Packet

--Matt Poock, Park and Recreation Board Chair N O T I C E A meeting of the City of Evansville Park and Recreation Board will be held on the date and time stated below. Notice is further given that members of the City Council and Historic Preservation Commission may be in attendance. Requests for persons with disabilities who need assistance to participate in this meeting should be made by calling City Hall at (608)-882-2266 with as much notice as possible. City of Evansville Park and Recreation Board Regular Meeting City Hall, 31 S Madison St., Evansville, WI 53536 Tuesday, September 15, 2026 7:15 pm AGENDA 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Motion to Approve Agenda 4. Motion to Waive the Reading of the Minutes from August 12, 2026 meeting and Approve them as Printed 5. Civility Reminder 6. Citizen Appearances 7. New Business A. Park and Outdoor Recreation Plan Update B. Discussion about Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for Parks’ Budget 8. Park’s Report A. General Park Updates B. Adopt-A-Park 9. Aquatic Center Season Review 10. City Youth Baseball 11. Old Business A. Canoe Rack at Leonard Leota Park 12. Upcoming Meetings A. October 20 at 6:00 p.m. 1. Discussion about October Meeting Time B. November 17, December 15 13. Adjourn City of Evansville Park and Recreation Board Regular Meeting City Hall, 31 S Madison St., Evansville, WI 53536 Wednesday, August 12, 2026 5:00 pm MINUTES 1. Call to Order: Fuson called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. 2. Roll Call: 3. Motion to Approve Agenda by Barker, seconded by Wallace. Motion passed 4-0. 4. Motion to Waive the Reading of the Minutes from July 21, 2026 meeting and Approve them as Printed by Wallace, seconded by Barker. Motion passed 4-0. 5. Civility Reminder: Fuson issued a reminder that everyone should be treated with kindness. 6. Citizen Appearances: None 7. New Business A. Discussion and Motion to Approve Circus to be at Leonard Leota Park August 17th-21st, finding that the event to be in the public interest and meets the objectives to encourage Community Engagement, with the following conditions: 1. Occupancy at Leonard Leota Park from August 17th to August 21st with showtimes, offering free admission, being August 18th, 19th, and 20th, with fees to not exceed $300 2. Grant Permission for Overnight Parking/Sleeping in Lake Leota Park for Circus Event August 17th-20th Motion by Wallace, adding a 3rd condition that notice is given to the properties that abutt up to Leonard Leota Park are given notice about the event, seconded by Merritt. Motion passed 4-0. Hurtley gave details for checking with all Departments to make sure that there were no concerns about having the circus come. There was additional discussion on fees, security deposits, outlet hook ups, circus fees, Jay’s potential play-off game, and giving notice to the properties that abut to Leonard Leota Park. 8. Park’s Report A. General Park Updates: Kriebs reported that the surge tanks from behind the Park Store have been removed and a catch basin will be installed to help with Stormwater. Larson Acres Park has some work beginning to help with Storm Drainage. B. Adopt-A-Park: Kriebs shared that Dalton and Anderson had met to come up with an updated list of available areas available for rental. 9. Aquatic Center: The Aquatic Director Olson will be starting vacation Saturday the 15th. Members Present/Absent Others Present Alderperson Norman Barker P Leah Hurtley, City Clerk Sue Merritt P Scott Kriebs, Municipal Service Director Lyman Fuson P Chad Sigl A Chair, Matt Poock A Kris Evans A Sam Wallace P 10. City Youth Baseball: Nothing to report. 11. Old Business: None 12. Upcoming Meetings A. September 15 at 6:00 p.m. B. October 20, November 17, December 15 13. Adjourn: Fuson adjourned the meeting at 5:39 p.m. Introduction City of Evansville Park and Outdoor Recreation Plan Page 1.1 Chapter 1. Introduction Purpose of This Plan Park land and open space serve many important functions in a community. B y providing space and facilities for active and passive outdoor recreation, parks can serve a concise neighborhood area, a portion of the City, a whole community, or an entire region . Open space can take the form of parks, greenbelts, wetlands, and floodplains, and may be either privately or publicly owned. Open space can serve many functions for a community in addition to recreation, including: • Preserving scenic and natural resources • Mitigating flood issues • Protecting the area's water resources • Preserving prime agricultural land • Limiting development that may create hazards • Buffering incompatible land uses • Structuring the urban environment This Park and Outdoor Recreation Plan for the City of Evansville is an expression of the community’s goals, comprising current and future needs and demands for parks and recreational facilities. The intent of this document is to plan for the maintenance, improvement, and expansion of Evansville's recreational and open space resources. This document also serves as a needs assessment for justifying park land dedication requirements for new dwelling units, fee s-in-lieu of park land dedication, and park improvement impact fees. The Plan outlines strategies to manage existing resources wisely and to develop new resources to meet future needs and demands. The specific purpose of this Plan is to guide the development and improvement of the City’s parks and outdoor recreation facilities over the next five years ( 2020-20252027-2031) to meet local recreational needs and demand s. The recommendations detailed in this Plan are based on the extensive public input received by city staff during this process. This Plan will be used to present the community’s preferences and needs as well as City decision makers have extensive understanding of the resources available for implementing policies and programs recommended by members of the public. Public policy decisions are contingent upon funding sources, budget FIGURE 1.1: ALLEN CREEK AT CHURCH ST Introduction City of Evansville Park and Outdoor Recreation Plan Page 1.2 priorities, and changing community demographics and needs. For this reason, the Plan should be reviewed annually, and a detailed update should be completed every five years. The update to and adoption of the Park and Outdoor Recreation Plan is also important in allowing the City to be eligible for various State and Federal park and recreation grants. Some of these grant funds include the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resourc es (WDNR) Knowles Nelson Stewardship Fund, the Land and Water Conservation Fund ( LAWCONLWCF), the Acquisition and Development of Local Parks (ADLP) program, the Urban Green Space (UGS) Forestry Grant program, Recreational Trails Program (RTP), and the Urban River Grants program others. Chapter 6 and 7 provide additional information on funding opportunities. The City of Evansville has the responsibility for implementing this Plan, including acquisition, improvement and development of outdoor recreation areas. Policy decisions made by the City's Park and Recreation Board (PRB), Plan Commission (PC), and Common Council for park programs and improvements shall be guided by the goals and recommendations of this adopted Plan. Actual public policy decisions or choices are contingent on funding sources, new opportunities and ideas, evolving growth patterns, budget priorities, and changing community desires and needs. The development and continual updating of the Park and Outdoor Recreation Plan such as this becomes a valuable asset to the community and contributes to its stability and attractiveness. Updating this Plan on a regular cycle, keeping it less than five years old, is also a requirement of the State of Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources for a community to be eligible for matching government funds for park land acquisition and facility improvements. But just as importantly, throughout this plan the City of Evansville set s a course of action for continued improvement of its parks and outdoor recreation system. Methodology The City of Evansville Park and Recreation Board (PRB) assumes responsibility to help develop, adopt, and recommend a Park and Outdoor Recreation Plan to the Plan Commission and City Council. The Plan received further input from an ad -hoc committee which was comprised of member each from the PRB, Plan Commission, and Economic Development Committee. This Plan was updated by the Community Development Director, with assistance from PRB and ad -hoc committee members and other City staff. T o develop the Park and Outdoor Recreation Plan the following planning process was followed: Step 1: Plan for Planning City staff worked with the PRB the Capital Area Regional Planning Commission (CARPC) , beginning in 20182025, to collec t data and create recommended policy regarding human powered transportation systems; or, how Evansville residents use City trails and sidewalks to get around for transportation and recreational purposes. to create a planning timeline that w ould meet the community’s needs. The PRB consultant kicked-off the planning process with a public survey that asked questions about walking, bicycle, and scooter usage, as well as general Introduction City of Evansville Park and Outdoor Recreation Plan Page 1.3 questions about park usage and perception. available around the community , on paper, and online.. Step 2: Inventory Collection and Analysis This stage of the planning process included reviewing other existing planning documents related to parks and recreation in Evansville; analyzing current demographic data and population projections; gathering an inventory of the existing physical conditions of the City; conducting an inventory of existing park and r ecreational facilities; and utilizing this information and State park and recreation standards to predict needs for future park and recreational facilities. The results of this inventory collection and analysis are encompassed in Chapters 2, 3, and 4. Step 3: Public Input Public engagement was emphasized throughout the planning process to ensure that the entire spectrum of community needs was addressed by Plan recommendations. Public input efforts included a public opinion survey, activities at public forums, public informational meetings, “Coffee with the Parks” workshops, a Walk Audit with the local AARP c hapter, meetings with stakeholder groups , and in -person discussions with park users were completed to encourag e community input from all ages . These activities and their findings are discussed in detail in Chapter 5. Step 4: Plan Development City staff developed Plan policy, program, and project recommendations based on input from the public, PRB members, and elected officials. PRB and PC members then prioritiz ed recommendations based on a number of criteria. Step 5: Public Hearing and Plan Adoption The PRB reviewed this Park and Outdoor Recreation Plan at its meeting and referred it to the Plan Commission on July 21, 2020September 15, 2026. The Plan Commission held a public hearing for the adoption of the Plan on August 4, 2020 October 6, 2026 and recommended approval to the City Council. The City Council approved the Plan through resolution on September 8 , 2020.October 13, 2026. The resolution adopting this Plan is shown in Chapter 8. Step 6: Plan Implementation Several methods and procedures were proposed by the PRB to assist in Plan implementation. Implementation strategies are highlighted in Chapter 7. It is critical that implementation of the Plan be monitored, and a number of Plan recommendations emphasize strategies for monitoring implementation. The Park and Outdoor Recreation Plan is a “living” document for the future. Therefore, if situations change and decisions are made which are contrary to the adopted Plan, the Plan should be amended. Amendments to the Plan should be adopted by the City Coun cil, based on recommendations by the PRB and the Plan Commission. FIGURE 1.2: COFFEE WITH THE PARKS Introduction City of Evansville Park and Outdoor Recreation Plan Page 1.4 It should also be noted that this Park and Outdoor Recreation Plan is just that - a plan. This Plan is based on the best judgment of the PRB, Plan Commission, Common Council, and City staff, based on the information that was available at the time of Plan d evelopment. Significant public input was gathered during the planning process and taken into account during Plan development. The Plan does not represent, however, a commitment by the City of Evansville to complete any particular project during the five -year planning period. As with any plan, implementation of the recommendations encompassed within this Plan is dependent upon adequate financial and staff resources made available by the City Council through taxation, user fees, grant funds , private donations, and resources that may be identified in the future. This Plan is intended to serve as a guide for decision -making related to maintenance, improvement, and expansion of park and recreation facilities in the City when such resources are available. Description of the Planning Area City of Evansville Park and Outdoor Recreation Plan Page 3.1 Chapter 3. Description of the Planning Area In developing a Parks and Outdoor Recreation Plan, it is critical to evaluate the existing natural, physical, and social environment of the community. Physical features, land use patterns, transportation systems, and natural resources of an area can represent opportunities. Other social factors such as population demographics and growth projections also influence the type, location, and intensity of land uses. This Parks and Outdoor Recreation Plan will take into consideration the following inventory of the natural, physical, and social environment of Evansville when developing the Plan’s goals, policies, and infrastructure recommendations for park and recreation facilities. For purposes of this Parks and Outdoor Recreation Plan, the “planning area” is defined as the existing City limits and lands within a mile of those boundaries . This anticipates future an nexation of adjacent town lands into the City. Location The City of Evansville is located in the southern portion of the Town of Union in northwestern Rock County, four miles south of the Rock and Dane County line. Evansville is located midway between three urban centers: Madison (23 miles to the north), Janesv ille (20 miles to the southeast), and Beloit (26 miles to the south). Distances to other metropolitan areas include 50 miles to Rockford, IL, 90 miles to Milwaukee, and 130 miles to Chicago, IL. Consequently, Evansville’s geographic location provides convenient access to the markets, suppliers, services, and opportunities of larger urban areas. Four major vehicular transportation routes serve the City of Evansville: US Highway 14 connects Madison and Janesville, State Highway 59 connects Monroe and Edgerton, State Highway 213 connects Beloit, and County Trunk Highway C goes west and connects Monticello. Additionally, the Union Pacific Railroad provides freight rail service and connects Janesville and Chicago to the City. FIGURE 3.1: PADDLE BOAT ON LEOTA (CITY FILE) Description of the Planning Area City of Evansville Park and Outdoor Recreation Plan Page 3.2 Climate The climate of Rock County and the Evansville planning area is