City of Medford Oregon - Leisure Services Plan Back to Parks and Recreation Administration Leisure Services Plan Upcoming Programs and Events Adult Sport Leagues Youth Sports Programs Recreation Programs Park and Facility Developments Youth Activity Center Field Use Request Procedure/Form Park Maps and Facilities l00F EastWood Cemetery Public Art Rogue Valley Soccer Club Surveys Architects Page Agenda & Minutes Calendar Events FAQs Forms and Documents News and Events 411 West 8th Street, Room 225 Medford, Oregon 97501 Phone: (541) 774-2400 Fax: (541) 774-2560 Email: parks@cityofmedfor. . . Hours: 8a.m. - 5p.m. [advanced search] [sitemap] Parks Master Plan - Leisure Services Plan EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Medford is the largest city in Southern Oregon and a regional provider of park and recreation services. Rapid population growth has increased the demand for parks, recreation facilities, and programs community wide, and the City has developed a new plan to address meeting existing financial challenges while expanding recreation opportunities and maintaining existing resources. As Medford continues to grow and the City looks to the future, this plan will address community needs and provide new direction for the development of parks and leisure services for the next twenty-five years. The City has an excellent foundation for a thriving park system and the potential to provide comprehensive recreation programming for the entire community. However, to provide a higher level of service to residents, this plan supports both improvements to the existing system and early acquisition of new park land while the opportunity exists to do so. To view the Executive Summary in it's entirity please click here. Table of Contents (21 kb) a71 Chapter 1 Introduction (70 kb) a71 Chapter 2 Community Profile (224 kb) a71 Chapter 3 Existing Resources (151 kb) a71 Chapter 4 Needs Assessment (189 kb) a71 Chapter 5 Planning Policies and Guidelines (231 kb) a71 Chapter 6 Recommendations 425 kb) a71 Chapter 7 Implementation (274 kb) Bibliography (24 kb) Appendix A Existing Resources (151 kb) Appendix B Other Park Providers (177 kb) Appendix C Sports Facility Inventory (161 kb) Appendix D Community Workshops (803 kb) Appendix E Needs Assessment (711 kb) Appendix F Prioritizing Maintenance Projects (46 kb) http://www.ci.medford.or.us/Page.asp?NavID=1203 (1 of 30)11/15/2006 1:23:55 AM City of Medford Oregon - Leisure Services Plan View from Prescott Appendix G Probable Costs (16 kb) Map 1 Existing Park Resources Map 2 Neighborhood Park Service Areas Map 3 Trails Map 4 Community Park Service Areas Printer friendly version Copyright 2003 Project A, Inc. | Webmaster | Privacy Policy HomeMayor & CouncilCity DepartmentsOnline ServicesCommissions & CommitteesGet Involved Home http://www.ci.medford.or.us/Page.asp?NavID=1203 (2 of 30)11/15/2006 1:23:55 AM Medford Leisure Services Plan 2006 LEISURE SERVICES PLAN UPDATE Executive Summary INTRODUCTION Medford is the largest city in Southern Oregon and a regional provider of park and recreation services. Rapid population growth has increased the demand for parks, recreation facilities, and programs community wide, and the City has developed a new plan to address meeting existing financial challenges while expanding recreation opportunities and maintaining existing resources. In the past, the City has shown great vision in acquiring and developing park and recreation facilities to meet community needs. Facilities such as numerous sports fields, the Bear Creek Greenway and Bear Creek Park have become great community assets, attracting residents from all parts of Jackson County. In addition, through a cooperative effort with the Medford School District, the City has developed one of the best neighborhood school/park systems in the Northwest. However, a funding deficit has created problems in maintaining many park sites, and some parks are underdeveloped. Moreover, the City continues to utilize outdated facilities, such as Hawthorne and Jackson pools, which accrue huge operations costs that are not offset due to lower than typical fees. Past levels of recreation programming and community participation in City programs were lower than comparable communities; particularly for youth, teens, and seniors, driving a recent priority to increase recreation programs and services. As Medford continues to grow and the City looks to the future, this plan will address community needs and provide new direction for the development of parks and leisure services for the next twenty-five years. The City has an excellent foundation for a thriving park system and the potential to provide comprehensive recreation programming for the entire community. However, to provide a higher level of service to residents, this plan supports both improvements to the existing system and early acquisition of new park land while the opportunity exists to do so. EXISTING RESOURCES The Medford park system consists of both active and passive recreational areas, including a variety of park types, pathways, and facilities. The City of Medford manages approximately 2501 acres of park land, including nearly 75 acres leased from the Medford and Phoenix/Talent School Districts. The park land inventory includes over 454 acres of active parks, 14 acres of linear parks, nearly 1,923 acres of natural areas and greenways, and more than 124 acres of undeveloped sites. In addition, the City maintains nearly 15 acres of beautification areas, including greens, roadway strips and islands, and landscaped areas around buildings. The City of Medford is a significant provider of recreation and sport facilities. Additional