City of Thief River FallsNovember 15 2016November 15, 2016
Site Review
Splash Park Pursuant to the request of the Park and Recreation Committee, Council Member Josh Hagen was asked to pull together a group of interested citizens to research pull together a group of interested citizens to research preliminary work and necessary next steps should the Park and Recreation Committee be interested in pursuing the addition of a Splash Park to the recreational assets of our community.
Splash Park Jessica Muller, Tom Kalinoski, Ryan Walseth, Mitch Stevens and Josh met regularly over the course of the last three months to talk about a possible splash park last three months to talk about a possible splash park and where it should be located.
Splash Park Splash parks are becoming a common feature in municipal parks. Crookston opened a splash park this summer and Grand Forks has experience with the summer and Grand Forks has experience with the construction and operation of multiple splash parks for at least 10 years.y
Splash Park This group worked with staff to rank all 18 city parks as possible locations based upon nine criteria: storm water bathrooms playground equipment parking water, bathrooms, playground equipment, parking, visibility/signage, sufficient size, safety, accessibility to biking/walking, and amenities such as restaurants and g g,other activities
Splash Park See rankings.
Splash Park Of the 18 parks, the group eliminated the 10 lowest ranked parks leaving eight after this first cut: Hartz, MEC Olson LaFave Engelstad Lions Northrop MEC, Olson, LaFave, Engelstad, Lions, Northrop, Annie.
Splash Park The group recognized that selection of the location for a splash park involves many considerations not all of which are easily quantifiable and a small group should which are easily quantifiable and a small group should not make the final decision for the entire community. However, eight possible sites is simply too many to , g p p y yadequately review.
Splash Park Storm water and wind issues eliminated the MEC. Size limits eliminated Engelstad. A combination of just too many issues to overcome eliminated Annie Park from further consideration.Ci ff k d l h i i fi k City staff was asked to analyze the remaining five parks to determine a specific site and do a preliminary cost analysis for comparison of each site.analysis for comparison of each site.
Splash Park See report.
Splash Park With the benefit of this analysis and further discussion, the group eliminated Lions Park. While Lions Park has attributes that make this an attractive Lions Park has attributes that make this an attractive site in many respects heavy current use of Lions Park and the need to relocate or, at the very least, redesign , y , gthe Frisbee Golf course to accommodate the splash park resulted in us eliminating that park.
Splash Park Lions Park
Splash Park The 4 parks remaining are L.B. Hartz, Bill LaFave, Northrup and Floyd B. Olson
Splash Park
Splash Park
Splash Park
Splash Park
Splash Park Bill Lafave Park
Splash Park Northrop Park
Splash Park Floyd B. Olson Park
Splash Park Staff was also asked to analyze operation issues important to any decision about developing a specific proposal for considerationconsideration.
While staff did not undertake a comprehensive analysis of splash parks in Minnesota, North Dakota, and Manitoba, conversations with municipal park authorities in communities in each state/province shows that care must be taken to avoid mistakes. Of specific concern to staff is be taken to avoid mistakes. Of specific concern to staff is the need to properly design the park’s water features so that contamination is avoided and used water is properly drained and removed from the sitedrained and removed from the site.
Splash Park
Splash Park
Splash ParkStaff ’s preliminary recommendation is to usemunicipal water.
This avoids contamination problems.
Splash ParkStaff ’s preliminary recommendation is to use
municipal water. This avoids contamination problems. This reduces potential mechanical, operational, or
h i i h h b d b h f esthetic issues that have been caused by the use of lower quality water at other parks.
Splash ParkStaff ’s preliminary recommendation is to use
municipal water. This avoids contamination problems. This reduces potential mechanical, operational, or
h i i h h b d b h f esthetic issues that have been caused by the use of lower quality water at other parks.
This eliminates the need to install This eliminates the need to install recirculating/decontamination equipment.
Splash ParkStaff ’s preliminary recommendation is to use
municipal water.Thi id t i ti bl This avoids contamination problems.
This reduces potential mechanical, operational, or esthetic issues that have been caused by the use of est et c ssues t at ave bee caused by t e use olower quality water at other parks.
This eliminates the need to install i l ti /d t i ti i trecirculating/decontamination equipment.
Used water can be disposed of through the storm water system.y
Splash Park The preliminary cost estimate for water use is approximately $5000/year.
Splash Park No specific proposal has yet been developed and a final and comprehensive analysis of all capital and operational costs of a new splash park has yet to occuroperational costs of a new splash park has yet to occur.
A final analysis must await site selection because many items that merit deeper analysis are site specificitems that merit deeper analysis are site specific
Splash Park The next step is for the council with the input of the community to determine which site should move forward with a final and comprehensive proposal for forward with a final and comprehensive proposal for analysis.
It should be a community decision about where to It should be a community decision about where to locate the park because the community will be asked to help raise funds for construction.
Splash Park One proposal should be selected. Grant opportunities out there. We need the strongest possible proposal with everybody behind it when we seek grant funding.
Splash Park
Th k Thank you
Splash Park Questions