continental, characterized by warm, humid summers and relatively long winters. The variable weather is a result of the alternating high and low -pressure systems accompanied by prevailing wester ly winds. The frequent interaction of cold, dry northern air masses and warm, moist southern air masses contributes to the changing weather conditions resulting in four distinct seasons. Spring and fall are characterized by cool temperatures with short, sc attered showers. The summer months are characterized by warm, humid conditions with periodic thunderstorms. The winter months are characterized by cold temperatures with numerous snowfall events. Warm weather recreational activities in the area include swimming, boating, fishing, and hiking. Cold weather activities include cross-country skiing, snowmobiling, ice fishing, and ice skating. The four seasons afford residents of and visitors to the planning area a diversity of outdoor recreation options. Topography and Soils Past glacial activity in the Evansville planning area formed three distinct glacial features and soil types. The terminal moraine, the outwash plain, and the morainal drift area are responsible for the varying topography and drainage patterns in the area. These Local ssoils have been formed over glacial outwash deposits, consisting of stratified sand and gravel at a depth of three to six feet. Soil and topography play a chief role in City expansion, as certain conditions can impede utility connection or require additional infrastructure to service an area. The soils upon which much of the City is built are deep and moderately deep, well drained and moderately well drained, nearly level to sloping soils that have a silty clay loam to sandy clay loam subsoil. A chief concern, due to a porous substratum, is groundwater pollution due to effluent from sewerage systems and of nitrate pollution from fertilizer applications. For much of the City developed west of Allen Creek, there is little change in topography. North of the City lies Tthe Johnstown Moraine, a NW -SE belt of hummocky topography , lies north of the City of Evansville.. This kettle hole topography is represented by two relief forms: depressions and hills with local relief of 920 to 1,000 feet. Many depressions occur throughout the Moraine, some of which may be filled wit h water to form small kettles. T the soil here is s are deep, well drained and moderately well drained, nearly level to steep soils that have a sandy clay loam to silty clay loam subsoil over sandy loam glacial till. These soils are prevalent on the till plains of the hill and kettle topography with gravely, sandy loam glacial till 30 to 65 inches below the surface. Soils on level slopes are very productive for agriculture, whereas steeper slopes are usually wooded. There are few limitations for sewerage systems on level soils; however, lateral seepage of effluent to the surface occurs on steeper slopes. Water availability from the City utility poses a challenge due to the hilly terrain, requiring booster stations to provide the required water pressure. Additionally, steeper slopes are subject to erosion. In the southeastern portion of the City South of the Johnstown Moraine is extends an apron of flat outwash plains, which extends southeasterly across the City. Relief in this extensive outwash plain is minute, varying from 870 to 920 feet. The soils found in the central and southern parts of the City limits are moderately deep, poorly drained and somewhat poorly drained, nearly level and gently Description of the Planning Area City of Evansville Park and Outdoor Recreation Plan Page 3.3 sloping soils that have a mainly clay loam to loam subsoil with areas of stratified sand and gravel. A high groundwater table, zero to three feet from the soil surface, necessitates proper drainage in agricultural production, building construction, and sewage disposal. Wet soils that have not been drained are in pasture or wildlife habitat. The soils in the western and northwestern sections of the planning area are shallow and moderately deep, well drained, nearly level to very steep soils that have a mainly clay and clay loam subsoil over dolomite bedrock. These soils have been formed on rid getops and side slopes of natural drainage ways with dolomite rock 20 to 40 inches below the surface. Soils on level slopes are productive for agriculture, whereas steeper slopes are usually wooded. Major soils in this association are not suitable for sewage systems because of the underlying bedrock. The topography in the remainder of the Evansville planning area, approximately the west and southwest borders of the area, is a result of differential erosion of the bedrock. The terrain in this area is characterized by deep valleys cut into sandstone and ridges underlain by dolomite. Soils Soil is the most influential physical feature for agricultural and urban development. The soils’ physical properties such as texture, structure, and moisture content determine suitability for various land use activities. Four general soil associations exist in the Evansville planning area. The soils upon which much of the City is built are deep and moderately deep, well drained and moderately well drained, nearly level to sloping soils that have a silty clay loam to sandy clay loam subsoil. These soils have been formed over glacial outwash deposits, consisting of stratified sand and gravel at a depth of three to six feet. Agriculturally, the soils for this association are very productive for a wide variety of farm products. The substratum is a good source of sand and gravel extraction. However, because of the porous substratum, a danger exists of groundwater pollution by effluent from sewerage systems and of nitrate pollution from fertilizer applications. The soils found in the central and southern parts of the City limits are moderately deep, poorly drained and somewhat poorly drained, nearly level and gently sloping soils that have a mainly clay loam to loam subsoil. These soils have been formed over glacial outwash deposits, consisting of stratified sand and gravel. A high groundwater table, zero to three feet from the soil surface, necessitates proper drainage in agricultural production, building construction, and sewage disposal. Wet soils that have not been drained are in pasture or wildlife habitat. To the north of the City the soils are deep, well drained and moderately well drained, nearly level to steep soils that have a sandy clay loam to silty clay loam subsoil over sandy loam glacial till. These soils are prevalent on the till plains of the hill and kettle topography with gravely, sandy loam glacial till 30 to 65 inches below the surface. Soils on level slopes are very productive for agriculture, whereas steeper slopes are usually wooded. There are few limitations for sewerage systems on level soils; however, lateral see page of effluent to the surface occurs on steeper slopes. Additionally, steeper slopes are subject to erosion. Description of the Planning Area City of Evansville Park and Outdoor Recreation Plan Page 3.4 The soils in the western and northwestern sections of the planning area are shallow and moderately deep, well drained, nearly level to very steep soils that have a mainly clay and clay loam subsoil over dolomite bedrock. These soils have been formed on rid getops and side slopes of natural drainage ways with dolomite rock 20 to 40 inches below the surface. Soils on level slopes are productive for agriculture, whereas steeper slopes are usually wooded. Major soils in this association are not suitable for sewage systems because of the underlying bedrock. Natural fissures and crevasses in the dolomite increase the danger of groundwater contamination by unfiltered effluent moving through the bedrock. The Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) rates soils according to their potential agricultural productivity based on a wide variety of soil characteristics. There are eight categories in this classification system with Unit I soils being the most productive and Unit VIII soils the least productive. Units I, II, and III soils are typically considered prime agricultural soils, as they have exceptional capabilities for agricultural production and require minimal special management practices. Over 95 pe rcent of the soils in the planning area , the bulk of which are considered prime agricultural lands. Water Resources Water resources in the Evansville planning area include both groundwater and surface water. The groundwater provides public and private water supplies, while the surface waters provide wildlife habitat, recreational opportunities, and storage for drainage water. All significant amounts of water that are used in the Evansville planning area for residential, agricultural, commercial, and industrial consumption originate from groundwater sources. Groundwater is tapped from glacial deposits and bedrock formations unde rlying the area. The groundwater moves from areas of recharge, such as topographic high areas or uplands, to areas of discharge, usually located in lowlands such as streams, lakes, and drainage ditches. Recharge areas are located east and west of the City. From these areas, groundwater moves toward its point of discharge at Allen Creek and surrounding wetlands. Other discharges occur from spring flow, seepage, evaporation, and water supply wells. The Evansville planning area is located in the Sugar -Pecatonica Basin and the Allen Creek and Middle Sugar River Watershed. The Allen Creek and Middle Sugar River Watershed straddles the northeast corner of Green County, northwest Rock County, and south central Dane County. Lake Leota, located in the City of Evansville, is one of two impoundments with in the Sugar-Pecatonica Basin. Surface waters in the Evansville planning area include Allen Creek and an impoundment of the creek, Lake Leota. Allen Creek enters the northwest corner of the planning area and flows southeasterly into Lake Leota. The creek drains over 120 square miles and collects runoff waters from the surrounding agricultural and urban areas. It transports the collected water, sediment, and dissolved material to the Sugar River in Green County and eventually flows into the Rock and Mississippi Rivers. The A section of Allen Creek within south of the City of Evansville is considered a Class III Trout Stream. Description of the Planning Area City of Evansville Park and Outdoor Recreation Plan Page 3.5 Lake Leota is used primarily for recreation by local residents and regional visitors. In the past, the Lake had suffered from a variety of use -limiting problems including weeds, rough fish, and sediment filling, so much so that the depth of the Lake had diminished to an average of about 18 inches. Lake Leota has a maximum depth of 15 feet. Periodically the City will perform dredging on the lake bed to alleviate silt deposits coming from upstream to prevent low water levels . Approximately 80 years ago, the Lake’s depth was about 10 feet. In September 2005, Lake Leota was drained by opening the sluice gate at the dam. Most of the fish remaining in the Lake were carp, and these were removed. In November 2006, a V-notch was cut into the coffer-dam above the sluice gate to increase the draining rate of the lakebed. In late 2008 and early 2009, sediment was removed from the lakebed and deposited in farm fields west of the Lake. Roughly 180,000 cubic yards of sediment were removed, which resulted in the creation of an 8 -foot deep recreation area and a 15 -foot deep fish ing area. During the sediment removal process, rock rip-rap was added along the easterly shoreline along the dam’s earthen embankment to help control erosion. Environmental Corridors The topography, soils, and water resources of the Evansville area form a unique set of physical features. A number of areas in and around Evansville have limitations for development and/or agriculture because of wet soils, steep slopes, or wooded areas. Ac cording to the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission (SEWRPC), environmental corridors are defined as linear areas in the landscape containing concentrations of lakes, streams, and associated shorelands and floodlands; wetlands; woodlands; wildlife habitat areas; areas of rugged terrain and high - relief topography; wet, poorly drained, and organic soils; and remnant prairies. Environmental corridors provide open space, wildlife habitat, groundwater recharge, and recreational opportunities. Thes e corridors warrant special consideration when planning for the community and should be targeted for preservation. Map 7.1, from the 2015 2022 Comprehensive Plan, on the following page shows the environmental corridors of the Evansville planning area. Most of the corridor areas are associated with floodplains and drainageways. One major area is the Allen Creek floodplain and surrounding wetlands. Another major area is a drainageway west of the City. Other corridors include a drainageway to the northeast and steep slopes to the northeast and northwest of the City. A large portion of the environmental corridor south of the City is included in the Evansville Wildlife A rea. The Evansville Wildlife Area is a 5,500 -acre property, which contains 704 acres of State -owned marsh FIGURE 3.2 LAKE LEOTA 2009 DREDGING Description of the Planning Area City of Evansville Park and Outdoor Recreation Plan Page 3.6 immediately south of the City of Evansville, 240 acres of State-owned stream bank protection land, and 4,600 acres of private land leased for public hunting in Union, Porter, Magnolia, and Center townships. Description of the Planning Area City of Evansville Park and Outdoor Recreation Plan Page 3.7 Map 7.1: Natural Features and Development Challenges Map Description of the Planning Area City of Evansville Park and Outdoor Recreation Plan Page 3.8 Land Use In 201520s, the City conducted an inventory of existing land uses as part of the process of preparing and adopting its S mart Growth Comprehensive SMART Growth Plan. The total land areas within the incorporated limits of Evansville at that time was 2,118 119 acres. This land can be classified as either developed or undeveloped. Approximately 7 8 percent of the total land area in 2015 2022 was considered developed. Residential land uses made up the greatest portion of the developed land, making up 36 percent of the developed land area. Table 3. 