facilities are provided by other entities as well, such as school districts and private providers. When all resources are counted, the total inventory for all recreation facilities in Medford is relatively high. However, some fields suffice as practice fields only, because they are inadequate for games. Other facilities have scheduling restrictions. The City provides many sports fields, but it depends on school facilities for use of gymnasiums and adult baseball fields. The City has two outdoor pools, but the community relies on private providers to meet indoor swimming needs. The following facilities in Medford are counted as part of Medford’s unrestricted inventory, meaning they are considered adequate for games/practice: � 1 adult baseball fields � 6 adult softball fields � 6 youth softball/baseball fields � 12 soccer fields � 1 football field � 2 gymnasiums � 0 square feet of pool space Additional inventory exists in a restricted capacity which is not considered readily available or adequate for games/practice. Executive Summary Page i Medford Leisure Services Plan 2006 Page ii Executive Summary COMMUNITY INPUT This Leisure Services Plan Update incorporates community input in several ways, including a community workshop, a sports group questionnaire, and a city-wide recreation survey. The community workshop was held on September 14, 2004, in the Santo Community Center. Key findings are summarized below: � Participants identified the following as the top facilities for priority development: � Sports field complex � Indoor recreation center � City-wide trail system � Preservation of Prescott Park as a natural area was emphasized. Greater notoriety, easier access, additional parking and a trail- head are desired, along with improved trail systems for pedestrians, bicycles, and horses. � Participants indicated that they support the expansion of recreational programming. � The top three issues identified for Medford parks and recreation were: � Funding � Park and facility maintenance � Upgrades to existing parks In Fall 2004, organized sports providers in Medford were asked to fill out a questionnaire regarding the number of teams and players in the league, season of play, field requirements, etc. This survey of sports group obtained information regarding 27 different programs for adults and youth provided by both the City and private providers in Medford. The data was used to determine sports field and facility needs. A city-wide survey of public attitudes, recreation interests, and recreation participation was conducted in Fall 2004. Completed questionnaires were obtained from 438 randomly selected households, representing four City quadrants and diverse opinions. Key findings included: � Neighborhood parks are the most frequently visited type of park or facility. � Of all park and recreation services, residents want most: � Upgrades to existing parks � Sports field development � More trails and pathways � Respondents clearly prefer an indoor pool aquatic center to meet future needs. � The survey supports increased programming for seniors, one of the fastest growing segments of the City of Medford population. � The survey supports increases to youth and teen programming. A growing national trend and awareness associating relatively minor teen programming costs with exponentially greater reduced law enforcement costs point to a substantial City cost benefit. � Respondents want more off-street, paved multi-purpose trails throughout Medford. PARK LAND AND FACILITY NEEDS Ten additional neighborhood parks and four community parks sites have been identified to meet Medford’s service area criteria for parks. However, the 25-year reduced project list adopted 1/19/2006 eliminated a number of the proposed sites. As these are typical facilities for a city the size of Medford, additional creative funding sources will be pursued for these facilities. As opportunities to develop greenways and linear parks along creeks, canals, utility corridors, and roadways arise, the City will seek to develop a trail system that will interconnect parks, schools, and recreation facilities. The City will also seek opportunities to add linear park and open space/greenways to include trails and pathways. The current deficiency in sports facilities is: � 5 adult hardball fields � 7 adult softball fields � 12 youth softball/baseball fields � 10 soccer fields There is a current need for one additional indoor pool. Two additional pools will be needed to meet future swimming needs. FACILITIES PLAN The Leisure Services Plan includes a facilities plan for existing parks, proposed new parks, and new facilities. Key points of the facility plan are summarized below: � Improvements are proposed to most of the City’s parks. Improvements include replacement or repair of aging facilities, changes to facilities to reduce maintenance costs, repair to vandalism, and the addition of new facilities to reflect the changing needs of Medford Leisure Services Plan 2006 Executive Summary Page iii a maturing park system. These projects are not growth related SDC eligible projects. � Significant upgrades are proposed for the outdoor pools at Hawthorne and Jackson parks. Maintenance costs of these two pools (which have aged beyond a pool’s typical life cycle) have become extreme. It is recommended that the City evaluate the feasibility of replacing Hawthorne pool with a water-park. � The Plan also recommends that the City develop an indoor recreation center/aquatic facility in the long term to meet swimming and gymnasium needs. � One new gymnasium is funded in the ’05 – ’07 biennium at the existing Santo Community Center. Two gymnasium