
1
Series2
Series1
0
Up to
$50/year
Up to
$75/year
Up to
$100/year
Up to
$200/year
More than No increase
$200/year
Q14: Are you interested in volunteering, joining the park
board, donating, and/or sponsorship of an existing park or
park feature?
1
1
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
Series2
0.2
0
Series1
Volunteering
Park Board
Donating
Sponsorship
P + R MASTER PLAN
| 149
12
Stakeholders Survey
On November 3, 2014 date, surveys were handed out to
community stakeholders. We received 11 stakeholder
surveys back. Below are the results of the survey.
Q.1: HOW DID YOU FIND OUT ABOUT PARKS, RECREATION FACILITIES AND RECREATION PROGRAMS IN LEO‐CEDARVILLE?
Other
11%
Facebook
28%
Emails from Town of Leo Cedarville
33%
Park and Recreation Department Flyers
6%
150 |
P + R MASTER PLAN
Town of Leo‐Cedarville Website
22%
12
Under 10
14%
60 or Older
36%
10‐19
22%
50‐59
7%
25‐39
21%
Q.3: HOW OFTEN DO YOU OR OTHER HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS USE OR VISIT THE PARK FACILITIES LISTED BELOW IN THE TOWN OF LEO‐CEDARVILLE?
PARKS
27%
73%
P + R MASTER PLAN
| 151
12
less 22%
ATHLETIC FIELDS Several times
per year
18%
Once a year or
less
9%
Don’t Use
73%
RECREATION PROGRAMS
Several times
per year 27%
Don’t Use
55%
Once a year or
less 18%
152 |
P + R MASTER PLAN
12
TRAILS
At least once a
week 11%
At least once a
month 11%
Don’t Use
45%
Several times
per year 11%
Once a year or
less 22%
Children under 10
12%
60 or older
31%
50 to 59
13%
10 to 19
19%
40 to 49
6%
25 to 39
19%
P + R MASTER PLAN
| 153
12
No free time for
leisure activities
44%
Other reason
56%
Q6: PLEASE RATE THE EXISTING PARKS, PARK FACILITIES, PROGRAMS AND SPECIAL EVENTS IN THE TOWN OF LEO‐CEDARVILLE.
Needs Some Improvement
9%
Satisfactory
18%
Above Average
73%
154 |
P + R MASTER PLAN
12
Q7: If the Town provided more opportunities like those listed, which would you and your
household members (any age) be most interested in participating?
9
9
8
7
7
6
6
5
5
4
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
Q8: Which facilities or amenities do you feel are MOST needed or should be
expanded in Leo-Cedarville?
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
P + R MASTER PLAN
| 155
12
Q9: Which ATHLETIC facilities do you feel are MOST needed in Leo‐
Cedarville?
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
156 |
P + R MASTER PLAN
12
Q11: To assist the Town of Leo-Cedarville develop future
funding priorities rank how you feel the funding should be
prioritized.
10%
9%
Renovate exsisting parks and facilities
10%
12%
9%
10%
10%
11%
8%
11%
Q12: In order to develop and maintain the park and
recreation facilities/amenities you have suggested herein,
how strongly would you support EACH of the funding options
listed below?
17%
27%
17%
18%
21%
1
2
3
4
5
P + R MASTER PLAN
| 157
12
Q13: How much more per year in additional property taxes would you be willing to pay in order to fund the improvement priorities you have suggested in this survey?
3
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
2
2
1
Up to
$50/year
Up to
$75/year
Up to
$100/year
Series1
1
1
Up to
$200/year
More than No increase
$200/year
Series2
Q14: Are you interested in volunteering, joining the park board, donating, and/or sponsorship of an existing park or park feature?
5
5
4
3
2
2
1
1
0
Volunteering
Park Board
Series1
158 |
P + R MASTER PLAN
Donating
Series2
Sponsorship
12
Q15: WHAT IS YOUR ZIP CODE?
other___
9%
46845
9%
46788
18%
46765
64%
P + R MASTER PLAN
| 159

Park Master Plan

Transcription

Similar documents

Community Prosperity Appendix 3 - Donner Summit Area Association

Baguio City - unescap.org

Free!!! - Arlingtonva

Layout 1 (Page 1)

Introduction - Yucca Valley

Tampines Town Council`s Audited Financial Statements, Auditors

Sembawang Town Council`s Audited Financial Statements, Auditors

Explore summer fun with our river recreation maps.

Park Services Manager - Willamalane Park and Recreation District

Layout 1 (Page 1)