1 shows the existing land uses in the City of Evansville in 20152022. Since then, the City has annexed . TABLE 3.1: EXISTING LAND USE Land Use Area (acres) % of City Land Area Residential (Single Family, Two Family and Multi Family) 630.59 29.75 % Central Mixed Use 9.81 0.46 % Business & Commercial 85.68 4.04 % Government & Public 198.82 9.38 % Social Institutional 16.95 0.80 % Small Scale Industrial 86.23 4.07 % Large Scale Industrial 135.39 6.39 % Park & Recreation 68.89 3.25 % Open Space/ Conservation 158.65 7.48 % Agriculture/ Undeveloped 454.92 21.46 % Right of Way 273.93 12.92 % Total 2,119.87 100% Source: City of Evansville GIS Map 9.1, from the 2015 2022 Comprehensive Plan, on the following page shows the existing land uses within the city. Map 10.1, also from the 2015 2022 Comprehensive Plan shows the anticipated future land uses. Description of the Planning Area City of Evansville Park and Outdoor Recreation Plan Page 3.9 Map 9.1: Existing Land Use Map Description of the Planning Area City of Evansville Park and Outdoor Recreation Plan Page 3.10 Map 10.1: Future Land Use Map Description of the Planning Area City of Evansville Park and Outdoor Recreation Plan Page 3.11 Population Trends and Projections The City has experienced dramatic population gains over the last two decades, as shown by Table 3.2. A comparison of growth rates in adjacent communities demonstrates that Evansville has been the fastest growing community in Rock County for the past 30 years. As shown by Table 3.2, the City’s share of the total Rock County population is steadily increasing continues to grow and has exceeded Rock County’s growth rate o ver the 16 year period . Population in nearby Dane County continues to climb steadily while population in the towns continues to stagnate. Table 3.2 Historic Population Trends Location 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2026 Pop. Change 2010- 2026 % Change 2010- 2026 City of Evansville 2,835 3,174 4,039 5,012 5,703 5,895 883 15.0% Town of Center 908 861 1,005 1,066 1,046 1,042 -24 -2.3% Town of Magnolia 746 717 854 767 742 739 -28 -3.8% Town of Porter 940 953 925 945 969 980 35 3.6% Town of Union 1,329 1,537 1,860 2,099 2,104 2,105 6 0.3% Evansville Share of Rock Cty. Pop. 2.0% 2.3% 2.7% 3.1% 3.56% 3.54% n/a n/a Rock County 139,420 139,510 152,307 160,331 160,059 166,607 6,276 3.8% Dane County 323,545 367,085 426,526 488,073 508,379 621,365 133,292 21.5% Source: WI Department of Administration - Demographic Service Center, January 2015; US Census 1980 - 2010 * Estimated 2026 population The City’s population gradually increased from 1900 to 1970. The largest population growth occurred during the 1950s, commonly referred to as the “baby boom” years. Population growth continued to increase in the 1960s; however, the rate of growth was subst antially lower than previous years. The 1970s marked the first time in Evansville’s history that the C ity’s population decreased (1979: 3,229 to 1983: 2,760). A portion of the significant population decrease in the 1970s can be attributed to the high unemployment in Evansville during that period. The population growth in the City in the 1980s can be attributed to more favorable economic conditions and a shift in population from large cities in the area to smaller cities such as Evansville. Economic fluctuations, by attracting or not attracting people to a community, ultimately will influence the population growth of the community. The 78 percent increase in population the City experienced from 1980 to 2010 was greater than any other municipality in Rock County during that period of time. Table 3.3 demonstrates that the City of Evansville’s population is projected to continue to grow at a more rapid pace than surrounding communities and will increasingly make up a larger share of Rock County’s overall population. Readers of prior Park and Outdoor Recreation Plans will note that the State’s projections are less robust than prior estimates. For instance, the 2014 vintage of Description of the Planning Area City of Evansville Park and Outdoor Recreation Plan Page 3.12 projections estimated Evansville would have a population of 6,520 people in 2030. The updated projections decrease that number by over 500 people. Prior projection increases in nearby towns have also changed from net positive to net negative. The State cites a steep decline in the fertility rate among the childbearing population to be the main factor driving this change. The State’s demographers also note an increased desire of younger people to live nearer to urban areas versus rural ones. Evansville may be able to change this outcome by providing affordable housing alternatives to those offered in Dane County, marketing itself as a small community with desirable amenities such as parks and other recreation opportunities. The City of Evansville will use this document as a way to plan for park and recreational improvements and expansions within City limits. It should be noted, however, that approximately 70 percent of the population of the Town of Union lives within a mile of Evansville. While the City is ultimately responsible for its own residents, this fact should not remain far from the minds of decision makers. Table 3.3 Population Projections 2020-2050 Year 2020 2030 2040 2050 2020 - 2050 % City of Evansville 5,703 5,993 6,151 6,160 457 8.0% Town of Center 1,046 983 909 826 -220 -21.0% Town of Magnolia 742 699 648 589 -153 -20.6% Town of Porter 969 945 907 855 -114 -11.8% Town of Union 2,104 2,018 1,905 1,767 -337 -16.0% Evansville Share of Rock County Pop. 3.48% 3.74% 3.99% 4.23% n/a n/a Rock County 163,687 160,165 154,190 145,770 -17,917 -10.9% Dane County 561,504 627,215 703,535 779,265 217,761 38.8% Source: WI Department of Administration - Demographic Service Center, March 202414 Population Characteristics In developing a community plan, it is essential to understand the characteristics of the population. These characteristics include, but are not limited to, age and sex. Age and sex distribution can indicate trends and conditions of fertility and family formation , labor force potential, and migration patterns. Population figures do not provide any insight about the characteristics of the people. To learn more about residents, information about the age and sex of the population must be examined. In 2016, Per the 2020 Decennial Census when the population of the City of Evansville was 5, 176 703 people, approximately 51 percent of the population was female and the remaining 49% male. Most age groups were evenly split by sex, save for those ages 65 and o ver, where females outnumber the males. with 2,502 male residents and 2,674 female residents. As shown by Table 3.4, the median age of an Evansville resident in 2016 2024 was 36.31 years old, which was notably lower than the median age for all of in nearby Rock County (39.140.7) and Description of the Planning Area City of Evansville Park and Outdoor Recreation Plan Page 3.13 Green (42.6) Counties and only slightly higher nearly the same as than Dane County ( 34.736.0). Median age for the Town of Union was 42.0 years in 2024, and its overall population skews slightly older than that of the City. Evansville and Union also have a higher percentage of children under 5 years of age than both county-wide figures. Overall, the statistics suggest that the Evansville area remains a desirable community as a place for people of childbearing age to start or raise their families. Table 3.4 includes generation titles that are commonly used in research and popular culture that define existing age cohorts in current American culture. While decision makers should be careful not to assume habits and trends based on these labels, this may serve as a way of understanding the influences and preferences for certain recreational activities, enabling the City to make sound choices for recreation programming . The data in Table 3.4 could be interpreted to read that younger people seek Evansville and its surroundings as they age and start families, as opposed to other areas in Rock or Dane County. Recommendations in the Transportation Element that a multi- use trail be developed and that Evansville continue to improve its walkability. Bicycling facilities and bicycle friendly city transportation are key ways t hat the City is looking to make the community a more bicycle friendly environment. Table 3.4: Population by Age Group - 2024 Generation Ages City of Evansville Town of Union Rock County Dane County Gen Alpha Under 14 18% 21% 18% 16% Gen Z 15-29 19% 15% 18% 26% Millennial 30 to 44 23% 21% 20% 21% Gen X 45 to 59 19% 20% 18% 16% Baby Boomer 60 to 79 17% 21% 22% 17% Silent Over 80 4% 2% 4% 4% Median Age 36.1 42.0 40.7 36.0 Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020-2024 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Generation grouping is based on standards set by the Pew Research Cente.r Table 3.5 tracks the population of City residents, by age group, over a 2040- year period. This provides insight into long-term demographic trends, which have long predicted an aging population and a decreasing fertility rate. When comparing age cohorts over time, the percentage of school -age children has remained relatively steady. The proportion of th e child- bearing population (those ages 15 to 44) decreased while the proportion of those in middle age (ages 45 to 64) increased. While some of the predicted decreases in fertility are being observed, it appears less impactful in Evansville than in other locations. As demonstrated by the table, the percentage of the City’s population made up by children 14 years of age and younger grew from 1990 to 2010. Conversely, the share of the City’s population made up of residents aged 65 and over shrunk during the same period. Description of the Planning Area City of Evansville Park and Outdoor Recreation Plan Page 3.14 Table 3.5 City of Evansville Population by Age Group 1990 2000 2010 2020 Age # % # % # % # % Under 14 724 23% 949 24% 1,246 25% 1,249 22% 15 to 44 1,366 43% 1,839 46% 2,063 41% 2,292 40% 45 to 64 534 17% 646 16% 1,138 23% 1,379 24% 65 to 84 454 14% 440 11% 423 8% 665 12% Over 85 96 3% 116 3% 142 3% 118 2% All Ages 3,174 3,990 5,012 5,703 Source: 1990, 2000, 2010, 2020 Census, and 2016 ACS Several interesting in Table 3.5 may have an How and when the population ages will have impact on the future recreational needs of Evansville. Regional and national trends suggest that rapidly declining birth and fertility rates will continue, but this trend seems to be occurring much more slowly in Evansville as compared to the county, state, and national levels. Table 3.6 provides a snapshot at birth rates at the local, county, state, and national level. Birth rates are calculated by dividing the number of live births by the total population, then multiplying by 1,000 to express the result as births per 1,000 people. Demographers have observed declining trends over time. For instance, the State of Wisconsin Department of Health Services reported a birth rate of 14.8 children born per 1,000 people in 1990, 12.9 in 2000, a nd 12.0 in 2010. Over the past 10 years, Wisconsin residents have averaged 10.3 children born per 1,000 people. Birth rates at the county, state, and national levels remain similar, but Evansville stands out with a steady average of 17.7 children born per 1,000 residents, averaged from the years 2015 to 2024. This affirms the trend observed in Table 3.5: adults starting families are choosing Evansville over other options in the area. Description of the Planning Area City of Evansville Park and Outdoor Recreation Plan Page 3.15 Because the population as a whole grew from 1990 to 2016, the number of people in each age group grew during the same time period. However, certain age groups grew more rapidly than others. The data reveals: • The number of children has been steadily increasing. To accommodate growth, the school district built a new high school facility in 2002. The increasing number of school- aged children will influence the types of recreational programs and parks facilities t he City provides. • Inversely, the percentage of Evansville residents aged 65 and over decreased significantly from 1990 to 2010. This bucks the national trend of the “graying” or aging of the population. Although the population in Evansville is not aging as rapidly as the surrounding area and nation as a whole, the City will still want to consider the potential impacts the aging of the largest generation, the baby boomers, will have on the City over the next few decades. 10 Year Avg 5 Year Avg 2015-2024 2020-2024 Evansville 17.6 17.7 Rock County 11.5 11.1 Dane County 10.6 9.9 Wisconsin 10.8 10.3 US 11.4 10.9 Table 3.6 Birth Rate by Geography, 2014-2025 Description of the Planning Area City of Evansville Park and Outdoor Recreation Plan Page 3.16 The greatest percentage increase of residents was between the ages of 20 and 64. It is necessary to look more closely at the breakdown within this large age group that comprises the majority of the labor force in the City: • Census data reveals that the largest portion of this age group is between the ages of 35 to 54 (29.2% of the population in 2016). Most individuals in this category are nearing the end of their childbearing years. By far, most individuals in this age group are living in families, as opposed to alone or in group homes. • The population between the ages of 20 and 34 is the next largest segment, with 18.8% of residents falling in this age group in 2016. People in this age group are of childbearing age and include many young families looking for affordable housing choices, go od schools, and quality of life amenities such as parks and recreation opportunities. City of Evansville Active Transportation Plan - Draft Introduction: Active Transportation Plan Purpose, Scope, and Process This Active Transportation Plan (ATP) is designed to identify near- and mid-term priorities for both policy and infrastructure. It is intended to guide local policy updates, planning activities, and facility improvements. The plan was prepared by staff of the Capital Area Regional Planning Commission (CARPC) and the Greater Madison Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). It should be noted, however, that Rock County is not part of an MPO. The geographic scope of this plan is primarily the City of Evansville, although some recommendations extend into both developed and undeveloped areas adjoining the City in the Town of Union. 6 E’s of Active Transportation Planning Many communities and organizations use the lens of the 6 E’s to cover all relevant topics in active transportation planning. The 6 E’s are: 1. Engineering 2. Education 3. Encouragement 4. Enforcement 5. Evaluation 6. Equity 1. Engineering Engineering includes the design and construction of sidewalks, streets, and other facilities within the public right-of-way. This plan discusses both the good and the bad of Engineering in Evansville in the SWOT Analysis. 2. Education There are currently no formal active transportation education programs operating in the City of Evansville. The Wisconsin Bike Federation offers Safe Routes to School (SRTS) educational programming throughout the state of Wisconsin in partnership with the Wisconsin Department of Transportation and contracting communities. Federal funding is available to support this work through the Transportation Alternatives program, discussed in the Funding Opportunity Review section of this plan. 3. Encouragement There are currently no formal active transportation encouragement programs in the City of Evansville. Developing a cadre of local champions, such as Bicycle Friendly Businesses℠ (A program from the League of American Bicyclists), educators, and elected officials would help normalize and elevate active transportation as an attractive transportation mode. There is one bike shop in Evansville, Shifting Gears, which offers sales and service; this shop has placed its own bike rack in front on the shop in response to the scarcity of bicycle parking racks in the downtown area. Providing more bicycle parking in the downtown area and at community destinations would help elevate bicycling as a transportation mode and encourage more active transportation. There are no Bicycle Friendly Businesses1 or other entities in the City of Evansville; supporting business’ applications for certification would help further encourage active transportation throughout the community. 