2014.04.09 Parks Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Introduction The City of Hugo, Minnesota, is a fast growing city on the eastern edge of the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area. Hugo is at a turning point in providing parks and recreation services to its growing population. Long-term management of the new Rice Lake Park and Athletic Complex as well as other opportunities for new parks have necessitated gathering the opinions of citizens to determine the future of parks and recreation in Hugo. In 2009, staff at the City of Hugo contacted the University of Minnesota's Community Growth Options (U-CGO) program to analyze citizen's interest in current and future parks and recreation amenities in Hugo. The analysis presented in this report is based on focus group input, a community survey, and feedback at the community -wide open house. The goals of the project included the following: a) Help the City of Hugo educate residents about current Parks and Recreation facilities and programs at the Open House and Focus Groups. b) Assess, with input from Hugo citizens and city staff, if and when a Parks and Recreation Department should be created. If so, identify what a Parks and Recreation Department would entail. c) Determine, with input from the citizens of Hugo, if and when the city should offer recreational programming. d) Identify what additional parks and recreation amenities the citizens of Hugo would like to see now and in the future. e) Create a report that outlines next steps the Parks and Recreation Sub - Committee, Parks Commission or Hugo Athletic Association and the City Council of Hugo should begin undertaking. Methodology To obtain citizen's input on parks and recreation in the city of Hugo, a survey was created to determine citizen attitudes and willingness to pay for current and future parks and recreation amenities. A focus group was also held with volunteer citizens to spend 2 hours discussing their thoughts and feelings regarding current and future parks, recreation, programs and facilities in Hugo. The survey was conducted as a mail survey with the assistance of the Minnesota Center for Survey Research at the University of Minnesota, with funding from U-CGO. Surveys were sent to a sample of 710 households out 5