4. Enforcement Dangerous driver behaviors such as failure to yield to pedestrians, speeding, and stop sign and red-light running pose significant safety risks to vulnerable road users and warrant enforcement attention to enhance the safety of all users, especially those not in vehicles. This is a matter of enforcing existing laws and educating the public, particularly the youth, on road safety. 5. Evaluation Although evaluation should be a continuous process whereby the City addresses emerging priorities and needs as they arise, this Active Transportation Plan is itself an evaluation of the current state of active transportation in Evansville. Facilities should be carefully evaluated through the development of an ADA Transition Plan, including adoption of a plan to address any identified deficiencies. 6. Equity It is critical that active transportation facilities be designed to serve the entire community, including areas with lower-income residents, greater proportions of youth and older adult populations, and areas that have historically experienced under- investment. People who experience disabilities, people too young or too old to drive, and lower-income people rely on active transportation to a greater extent than other populations and their needs must be considered in prioritizing investments. 1 https://bikeleague.org/map/?community=evansville%2C+wi Planning for an Accessible Pedestrian Transportation Walking has been the default mode of transportation for the vast majority of human history, although there have always been individuals for whom this mode was not available. In modern times, a range of adaptive technologies and devices have allowed people with mobility impairments and disabilities to move around with a greater degree of autonomy, although barriers in the built environment continue to restrict mobility for many. While having a basic pedestrian network of sidewalks and separated paths equipped with curb cuts to allow those using wheelchairs and other mobility devices are critical components of the active transportation network, these networks and their components need to be reviewed in detail to ensure that they are truly accessible to all. The Public Right of Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG)2 establish design requirements to ensure accessibility to as many as possible. The pedestrian network – and the accessible pedestrian network in particular – provides connections to residences, jobs, education, services, and more. As every trip, be it by private automobile, public transit, or other modes, begins and ends as a pedestrian trip, ensuring that this network is complete is the most basic building block to a multi-modal transportation system. The State of Technology: Bicycles, E-Bikes, Micromobility, and E- Scooters Although the design of the bicycle has remained largely unchanged from the “safety bicycle” of the 1880s, recent innovations in materials and especially the electrification of bicycles have resulted in a proliferation of bicycle forms in the last twenty years. In addition to mountain bikes, gravel bikes, road bikes, BMX bikes, recumbent bikes, folding bikes, trikes, tandems, quads, and unicycles (all of which are available in both standard and electric models),3 other emerging micromobility devices such as Onewheels, e-scooters, and e-skateboards have become commonplace in recent years. In Evansville, e-scooters have proven extremely popular with middle and high schoolers as a means of transportation. Although some communities have adopted ordinances restricting the use of e-bikes within their jurisdictions, these community-specific laws are unlikely to be widely understood or followed by the public, especially those riders who cross municipal boundaries during their ride. 2 https://www.access-board.gov/prowag/ 3 See the AARP and League of American Bicyclists’ illustrated guide to Different Bikes for Different Cyclists Issues & Opportunities A SWOT Analysis (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats) of Active Transportation facilities, networks, programs, and policies was conducted to identify these important considerations for the City of Evansville. Bulleted text in italics describes the type of factor that might be included in each category. Numbered findings are not prioritized or ordered in importance and are numbered for reference only. Strengths: • What, in terms of bicycle and pedestrian friendliness, does our city do well? • What unique, bicycle and pedestrian friendly resources can we draw on? (Ex. A mayor who bikes, local portion of a regional multi-use path, etc.) • What might other neighboring cities see as our bike- and pedestrian-related strengths? 1. Historic neighborhoods and the downtown area are developed on a gridded street system that provides many alternative routes and good network connectivity, with exceptions along Allen Creek and the railroad. 2. Most streets have sidewalks on at least one side of the street. 3. New multi-use paths on the west side of the city offer safe, all ages and abilities facilities for active transportation modes. 4. New streets are required to have sidewalks on both sides of the street.4 5. The short segment of separated path along Allen Creek is an asset to the community. Weaknesses: • What could our city improve to become more bicycle and pedestrian friendly? • When thinking about active transportation, where do we have fewer resources than others? • What are others likely to see as our weaknesses in terms of bicycle and pedestrian friendliness? (Ex. A highway through town) 1. Sidewalks in historic portion of town are in poor condition, with many displaced or deteriorated panels and curb ramps. 2. Very little bicycle parking is available in the downtown area and at important destinations such as the public library; no bicycle parking is available at the Piggly Wiggly, the city’s only full-service grocery store. 4 Section 110-160(a), City of Evansville Municipal Code 3. East Main Street, particularly the portion that is also USH 14, is a barrier to north- south travel for pedestrians and bicyclists. There are no signalized or otherwise protected crossings of this highway between Union Street and CTH M – a distance of approximately one mile. 4. East Main Street, particularly the portion that is also USH 14, is a high traffic stress facility with no low traffic stress alternatives for bicyclists, with the possible exception of Water Street – which at its furthest distance is approximately 1,400 feet south of Main Street, a considerable detour for trips with origins and destinations on the north side of Main Street. 5. Many streets only have sidewalks on one side of the street, requiring pedestrians to cross streets at mid-block locations to get to and from sidewalks on the opposite of the street. 6. The intersection of Main Street and Madison Street is insufficiently illuminated, and pedestrians may be difficult for drivers to see in dark conditions. 7. The bike lanes along North Union Street end with no alternative facilities for bicyclists other than riding with vehicular traffic, and no signage warns bicyclists or drivers of this change in street design. 8. The Union Pacific railroad runs through Evansville. While not in active use, the line is also not exempt from service. As a result, the City is required to coordinate with Union Pacific and the Office of the Commissioner of Railroads, the regulatory body enforcing public safety at railroad crossings, for any repairs and upgrades to pedestrian crossings. This can result in lengthy processes for necessary repairs and maintenance of the three railroad crossings in Evansville, all of which include sidewalk. 9. The public fishing areas and fire/barbeque pits at Lake Leota Park are not served by accessible pedestrian routes as required by the ADA. Opportunities: • What good opportunities are open to our city? (Ex. A regional trail being planned, a few local Bicycle Friendly Businesses, etc.) • What trends could our city take advantage of? (Ex. Walking/biking to school, healthy living, etc.) • How we turn our city’s strengths into opportunities for becoming more bicycle- and pedestrian-friendly? 1. Continuing the Allen Creek separated path would improve north-south connectivity between trip origins and destinations in and around the downtown area. 2. Expanding access to the new multi-use path on the west side of the city will provide increased accessibility between neighborhoods and to community destinations such as the new Aquatic Center. 3. Including new sidewalks on the side of the street currently missing a sidewalk during street reconstruction projects will reduce project costs compared to stand- alone sidewalk projects and result in project efficiencies. 4. The existing separated path between Windsor Lane/Deanna Drive and CTH M is of sub-standard width for two-way bicycle traffic or mixed bicycle and pedestrian traffic but provides an important connection to destinations and should be widened to eight to ten feet. 5. Required public improvements in subdivisions include "off-road, off-sidewalk paved bicycle/pedestrian paths if the city's comprehensive plan shows such a path crossing through the territory of the subdivision.”5 The comprehensive plan should be updated to include additional planned off-street paths. Threats: • What could derail our city’s bike-friendly work? (Consider infrastructure threats as well as financial, staff, community members, etc.) • What threats do our city’s weaknesses expose us to? 1. Limited opportunities exist to improve east-west connectivity outside of the East Main Street corridor. Development north of Maple Hill Cemetery could provide – or prevent – an alternative route on the north side of Main Street. Public right-of- way should be protected along the Water Street corridor to ensure adequate space for sidewalk and separated path construction. 2. Deferred maintenance of existing sidewalks reduces the effectiveness of existing facilities, poses tripping hazards, increases the difficulty of effectively removing snow and ice from sidewalks, and poses barriers to people using assistive devices or simply requiring a smooth, level surface for walking or rolling. 3. Landowner opposition to extending the Allen Creek separated path could prevent or delay development of this important facility. 4. Development in unincorporated Town areas outside the city will likely result in streets with limited connectivity and no pedestrian or bicycle infrastructure. At best these deficiencies will require costly retrofits in the future; at worst, development patterns may eliminate opportunities for important future connections. 5 110-193(a)(5) 5. Current City Ordinances allow street, intersection, and block development that is inconsistent with improving active transportation safety and options in the City of Evansville. These Ordinances should be amended to result in improved bicycle and pedestrian facilities with new development. Examples include: a. 110-157(d) enables the city to require mid-block paths in blocks longer than 900 feet. Such paths should be required and only waived when special circumstances warrant. Such paths should be paved; currently they may be required to be paved or allowed to be un-paved. b. 110-153 Table I specifies that the curb radius at local street intersections shall be 20 feet6; NACTO recommends that this be no larger than 15 feet.7 c. Required public improvements in subdivisions include "off-road, off- sidewalk paved bicycle/pedestrian paths if the city's comprehensive plan shows such a path crossing through the territory of the subdivision.”8 This does not apply to larger developments that do not include lot subdivision and should be amended to include these developments. d. Up to 100% of sidewalk repair costs may be assessed to the abutting property owner.9 100% of new construction and of reconstruction costs are assessed to the property owner, including both sides on corner lots.10 These cost assessment policies are likely to result in property owner opposition to the installation of any new or retrofit sidewalks in existing neighborhoods. These policies also fail to recognize that sidewalks benefit the entire community, not only the adjacent property owner. Sidewalks and safe non-motorized transportation networks are important to everyone, and a more connected network benefits the whole community. Assessing improvement costs to adjacent property owners is politically expedient, and “fair” in that each property values are theoretically linked to neighborhood walkability; however, requiring adjacent property owners to pay for improvements: • Ignores the larger benefit of a complete and interconnected non- motorized network to the entire community; • Disproportionately impacts lower-income property owners and renters; and, • Perpetuates the lack of those improvements where the majority of adjacent property owners cannot afford them. 6 Urban Street Design Guide (2013), 117. 7 Urban Street Design Guide (2013), 117. 8 110-193(a)(5) 9 106-81(f) 10 110-160(d) 6. Current City Ordinances include five laws that may be used to make pretextual enforcement stops but which do little or nothing to improve or protect public safety. These laws may result in enforcement actions that discourage people from active transportation modes and should be revised: a. Bicycles on Sidewalks Wisconsin State Law11 prohibits bicycles on sidewalks unless allowed by local authorities; communities that have not passed such enabling ordinances therefore have a law contributing to arrested mobility. The City of Evansville has adopted an enabling ordinance to allow bicycles on sidewalks; however, this ordinance is limited in scope and does not apply within business districts as defined in the City’s Zoning Map.12 This is problematic, as few residents or visitors will think to check the zoning of an area before riding a bike there. b. Trick or Fancy Riding The City of Evansville has two adopted ordinances regarding how bicycles are ridden. One prohibits removing both hands from handlebars and any trick or fancy riding,13 another both feet from pedals.14 This prohibits behaviors common to both children and experienced cyclists with no regard for the relatively small – and self-enforcing – safety concerns resulting from these behaviors. c. Bicycle Registration The City of Evansville requires all bicycles to be registered and furthermore stipulates that the registration only applies to the applicant and their immediate family.15 This essentially forbids residents from loaning bicycles to visitors, as well as prohibiting visitors from riding their own bicycles unless they have registered their bicycles with the city beforehand. d. Audible Warning Devices The City of Evansville requires bicycles to be equipped with an audible warning device.16 While giving audible warning prior to passing pedestrians, cyclists, and others is important, this can be achieved by means of vocalizing approach, such as saying “on your left” or “coming up behind”. Requiring bicyclists to purchase and install a device for this purpose does not achieve the desired safety outcome but does place a financial burden on bicyclists as well as contributing to concerns of pretextual traffic stops. e. Bicycle Parking 11 Wis. Stats. § 346.804 12 122-233 13 122-230 14 122-229 15 122-222 16 122-228 The City of Evansville prescribes allowable bicycle parking and prohibits leaving or parking a bicycle “at such a place or in such a way as to create a hazard to pedestrians, automobile operators or anyone else.”17 While relatively benign as it is worded, this ordinance does not define what constitutes a hazard and could be improved to provide more clarity to bicycle riders. Crash Study Over the three-and-a-half-year period from the beginning of 2022 through June 2025, there were a total of 121 reported crashes in Evansville, as shown in Figure 1.18 Figure 1 Crashes, January 2022-June 2025 Crashes that occurred tended to be fairly minor, as shown in Figure 1. While there was one fatal crash resulting in a single fatality, there were no serious injuries resulting from crashes during the study period. Figure 2 Crashes by Injury Severity 17 122-231 18 Excludes crashes in parking lots and on private property. Excludes deer crashes. Data retrieved 07/01/2025. Includes preliminary data. There were six crashes involving vulnerable road users, people riding bicycles or walking. Of these, two involved bicyclists and four involved pedestrians, all of which resulted in suspected minor injuries (B) or possible injuries (C). While three crashes occurred in school zones, none of these involved a bicyclist or pedestrian and none resulted in injury. Low speeds are likely one of the main reasons that there were not more serious injuries from crashes. Only five crashes occurred on roads with speed limits above 25 mph and speed was identified as a contributing factor in only 10% crashes. As shown in Figure 3, distracted driving was a factor in twice as many crashes as was speeding. Figure 3 Contributing Crash Factors 1 City of Evansville – Survey Analysis Contents Background ............................................................................................................................................................................ 2 Survey Summary ................................................................................................................................................................ 4 Active Transportation Summary........................................................................................................................ 4 Parks Survey Summary ............................................................................................................................................. 6 Full Survey Results ..............................................................................................................................................................7 Transportation Methods ...........................................................................................................................................7 Transportation Use ...................................................................................................................................................... 8 Walking Concerns ........................................................................................................................................................ 9 Biking Concerns ............................................................................................................................................................ 10 Bicycle Use ......................................................................................................................................................................... 11 Electric Bicycle Use ...................................................................................................................................................... 12 Park Use ............................................................................................................................................................................... 14 Park Quality (Individual Parks) ........................................................................................................................... 17 Open Response: Please enter any additional comments or concerns about the quality of individual parks in the box below. ....................................................................................... 18 Park Quality (Overall Park System) ................................................................................................................. 19 Open Response: Please enter any additional comments or concerns about the overall quality of Evansville parks in the box below. ...................................................................... 19 Park Enjoyment .............................................................................................................................................................. 21 Open Response: What do you love most about Evansville parks? ..................................... 21 Future Programming ................................................................................................................................................ 22 Demographics ..............................................................................................................................................................23 Age ....................................................................................................................................................................................23 Income .......................................................................................................................................................................... 24 Transportation Demographics .................................................................................................................... 25 2 Location ........................................................................................................................................................................ 26 Household Characteristics .............................................................................................................................. 27 Survey Distribution:............................................................................................................................................... 28 Final Thoughts .............................................................................................................................................................. 28 Open Response: Please enter any additional comments or concerns about transportation, parks, or recreation in the box below. ............................................................... 28 Safety Concerns Map Feedback ..................................................................................................................... 30 Appendix A: Individual Park Quality - Full Text Responses ............... Error! Bookmark not defined. Appendix B: Overall Park Quality - Full Text Responses . Error! Bookmark not defined. Appendix C: Park Enjoyment – Full Text Responses ......... Error! Bookmark not defined. Appendix D: Final Thoughts - Full Text Responses ............ Error! Bookmark not defined. Appendix E: Full Text Responses to “Other” options .......... Error! Bookmark not defined. Section E1: Walking Concerns ...................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. Section E2: Biking Concerns .......................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. Section E3: Electric Bicycle Use ................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. Section E4: Future Park Activity (No Responses) ........... Error! Bookmark not defined. Section E5: Where do you live? ................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. Background As part of the Parks and Active Transportation Plan, the City of Evansville conducted a public survey from 30 September to 16 November 2025. The survey gathered a total of 379 submissions over the response period. City staff distributed the survey via signage positioned in parks and City property, social media, City Hall postings, City website postings, public meetings and forums, and newspaper press releases. The City engaged with the Capital Area Regional Planning Commission (CARPC) to administer, tally, and interpret the survey results. The survey asked respondents about their transportation methods, including transportation mode, use frequency, and objectives. It gathered concerns about walking and bicycling which may discourage those activities. Additionally, the survey 3 asked respondents about electric-assisted devices, such as electric bikes and scooters, to help gauge community interest in them and understand decisions in their use. The parks section of the survey asked respondents about the parks they use, the frequency with which they visit the parks, and the activities in which they participate. Furthermore, the survey asked about satisfaction with the parks and desires for the future of Evansville’s park system. Many of the text responses to open ended questions (park quality, park enjoyment, and final thoughts) were reviewed by CARPC staff. After review, a summary of those responses was generated by Chat GPT and edited to more accurately reflect the survey responses. 4 Survey Su m m ary Active Transportation Summary Survey responses indicate that the Evansville community regularly participates in active transportation methods. Most respondents (88%) walk or wheelchair a few blocks or more, with 62% reporting doing so at least two days a week. Over half (53%) of respondents reported riding a bicycle; most riders (46%) reported using their bicycles twice per month or more, and 7% of riders report using their bicycle at least twice per week. Only 4% of respondents answered that they have an electric bike; of those people, 59% responded that they ride it at least twice a month, while 24% reported riding at least twice per week. 17 29 46 198 331 362 349 333 176 45 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Bike (Electric) Scooter/Skate/Other (Electric) Scooter/Skate/Other (Non-Electric) Bike (Non-Electric) Walk/Wheelchair Active Transportation Methods (All) Yes No 3 4 17 20 79 4 19 18 235 28 10 6 11 75 91 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Bike (Electric) Scooter/Skate/Other (Electric) Scooter/Skate/Other Walk/Wheelchair Bike (Non-Electric) Transportation Use Frequency (All) 104+ days - Two days a week or more on average 25-103 days – Between two days a month and two days a week on average 1-24 days - Two days or less a month on average 5 While only 12% of respondents reported using non-electric scooters, skateboards, or roller skates, those who are riders use their devices frequently; most users (39%) reported riding twice a week or more. This observation is even more pronounced in the smaller number (8%) of respondents who reported riding electric scooters, skateboards, and e-mobility devices; 66% of those people reported using their devices at least twice per week. Responses indicate that Evansville residents are active. Eighty-five percent of respondents report using active transportation methods for leisure, recreation, fitness, or walking a pet frequently or almost daily; while only 6% of respondents reported never doing so. Furthermore, most respondents (85%) in Evansville use active transportation for social activities at some point, and 47% of respondents do so frequently or almost daily. However, a majority of respondents do NOT often use these methods for necessary trips such as shopping and commuting. Active modes of transportation were reported as “infrequent” or “never” by 73% of respondents for errands or shopping, and by 80% of respondents for going to school or work. When asked about their concerns with walking or using a mobility device, the most frequently reported response (34%) was regarding the lack of lighting in the early or late hours. The condition of sidewalks and trails, and the lack of connections between them, gathered similar response frequencies (34% and 32%, respectively). (Although 30% of respondents reported they did not have any concerns, over 25% of those who selected that response proceeded to identify additional concerns; an adjusted response rate is approximately 22% that did not have additional concerns.) Many respondents (32%, adjusted) indicated they did not have any concerns with biking. Concerns about biking included not feeling safe near fast-moving traffic 176 38 15 27 142 36 87 149 36 68 150 139 23 231 122 57 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Leisure, recreation, fitness, walking a pet Going to school or work Shopping or errands Social activities How often do you bike, walk, use a mobility device such as a wheelchair for the types of trips listed below? Almost Daily Frequently Infrequently Never 6 (30%), not enough bike paths/routes (28%), poor pavement conditions (27%), and a lack of connection between bike paths/routes (26%). Parks Survey Summary The greatest number of respondents (37%) indicated that Evansville’s park and recreation programs are of very high importance to them, and 27% responded that they were of high importance. Another 26% rated them as being moderately important, and only 11% of respondents indicated they were of low or very low importance. Additionally, 78% of respondents use the parks at least monthly, and 24% do so nearly every day. The most popular activity at the parks is walking – 95% of respondents claimed to have walked in the parks in the past year. The next most popular activities were swimming at the Aquatic Center (59%), community events (55%), and dog walking (50%). Bicycling (45%), using playground equipment (40%) and using the splash pad (37%) were also among widely popular activities. Based on this survey, Leonard Leota Park is the most visited park in Evansville by a large margin – 96% of respondents indicated they had visited it in the last year. The second and third most popular parks are Larson Acres Park (70%) and the Evansville Aquatic Center (67%). While Evansville’s parks are popular, few respondents rated their facilities and programs as “excellent.” Only Evansville Aquatic Center received a majority “excellent” rating. Larson Acres Park, Veteran’s Memorial Spraypad, and Leonard Leota Park gathered a majority “good” rating, and all others were rated as “average.” Additionally, Evansville Dog Park, Franklin Park, and Brzenzinski Park gathered a larger amount of “below average” and “poor” votes than other parks. Respondents rated Evansville Parks as “good” overall, as well as on appearance and safety. However, both cleanliness and maintenance were rated as “average” Relatively few respondents rated the overall park system as “below average” or “poor” on any specific category. The survey asked respondents about desires for future park programming. Four of the top five answers were event-based activities, including park festivals (67%), music events (61%), “Art in the Park” events (41%), and fitness events (34%). Walking and biking paths were the second most requested addition (64%), while ice skating and canoeing/kayaking were also popular seasonal activities at 34% for both. 7 Full Su rvey Results Transportation Methods Survey responses indicate that the Evansville community regularly participates in active transportation methods. Most respondents (88%) walk or wheelchair a few blocks or more, with 62% reporting doing so at least two days a week. Over half (53%) of respondents reported riding a bicycle; most riders (46%) reported using their bicycles twice per month or more, and 7% of riders report using their bicycle at least twice per week. Only 4% of respondents answered that they have an electric bike; of those people, 59% responded that they ride it at least twice a month, while 24% reported riding at least twice per week. While only 12% of respondents reported using non-electric scooters, skateboards, or roller skates, those who are riders use their devices frequently; most users (39%) reported riding twice a week or more. This observation is even more pronounced in the smaller number (8%) of respondents who reported riding electric scooters, skateboards, and e-mobility devices; 66% of those people reported using their devices at least twice per week. 17 29 46 198 331 362 349 333 176 45 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Bike (Electric) Scooter/Skate/Other (Electric) Scooter/Skate/Other (Non-Electric) Bike (Non-Electric) Walk/Wheelchair Active Transportation Methods (All) Yes No 8 Transportation Use Responses indicate that Evansville residents are active. Eighty-five percent of respondents report using active transportation methods for leisure, recreation, fitness, or walking a pet frequently or almost daily; while only 6% of respondents reported never doing so. Furthermore, most respondents (85%) in Evansville use active transportation for social activities at some point, and 47% of respondents do so frequently or almost daily. However, a majority of respondents do NOT often use these methods for necessary trips such as shopping and commuting. Active modes of transportation were reported as “infrequent” or “never” by 73% of respondents for errands or shopping, and by 80% of respondents for going to school or work. 3 4 17 20 79 4 19 18 235 28 10 6 11 75 91 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Bike (Electric) Scooter/Skate/Other (Electric) Scooter/Skate/Other Walk/Wheelchair Bike (Non-Electric) Transportation Use Frequency (All) 104+ days - Two days a week or more on average 25-103 days – Between two days a month and two days a week on average 1-24 days - Two days or less a month on average 176 38 15 27 142 36 87 149 36 68 150 139 23 231 122 57 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Leisure, recreation, fitness, walking a pet Going to school or work Shopping or errands Social activities How often do you bike, walk, use a mobility device such as a wheelchair for the types of trips listed below? Almost Daily Frequently Infrequently Never 9 Walking Concerns When asked about their concerns with walking or using a mobility device, the most frequently reported response (34%) was regarding the lack of lighting in the early or late hours. The condition of sidewalks and trails, and the lack of connections between them, gathered similar response frequencies (32% and 31%, respectively). (Although 30% of respondents reported they did not have any concerns, over 25% of those who selected that response proceeded to identify additional concerns; an adjusted response rate is approximately 22% that did not have additional concerns.) 6 8 15 19 26 35 43 54 57 61 72 73 110 113 119 125 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 I don’t know how to get where I want to go by walking or using a mobility device I fear someone will harm or harass me It takes too long to get where I need to go The routes are not accessible for people with disabilities I need to transport other people or goods with me Other (please specify) Please enter a comment There are not enough places to cross streets where it feels safe I don’t feel safe walking or using a mobility device near fast- moving motor vehicle traffic There are not enough sidewalks or paths in my neighborhood Lack of shade, trees, benches, and other amenities along my route There is inconsistent snow, leaf, or debris removal There are few destinations (grocery store, jobs, shops, schools, parks) within walking or rolling distance I don’t have any concerns or frustrations with walking or using a mobility device Lack of connections in the paths and/or sidewalk routes The trails or sidewalks are in poor condition Not enough lighting to walk at night or in the early morning What are your main concerns or frustrations with walking or using a mobility device such as a wheelchair, if any? (Please select your top five concerns) 10 Biking Concerns Many respondents (32%, adjusted) indicated they did not have any concerns with biking. Concerns about biking included not feeling safe near fast-moving traffic (30%), not enough bike paths/routes (28%), poor pavement conditions (27%), and a lack of connection between bike paths/routes (26%). 3 5 9 16 21 31 31 33 46 46 51 93 96 98 107 126 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 I fear someone will harm or harass me I have a bicycle, but it is broken, and I don’t know how to fix it I don’t know how to get where I want to go on bike routes It takes too long to get where I need to go Other (please specify) Please enter a comment. There is not enough snow, leaf, or debris removal I need to transport other people or things with me There are not enough places to cross streets where it feels safe There is not enough bike parking or a safe place to store a bicycle There are few destinations (grocery store, jobs, shops, school, park) within a bikeable distance There is not enough lighting to bike at night or in the early morning Lack of connections in the paths and/or bike routes Pavement conditions are poor There are not enough paths and/or bike routes I don’t feel safe near fast-moving motor vehicle traffic I don’t have any concerns or frustrations with bicycling What are your main concerns or frustrations with biking? (Please select your top five concerns) 11 Bicycle Use Most respondents (80%) own a bike, and 40% are confident riding in most streets with bike lanes but they prefer separated bike paths. About a third of residents rated themselves as very confident and comfortable riding in most traffic conditions. 20% 80% Do you own a bicycle? No Yes 9% 17% 34% 40% How would you describe your bicycling comfort level? Not confident: I don't/am not comfortable riding a bike Less confident: only feel safe on separated paths with few traffic crossings and local streets Very confident: confident and comfortable riding with traffic on the road in most traffic situations Confident: often comfortable biking on most streets with bike lanes, but prefer separated paths 12 Electric Bicycle Use Only 6% of respondents own an e-bike, while 11% have used one in the past, and 31% are interested in trying an e-bike. Most respondents (53%) have not ridden an e-bike and are not interested in doing so. Of those 20 respondents who reported owning e- bikes, most (84%) owned a standard bike prior to that purchase, and 81% say they use their e-bike more often than they had used their standard bike. A sizable minority (27%) of e-bike owners have a condition that makes e-bikes easier to ride than non- assisted bicycles. Respondents indicated that the greatest reasons for purchasing an e-bike are for recreation (47%), to ride longer distances (34%), and to ride with less effort (32%). The factors that would have the greatest influence on their purchase decision is price (72%), living near comfortable bicycle facilities like bike lanes and paths (33%), and for health benefits (29%). 10 10 40 117 198 0 50 100 150 200 250 I regularly ride an e-bike that I own I occasionally ride an e-bike that I own I use(d) a borrowed e-bike No – I have never ridden an e-bike but I am interested in doing so No – I have never ridden an e-bike and I am not interested in doing so Do you ride or have you ridden an e-bike (electric bicycle) that you own or borrow? Select all that apply: 13 16 13 16 3 3 43 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Did you have a standard bicycle prior to purchasing your e- bike? Do you ride your e-bike more often than you rode your standard bicycle? Do you have a physical condition or limitation that makes riding a regular bike difficult or uncomfortable, but riding an e-bike works better for you? Electric Bike Use Yes No 8 8 11 13 13 18 20 23 34 40 49 52 71 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 A medical condition reduced my ability to ride a standard bicycle Other (please specify) Please enter a comment. Because I live or work in a hilly area To avoid traffic and/or parking hassles in my car To be able to keep up with friends/family To carry cargo or kids For environmental reasons To save money on transportation To increase fitness To start bicycling or to bicycle more often To ride with less effort To ride longer distances to places I need to go For recreation purposes What would be, or were, your top three reasons for purchasing or using an e-bike? 14 Park Use The greatest number of respondents (37%) indicated that Evansville’s park and recreation programs are of very high importance to them, and 27% responded that they were of high importance. Another 26% rated them as being moderately important, and only 11% of respondents indicated they were of low or very low importance. Additionally, 78% of respondents use the parks at least monthly, and 24% do so nearly every day. 42 48 51 62 83 89 96 209 0 50 100 150 200 250 Other (please specify) Please enter a comment. Environmental benefits Having places to charge outside of my home Better understanding e-bikes and how to use them Health benefits Having a bicycle shop nearby that works on e-bikes Living near comfortable bicycle facilities such as paths or bike lanes Price Please select the three most important factors that would influence your decision to purchase an e-bike. 40 96 102 138 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 low or very low importance moderate importance high importance very high importance How important are park and recreation programs to you? 15 The most popular activity at the parks is walking – 95% of respondents claimed to have walked in the parks in the past year. The next most popular activities were swimming at the Aquatic Center (59%), community events (55%), and dog walking (50%). Bicycling (45%), using playground equipment (40%) and using the splash pad (37%) were also among widely popular activities. Based on this survey, Leonard Leota Park is the most visited park in Evansville by a large margin – 96% of respondents indicated they had visited it in the last year. The second and third most popular parks are Larson Acres Park (70%) and the Evansville Aquatic Center (67%). 17 66 89 91 112 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 once a year seasonally 1-3 times a month 4 or more times a week 1-3 times a week How often do you use the parks? 16 9 9 16 19 23 38 47 47 66 74 75 76 87 94 100 102 117 126 138 150 171 189 208 224 357 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 Community Gardening Scouts Boating Skateboarding/Skating Ice Skating Tennis Basketball Disc Golf Pickleball Dog Park Soccer Picknicking Canoe/Kayak Baseball/Softball/Teeball Running/Jogging Hiking Fishing Nature/Bird Watching Splash Pad Using Playground Equipment Bicycling Dog Walking Community Events Swimming at the Aquatic Center Walking Which activities have you or your family participated in over the last 12 months? 17 Park Quality (Individual Parks) While Evansville’s parks are popular, few respondents rated their facilities and programs as “excellent.” Only Evansville Aquatic Center received a majority “excellent” rating. Larson Acres Park, Veteran’s Memorial Spraypad, and Leonard Leota Park gathered a majority “good” rating, and all others were rated as “average.” Additionally, Evansville Dog Park, Franklin Park, and Brzenzinski Park gathered a larger amount of “below average” and “poor” votes than other parks. 34 41 78 87 103 104 163 248 259 358 Franklin Park Brzenzinski Park Evansville Dog Park Peace Park Wind Prairie Park Countryside Park Veteran's Memorial Spraypad Evansville Aquatic Center Larson Acres Park Leonard Leota Park 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 What parks have you visited in the last year? 18 Open Response: Please enter any additional comments or concerns about the quality of individual parks in the box below. Survey respondents expressed strong appreciation for Evansville’s parks and recognize their importance to community life, particularly flagship spaces such as Lake Leota and natural areas like Wind Prairie Park. At the same time, the most consistent message is concern about the condition, safety, and upkeep of existing facilities. Many residents feel that basic maintenance has not kept pace with community expectations. Playgrounds, bathrooms, athletic fields, the dog park, and the Lake Leota skatepark were cited most frequently as needing attention. Comments emphasize outdated or damaged playground equipment, disliked sand surfacing, poorly maintained or poorly lit bathrooms, underutilized or locked ballfields, and an aging skatepark that is viewed as unsafe. While opinions on overall spending vary, there is broad 5 7 10 11 21 31 57 66 89 155 28 21 28 47 58 72 158 125 125 117 157 148 155 182 139 120 146 104 104 46 55 54 58 48 30 36 41 20 24 12 28 34 37 13 10 10 7 9 5 6 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Brzenzinski Park Franklin Park Evansville Dog Park Countryside Park Peace Park Wind Prairie Park Leonard Leota Park Veteran's Memorial Spraypad Larson Acres Park Evansville Aquatic Center Rate each park's recreational facilities/programs: Excellent Good Average Below Average Poor 19 agreement that reinvestment in current assets should be prioritized before adding new facilities. Residents also highlighted the need for improved connectivity, accessibility, and communication. Requests include better trails and sidewalks, clearer signage and wayfinding, enforcement of park rules (particularly leash laws), and expanded or better-communicated programming. Overall, feedback reflects a desire for clearer priorities, visible improvements, and consistent maintenance to protect the long- term value of the park system. Park Quality (Overall Park System) A majority of respondents rated Evansville Parks as “good” or “excellent” overall and on most specific aspects. The park system’s highest scores are for safety and lowest for maintenance, though even on maintenance only 12% rated the system as “below average” or “poor”. Open Response: Please enter any additional comments or concerns about the overall quality of Evansville parks in the box below. 36 38 41 54 58 180 147 160 162 194 128 138 131 132 97 26 36 32 18 20 6 18 12 11 7 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Overall Maintenance Cleanliness Appearance Safety How would you rate Evansville's parks on: Excellent Good Average Below Average Poor 20 Survey respondents generally value Evansville’s park system and recognize its positive impact on quality of life, particularly flagship parks such as Lake Leota, Larson Acres, and Wind Prairie. Many residents describe these parks as community assets and note that recent investments—especially at Larson Acres and trail improvements at Lake Leota—have been successful. The most consistent concern across responses is insufficient maintenance and uneven quality between parks. Smaller neighborhood parks are frequently described as run down, poorly maintained, or unsafe compared to larger parks. Common issues include deteriorating playground equipment, overgrown weeds, poor grass conditions, unsanitary or outdated bathrooms, vandalism, trash, and limited lighting. Several respondents emphasized that the city often invests in new facilities but does not allocate enough resources for ongoing upkeep. Safety and usability concerns also emerged. Residents cited vandalism, poor lighting (particularly at Lake Leota after dark), off-leash dogs, uneven or unsafe surfaces, and the deteriorated skatepark as issues affecting comfort and safety. Many respondents expressed interest in better connectivity through walking and biking paths, improved signage and wayfinding, increased tree planting and shade, and expanded programming. Opinions on funding remain mixed, but there is broad agreement that consistent maintenance, clearer priorities, and targeted reinvestment would significantly improve overall park quality. 21 Park Enjoyment Open Response: What do you love most about Evansville parks? Commonly used words from responses to this question. Survey respondents overwhelmingly expressed pride in Evansville’s parks and emphasized their importance to daily life, community identity, and overall quality of life. Many residents described the park system as exceptional for a community of Evansville’s size, with Lake Leota repeatedly identified as a signature destination and a defining feature of the city. The most frequently cited strengths are natural beauty, accessibility, and variety. Residents value mature trees, the lake and creek, wildlife, prairies, and scenic walking and biking paths that can be enjoyed year-round. Parks are appreciated for being well distributed across town, walkable from many homes, and offering diverse experiences—from quiet nature observation to active recreation, sports, and family play. Community use and shared experiences are also central to what residents value. Respondents highlighted festivals, fishing, disc golf, the aquatic center, playgrounds, and informal gatherings as key benefits. Many noted that parks are places where people of all ages connect with neighbors, relax, and spend time outdoors without needing to spend money. Even critical comments were often framed as a desire to protect and improve parks that residents already care deeply about. 22 Future Programming The survey asked respondents about desires for future park programming. Four of the top five answers were event-based activities, including park festivals (67%), music events (61%), “Art in the Park” events (41%), and fitness events (34%). Walking and biking paths were the second most requested addition (64%), while ice skating and canoeing/kayaking were also popular seasonal activities at 34% for both. 29 31 32 40 43 69 84 87 100 105 113 118 121 121 122 146 219 227 239 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Pump track/BMX track Skate Park Skateboarding/Skating Tennis Shuffleboard Bird Watching Groups Volunteer Programs Pickleball Summer Camps Adult Sports Family Movie Nights Nature Information Ice Skating Canoe/Kayak Fitness in the Parks Art in the Parks Music in Parks Walking/Biking paths Park Festivals In the future, what recreation activities would you like to see in the parks? 23 Demographics Age The greatest number of respondents (30%) were in the 35 to 44 year-old age bracket, while the second and third most represented age brackets were 45 to 54 (23%) and 55 to 64 (16%). Respondents represented every age demographic; however, below age 25 and above age 65 were underrepresented, while ages between 35 and 64 were overrepresented. Ages 25 to 34 were only about one percent greater than 2020 Census proportions. 0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00% 30.00% 35.00% Under 25 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-84 85 + Age Distribution Survey 2020 Census 1 5 9 10 36 58 60 87 113 85 + Under 18 18-24 Prefer not to answer 65-84 25-34 55-64 45-54 35-44 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 What is your age? 24 Income The income profile of survey respondents is skewed higher than the 2020 Census data, reflecting the facts that the census data is 5 years out of date and the survey respondents include a disproportionate percentage of residents in their prime earning years (35-64). 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Less than $25,000 $25,000 - $49,999 $50,000 - $74,999 $75,000 - $99,999 $100,000 or more Income Distribution Survey Census 2020 6 20 32 51 64 199 Less than $25,000 $25,000 - $49,999 $50,000 - $74,999 $75,000 - $99,999 Prefer not to answer $100,000 or more 0 50 100 150 200 250 What is your yearly household income? 25 Transportation Demographics Approximately 9% of respondents experience a disability that affects their mobility, and 3% declined to disclose their ability. Most respondents (88%) answered that they do not experience such a disability. Most respondents (62%) had two cars available to their household, while 16% had three. Households with more than three cars or only one car each comprise 11% of respondents. Only one respondent indicated that their household did not have a car. 3% 9% 88% Do you experience a disability that impacts your ability to get around, or your mobility choices? Prefer not to answer Yes No 1 40 43 59 236 None More than three One Three Two 0 50 100 150 200 250 How many automobiles are kept at home for use by members of your household? 26 Location Most respondents (86%) indicated that they live in Evansville, while another 10% live in the Town of Union. Fewer than 5% of respondents live in the Towns of Magnolia, Porter, Center, or elsewhere. Of those respondents who live in Evansville, 20% have resided there for less than five years, and another 20% of respondents have lived in Evansville for between 5-10 years. Another 19% of respondents have lived in Evansville for between 21-35 years, a fifteen-year period, while 14% of respondents lived in the City for 11-15 years and another 14% between 16-20 years. Those who have lived in Evansville for over 36+ years had the smallest response rate of 13%. 0 1 2 6 7 36 325 Village of Footville Town of Center Town of Porter Other (please specify) Please enter where you live. Town of Magnolia Town of Union City of Evansville 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Where do you live? 41 46 47 61 65 65 More than 36 Years 11-15 Years 16-20 Years 21-35 Years 0-5 Years 6-10 Years 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 How long have you lived in Evansville? 27 Household Characteristics One-third of respondents indicated they have two people living in their household, and 28% have four people; 17% of respondents have three people, 13% have five people, and 3% have six or more people. Another 6% of respondents live alone. Most respondents (59%) have at least one child in their home. However, a large minority (41%) have no children at home. The second most common response was two children (28%), followed by one child (18%), three children (10%), and four or more (3%). 11 23 47 65 106 124 Six or more One (Only me) Five Three Four Two 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 How many people live in your house? 10 39 68 103 152 Four or more Three One Two None 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 How many children live in your house? 28 Survey Distribution: The majority of respondents (52%) heard about the survey via social media, and a large number from City Hall or other sources (39%). Relatively few respondents selected that they heard about the survey from the City website (5%), meetings or forums (3%), or newspapers (1%). Final Thoughts Open Response: Please enter any additional comments or concerns about transportation, parks, or recreation in the box below. In the closing comments, respondents largely focused on practical, action- oriented improvements rather than new major expansions. The most common requests emphasize building a safer, more connected community through better walking/biking infrastructure, along with stronger attention to accessibility, maintenance, and safety. Many residents want the city to prioritize fixing and completing existing routes (sidewalk gaps, uneven bricks, lighting, snow removal) and to ensure new developments meet bike/path commitments. A second cluster of feedback centers on better activation and management of existing park assets: more programming (especially for adults and teens), stronger coordination for events and tournaments, and improved communications/leadership (calls for a full-time Parks & Rec/Recreation Director or more active committee). Lake Leota-specific ideas appear frequently—kayak launch/rentals, benches, winter access, fishing support, and reopening or 2 12 20 143 191 Newspapers Meeting or Forum City Website City Hall and Other Social Media 0 50 100 150 200 250 How did you hear about this survey? 29 repurposing the park store (snacks, games, party room, rentals). Several comments also reiterate priorities from earlier sections: skatepark renovation, sand-free playground surfacing, field improvements, and better dog park conditions. Finally, respondents again show mixed views on spending and taxes. Some urge restraint and oppose further investment, while others explicitly support targeted spending—especially on maintenance, safety, accessibility, and trail connections— arguing that high use and tax levels warrant visible upkeep and service quality. 30 Safety Concerns Map Feedback The interactive Safety Concerns Map collected 37 location-specific comments, nearly all of them focused on pedestrian safety. Thirteen of the comments identified concerns about road crossings due to high traffic speeds, high traffic volumes, poor visibility, and/or inattentive drivers. Many comments described gaps in the sidewalk network (13), and a substantial subset of those specifically described the need for sidewalks on both sides of the street (6). Six comments describe poor pavement conditions, and another describes overgrown shrubs. Four comments call for better nighttime lighting. 1 A-1 ID Date Safety Concern Description 1 2025-07-28 The pedestrian signs get ran over with some frequency. 2 2025-08-07 Difficult to cross with traffic 2 blocks from stop sign and either direction, bottom of hill, and drivers staring at their phone in the morning. 3 2025-09-03 Very busy in morning with school kids. Has a crossing guard but still makes everyone nervous. 4 2025-09-03 No sidewalk crossing railroad track. 5 2025-10-01 Extremely bumpy street! 6 2025-10-17 Sidewalk is ccraled and eroded 7 2025-10-17 intersection of east main and union St,I was hit by a car crossing union St in the crosswalk. 8 2025-10-18 Too many people get comfortable running this stop sign. 9 2025-10-19 On south side of Highland Street there are at least 3 sidewalk squares that have more than a 3 inch rise. 10 2025-10-20 606 Garfield Street - uneven sidewalk, suffered a concussion as a result of tripping on uneven sidewalk 11 2025-10-20 Dimly lit street 12 2025-10-20 Need sidewalk on both sides of the road on Garfield Street - the curve past Evansville Manor toward 4th Street is hazardous for pedestrians 13 2025-10-20 Need sidewalk on both sides of the road on West Main Street - from 5th street, all the way to Wyler, for pedestrians and Larson Acres park/aquatic center visitors 14 2025-10-20 Need sidewalk on both sides of the road on Porter Road for pedestrian access to Larson Acres Park/Aquatic Center 15 2025-10-20 Roundabout is dangerous in 2 ways: 1) roundabouts typically control traffic. There is rarely more than 1 car there at a time so cars assume car in roundabout is turning at next exit so they proceed. Several near-misses due to those assumptions. 2) hazardous for pedestrians as not all sides can be seen so there is no way for a car coming from 5th, entering the roundabout can see a pedestrian in the sidewalk cross 6th street. It is a key crossing area for kids going to/from school safely. There are trees that limit visibility. Removal of the roundabout and replacement with a stop sign would be safest for all. 16 2025-10-20 Dimly lit area - 3rd street/Church St area going both ways A-2 17 2025-10-20 There is a rectangular hole on 6th right at entrance/exit to the trail. A bike tire would fit into it and could cause a fall. 18 2025-10-22 Speeding near children walking. I’ve motioned for people to slow down near small children. We need speed bumps on Porter road. Most cars are over the speed limit while driving on this street. Even when asked to please slow down. They constantly get away with speeding. 19 2025-10-22 People coming from the country road towards Porter road are driving at excessive speeds. With the increased traffic there are many dangerous drivers that don’t slow down when children are crossing the street. It would be beneficial to have a speed bump just prior to the pool and one near the daycare on Porter road too. 20 2025-10-27 Garfield is the quickest connection from Cty C to Madison. Though it is a 25mph street, many vehicles drive much higher speeds. I observe the 1st and Garfield 4-way stop being ignored by vehicles several times / day. It is a busy route to the park for kids going fishing, biking and scootering. Many residents walking and walking dogs also pass by on their way. Of course, pedestrians should always assume a car is not going to stop (unfortunately), but some more suggestive and proactive measures could be useful near this intersection to remind drivers they are approaching a 4-way stop sign. 21 2025-10-28 Sidewalks on both sides of Wyler would increase safety, especially with additional traffic to aquatic center. 22 2025-10-28 Sidewalk along community garden and around aquatic center would increase safety 23 2025-10-28 Sidewalk on both sides of Garfield would be helpful for safety 24 2025-10-28 Sidewalk on both sides of West Main Street would increase safety and traffic concerns to aquatic center 25 2025-10-28 Very dark on this part of West Main Street - increase street lighting on block between Prentice St & Fifth St 26 2025-10-28 Limited visibility of pedestrians in crosswalks by roundabout due to trees obstructing view - safety hazard 27 2025-10-28 Absence of sidewalks on 4th street up to the water tower and down 5th street in front of new houses to Evansville Manor presents safety hazard for pedestrians, hard to see pedestrians with curves in the road A-3 28 2025-10-28 Water street in the industrial section is hazardous to walk due to absence of sidewalks 29 2025-10-29 Sidewalk is partially obstructed nearly year round by shrubbery. It’s beautiful, but it’s not passable for the full sidewalk width for pedestrian traffic. 30 2025-11-07 pedestrian crossing 31 2025-11-07 pedestrian crossing and low street light 32 2025-11-07 car speeds and bad angles 33 2025-11-07 car speed, pedestrian crossing, traffic congestion 34 2025-11-13 A sidewalk connecting the dams to the upper park would be great. Other sidewalks in the park would be helpful too 35 2025-11-13 Third street needs to continue through with sidewalks to decrease the traffic conflicts in the mornings with school kids 36 2025-12-01 there is no sidewalk on either sides of the road near the manor up to 5th st intersection. 37 2025-12-07 new sidewalk on railroad blocked with snow pile E MAIN ST UNION ST N H Y 1 4 S MADISON ST N MADISON ST W C T Y T K C C T Y T K M W HY 14 N H Y 2 1 3 N C T Y T K M N C T Y T K M W C T Y T K M Injury Severity Suspected Minor Injury Possible Injury Fatality No Apparent Injury, Property Damage Only Dense Sparse Bike & Pedestrian Routes Crossing Guard Sidewalks On-Street Bike Route Bike/Pedestrian Path Roads & Railroads County Highway State Highway Local Road Railroads Boundaries City Town City Parks Water Parcel 0 0.25 0.5 Miles ± Map information is believed to be accurate but may contain errors due to the dynamic nature of source data. For general reference purposes only. Date: 12/9/2025 Analysis of intersection and non-intersection crash data from January 2022 to June 2025. Excludes private, parking lot, and deer crashes. Data sources: Esri, CARPC, Rock County, City of Evansville City of Evansville Collisions Overview E MAIN ST W HY 14 N C T Y T K M C T Y T K M Injury Severity Suspected Minor Injury Possible Injury Fatality No Apparent Injury, Property Damage Only Dense Sparse Bike & Pedestrian Routes Sidewalks On-Street Bike Route Roads & Railroads County Highway State Highway Local Road Boundaries City Town City Parks Water Parcel 0 250 500 750 Ft ± Map information is believed to be accurate but may contain errors due to the dynamic nature of source data. For general reference purposes only. Date: 12/9/2025 Analysis of intersection and non-intersection crash data from January 2022 to June 2025. Excludes private, parking lot, and deer crashes. Data sources: Esri, CARPC, Rock County, City of Evansville City of Evansville Collisions Main St. and CTH M E MAIN ST UNION ST Injury Severity Suspected Minor Injury Possible Injury Fatality No Apparent Injury, Property Damage Only Dense Sparse Bike & Pedestrian Routes Sidewalks On-Street Bike Route Roads & Railroads State Highway Local Road Railroads Boundaries City City Parks Parcel 0 250 Ft ± Map information is believed to be accurate but may contain errors due to the dynamic nature of source data. For general reference purposes only. Date: 12/9/2025 Analysis of intersection and non-intersection crash data from January 2022 to June 2025. Excludes private, parking lot, and deer crashes. Data sources: Esri, CARPC, Rock County, City of Evansville City of Evansville Collisions Main St., Cemetery Rd., and N. Union Rd. N MADISON ST S MADISON ST Injury Severity Suspected Minor Injury Possible Injury Fatality No Apparent Injury, Property Damage Only Dense Sparse Bike & Pedestrian Routes Sidewalks On-Street Bike Route Roads & Railroads State Highway Local Road Boundaries City Water Parcel 0 250 Ft ± Map information is believed to be accurate but may contain errors due to the dynamic nature of source data. For general reference purposes only. Date: 12/9/2025 Analysis of intersection and non-intersection crash data from January 2022 to June 2025. Excludes private, parking lot, and deer crashes. Data sources: Esri, CARPC, Rock County, City of Evansville City of Evansville Collisions Main St. and Madison St. Injury Severity Suspected Minor Injury Possible Injury Fatality No Apparent Injury, Property Damage Only Dense Sparse Bike & Pedestrian Routes Sidewalks On-Street Bike Route Roads & Railroads Local Road Boundaries City City Parks Parcel 0 250 Ft ± Map information is believed to be accurate but may contain errors due to the dynamic nature of source data. For general reference purposes only. Date: 12/9/2025 Analysis of intersection and non-intersection crash data from January 2022 to June 2025. Excludes private, parking lot, and deer crashes. Data sources: Esri, CARPC, Rock County, City of Evansville City of Evansville Collisions Main St., 4th St., and 5th St. Liberty St Garfield Ave Countryside-Orchard S o u t h E v a n s v i l l e R o u t e H i g h w a y C C o m m u t e r R o u t e M i l l a r d R o u t e Maple Hill Highway M I c e A g e T r a i l Union St Porter St A l l e n C r e e k B i k e w a y Cemetery Rd 1st St Main St Main St Commuter Route 1 2 3 4 5 678 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Landmarks School Library Playground Park Sports Equipped Park Pool Crossing Guard Government Child Care Facilities Community Center Healthcare Facilities Grocery Improvement Type Connectivity Safety Boundaries City Town Parcel City/Town Owned Parcel Existing Routes On-Street Off-Street Bike/ Pedestrian Planned Routes On-Street Off-Street Bike/ Pedestrian Other Routes Evansville Loop Ice Age Trail Allen Creek Natural Trail 0 0.50.25 Miles ± Map information is believed to be accurate but may contain errors due to the dynamic nature of source data. For general reference purposes only. Date: 9/10/2026 Data sources: Esri, CARPC, Rock County, City of Evansville City of Evansville Planned Bike Routes Overview Liberty St G a r f i e l d A v e South Evansville Route Highway C Commuter Route Millard Route S o u t h E v a n s v i l l e R o u t e L i b e r t y S t I c e A g e T r a i l Union St M a p l e H i l l Porter St A l l e n C r e e k B i k e w a y Main St 1st St Union St 2 6 78 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 21 22 23 24 25 26 Landmarks School Library Playground Park Sports Equipped Park Pool Crossing Guard Government Child Care Facilities Community Center Healthcare Facilities Improvement Type Connectivity Safety Boundaries City Town Parcel City/Town Owned Parcel Environmentally Sensitive Areas Existing Routes On-Street Off-Street Bike/ Pedestrian Planned Routes On-Street Off-Street Bike/ Pedestrian Other Routes Evansville Loop Ice Age Trail Allen Creek Natural Trail 0 0.50.25 Miles ± Map information is believed to be accurate but may contain errors due to the dynamic nature of source data. For general reference purposes only. Date: 9/10/2026 Data sources: Esri, CARPC, Rock County, City of Evansville City of Evansville Planned Bike Routes Evansville West Liberty St Countryside-Orchard Maple Hill Highway M G a r f i e l d A v e Union St A l l e n C r e e k B i k e w a y Cemetery Rd Union St Main St Main St Commuter Route 1 2 3 4 5 6 13 18 19 20 25 Landmarks Playground Park Crossing Guard Government Child Care Facilities Community Center Healthcare Facilities Grocery Improvement Type Connectivity Safety Boundaries City Town Parcel City/Town Owned Parcel Environmentally Sensitive Areas Existing Routes On-Street Off-Street Bike/ Pedestrian Planned Routes On-Street Off-Street Bike/ Pedestrian Other Routes Evansville Loop Ice Age Trail Allen Creek Natural Trail 0 0.50.25 Miles ± Map information is believed to be accurate but may contain errors due to the dynamic nature of source data. For general reference purposes only. Date: 9/10/2026 Data sources: Esri, CARPC, Rock County, City of Evansville City of Evansville Planned Bike Routes Evansville East Pedestrian and Bike Safety Needs Label Type Description Suggested Improvement Add lighting. Add signal beacons. Raised crosswalks. Add bold zebra crossing markings. Add barrier / bollards to protect waiting bicyclists and pedestrians. The crossing is unprotected and poorly marked, but provides a direct connection to the City's only full- service grocery store. The bike route sign has been run over. Safety1 Increase lighting. Add signal beacons. Raised crosswalks. Add bold zebra crossing markings. Pedestrian signs get run over. Stop sign not obeyed.Safety2 Increase lighting. Add signal beacons. Raised crosswalks. Add bold zebra crossing markings and bike path signage. Bike route crosses US HWY 14 with no traffic management. Safety3 Widen pathThe bike path between Windsor Land and HWY M is too narrow for such an important E-W connector. Connectivity4 Add sidewalk and/or separated bike/pedestrian path. Road leads to post office but there is no sidewalk.Connectivity5 Increase lighting. Add signals. Add bold zebra crossing markings. At least one survey respondent indicated being struck by a car at this intersection. Nearby businesses such as the Culver's, sports bar, VFW, and pizzeria indicates frequent pedestrian traffic and needs suitable traffic signalling. Safety6 Increase lighting. Add signal beacons. Raised crosswalks. Add bold zebra crossing markings. Survey respondent indicates the need for increased illumination. Pedestrian crossing is adjacent to the Library and main downtown area. Safety7 Increase lighting. Add signals. Add bold zebra crossing markings. Survey respondent indicates crossing difficulty due to distance from stop signs, poor visibility from nearby hill, and inattentive drivers. Safety8 Page 1 of 3 Label Type Description Suggested Improvement Increase lightingSurvey respondent indicates poorly lit area.Safety9 Add traffic calming measures, speed bumps, lighting. Reports of speeding cars from country roads not slowing down upon entering residential area. Safety10 Assess pedestrian safety near roundabout.Survey respondents challenge the safety of pedestrian crossings at roundabout due to traffic pattern and visibility challenges. Safety11 Sidewalk levelingSurvey respondent indicates highly uneven sidewalk.Safety12 Add traffic calming measures, speed bumps, lighting. Reports of speeding cars from country roads not slowing down upon entering residential area. Safety13 Sidewalk levelingSurvey respondent indicates uneven sidewalk causing injury. Safety14 Add sidewalksDangerous curve with poor visibility and no sidewalk on either side of the street. Connectivity15 Sidewalk resurfaceingSurvey respondent indicates sidewalk in poor repair with cracks and erosion. Safety16 Remove sidewalk obstructionShrubberyConnectivity17 Page 2 of 3 Label Type Description Suggested Improvement Add zebra crossing, four-way stop.Two-way stop in pedestrian area.Safety18 Add sidewalkThe sidewalk crossing the railway abruptly stops, presenting numerous accessibility challenges and negating the useful connectivity of the sidewalk. Connectivity19 Add bike parking at Piggly WigglyThe lone full-service grocery store in the city had no accomodations for bicycles, which precludes residents from performing their shopping by bike. Connectivity20 Add sidewalkMultiple kids walking on road away from school.Connectivity21 Add path to connect to Town.There is a desire path here that could be an easy connection. The parcel is owned by the Town. Connectivity22 Add zebra crossing, warning signageReports of ignored stop sign at frequented pedestrian crossing. Safety23 ADA compliant crossingsThe stone crossings are beautiful, but should be modified to meet ADA standards. Connectivity25 Extend bike lane / add warning signage. Add separated bike/pedestrian path. The bike lane suddenly runs out without any prior warning. Safety26 Prepare an alternate on-street route in case the City is unable to acquire easements for the separated path. The City has been unable to attain easements across some parcels to facilitate the separated bike/pedestrian path near the western City boundary. Connectivity27 Count: 26 Date Exported: 9/10/2026 1:00 PM Page 3 of 3 Pedestrian and Bike Safety Needs Label Type Description Suggested Improvement Add lighting. Add signal beacons. Raised crosswalks. Add bold zebra crossing markings. Add barrier / bollards to protect waiting bicyclists and pedestrians. The crossing is unprotected and poorly marked, but provides a direct connection to the City's only full- service grocery store. The bike route sign has been run over. Safety1 Increase lighting. Add signal beacons. Raised crosswalks. Add bold zebra crossing markings. Pedestrian signs get run over. Stop sign not obeyed.Safety2 Increase lighting. Add signal beacons. Raised crosswalks. Add bold zebra crossing markings and bike path signage. Bike route crosses US HWY 14 with no traffic management. Safety3 Widen pathThe bike path between Windsor Land and HWY M is too narrow for such an important E-W connector. Connectivity4 Add sidewalk and/or separated bike/pedestrian path. Road leads to post office but there is no sidewalk.Connectivity5 Increase lighting. Add signals. Add bold zebra crossing markings. At least one survey respondent indicated being struck by a car at this intersection. Nearby businesses such as the Culver's, sports bar, VFW, and pizzeria indicates frequent pedestrian traffic and needs suitable traffic signalling. Safety6 Increase lighting. Add signal beacons. Raised crosswalks. Add bold zebra crossing markings. Survey respondent indicates the need for increased illumination. Pedestrian crossing is adjacent to the Library and main downtown area. Safety7 Increase lighting. Add signals. Add bold zebra crossing markings. Survey respondent indicates crossing difficulty due to distance from stop signs, poor visibility from nearby hill, and inattentive drivers. Safety8 Page 1 of 3 Label Type Description Suggested Improvement Increase lightingSurvey respondent indicates poorly lit area.Safety9 Add traffic calming measures, speed bumps, lighting. Reports of speeding cars from country roads not slowing down upon entering residential area. Safety10 Assess pedestrian safety near roundabout.Survey respondents challenge the safety of pedestrian crossings at roundabout due to traffic pattern and visibility challenges. Safety11 Sidewalk levelingSurvey respondent indicates highly uneven sidewalk.Safety12 Add traffic calming measures, speed bumps, lighting. Reports of speeding cars from country roads not slowing down upon entering residential area. Safety13 Sidewalk levelingSurvey respondent indicates uneven sidewalk causing injury. Safety14 Add sidewalksDangerous curve with poor visibility and no sidewalk on either side of the street. Connectivity15 Sidewalk resurfaceingSurvey respondent indicates sidewalk in poor repair with cracks and erosion. Safety16 Remove sidewalk obstructionShrubberyConnectivity17 Page 2 of 3 Label Type Description Suggested Improvement Add zebra crossing, four-way stop.Two-way stop in pedestrian area.Safety18 Add sidewalkThe sidewalk crossing the railway abruptly stops, presenting numerous accessibility challenges and negating the useful connectivity of the sidewalk. Connectivity19 Add bike parking at Piggly WigglyThe lone full-service grocery store in the city had no accomodations for bicycles, which precludes residents from performing their shopping by bike. Connectivity20 Add sidewalkMultiple kids walking on road away from school.Connectivity21 Add path to connect to Town.There is a desire path here that could be an easy connection. The parcel is owned by the Town. Connectivity22 Add zebra crossing, warning signageReports of ignored stop sign at frequented pedestrian crossing. Safety23 ADA compliant crossingsThe stone crossings are beautiful, but should be modified to meet ADA standards. Connectivity25 Extend bike lane / add warning signage. Add separated bike/pedestrian path. The bike lane suddenly runs out without any prior warning. Safety26 Prepare an alternate on-street route in case the City is unable to acquire easements for the separated path. The City has been unable to attain easements across some parcels to facilitate the separated bike/pedestrian path near the western City boundary. Connectivity27 Count: 26 Date Exported: 2026-07-28 15:14 Page 3 of 3 Parks CIP 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Truck 75000 Kayak Launch 27000 Playground Rebuild Leota walk bridge 105000 Mower 72" 20000 20000 Playground ( by Spray Pad ) 100000 Playground ( unpper par ) 100000 Mill and overlay ( The rest ) 40000