courts are included in the 25-year plan, and may be integrated with the proposed community centers. � Four new community park sites have been identified to meet future service area needs as well as community needs for sports facilities. In places where large parcels are not available or where land costs are prohibitive, sites outside the UGB will be utilized. � A Community Park will be developed on a small portion of Prescott Park, providing improved access, additional parking, trail- heads, the development of an overlook and viewpoint, pedestrian and bike trails, added signage, and a caretaker’s residence. � The plan identifies several parks such as the Sports Park and Chrissy Park as mixed uses. � The acquisition and development of several small greenway connectors is planned to support the intra-community trail system and to increase park connectivity. � A joint plan for developing Alba Park and the Carnegie Building is contemplated. � The plan supports Medford Urban Renewal’s efforts for funding and implementing the Bear Creek Master plan and completing trail linkages along Bear Creek. � Existing City park land will be utilized for new parks whenever park service area requirements can be met. TRAILS PLAN A trails plan identifies potential routes for recreational trails, pathways, and bikeways to provide a safe trail network that links neighborhoods, parks, schools, recreation sites, and other community attractions. The trails plan includes: � Pedestrian/bike routes as well as an equestrian trail from the Southeast Plan Area, through Chrissy Park, and into Prescott Park. � Off-street paved, multi-purpose trails for walking and recreational biking. � A geographic distribution of trails balanced throughout the City. Acquisition of additional routes for future trails and pathways can be extremely challenging and/or expensive, especially in West Medford where infill is extensive. � Creation of a trail system will require inter- departmental cooperation for successful development of off street paths during the construction of new roads and the development of trails on land out of the UGB with Jackson County zoning. OTHER CONCLUSIONS � Working with partner agencies to help meet the demand for indoor and outdoor sports facilities will be of a high priority. � The City will seek to acquire park land in advance of need to reduce land acquisition costs. � Opportunities for program marketing and public information will continually be sought out. � An increase in the following recreation programs and services is anticipated: aquatics, instructional classes, special interest programs, outdoor programs, special events, and senior programs. � The Plan anticipates increasing recreation programs fees in alignment with fees charged by other providers community wide, while implementing scholarship programs and discounted services for residents in need. � Improved maintenance management through cost tracking to improve maintenance levels of service at parks and recreation facilities is identified as a priority. � The City will consider all sources of funding, including bonds, levies, grants, donations, and sponsorships, to address existing financial challenges. Medford Leisure Services Plan 2006 Page iv Executive Summary CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN The following 25-Year Capital plan was adopted 1/19/2006, funded by a 3-step SDC fee increasing over three years. An SDC fee for single family residences of $2,544 starts at 80% of this amount in ‘06, moves to 90% in ’07, and 100% in ’08. 25-Year Capital Plan Item Cost 2007 - 2012 Budget Neighborhood Park $1,860,000 Community/Urban Park $2,718,765 Recreation Facilities $444,300 Sub-total: $5,023,065 2012 - 2017 Budget Neighborhood Parks $1,200,000 Community/Urban Parks $3,000,000 Recreation Facilities $549,000 Sub-total: $4,749,00 2017 – 2022 Budget Neighborhood Parks $1,860,000 Community/Urban Parks $2,589,300 Recreation Facilities $596,700 Sub-total: $5,046,000 2022 – 2027 Budget Neighborhood Parks $1,207,500 Community/Urban Parks $2,589,300 Recreation Facilities $889,000 Sub-total: $4,685,800 2027 – 2032 Budget Neighborhood Parks $2,835,000 Community/Urban Parks $0 Recreation Facilities $1,916,420 Sub-total: $4,751,420 25-year Compliance Costs $1,575,000 TOTAL $27,822,500 The total cost for the 25-year Parks Master Plan was initially estimated to be $118,951,250, requiring an SDC fee for single family residence of $5,900. This is far more than the City will or can finance through SDC fees. The City adopted a reduced project list totaling $27,822,500 by eliminating a standard for Special Use Areas and linear parks; eliminating 5 Neighborhood and 2 Community Parks; eliminating 5 Adult Baseball/softball fields, 2 Football fields, 9 Soccer Fields, and 1 Gymnasium; and by not including Community Centers, an Aquatic Center, and many proposed trails. These eliminated facilities may be developed using alternative funding sources or developed with an increase to current SDC rates. The 25-year plan funds five new Neighborhood Parks, three utilizing existing park land. It also funds the completion of three existing and unfinished Neighborhood Parks. One additional new Neighborhood Park, Summerfield Park, is funded in the current budget, and should be constructed in the spring of 2006. The plan also completes one existing Community Park, funds the development of one Community Park on existing park land, and funds the acquisition and development of two new Community Parks. The following recreational facilities are funded by the 25-year plan: (18) Youth Baseball/Softball Fields ($628,200) (8) Adult Softball Fields ($1,006,200) (10) Soccer Fields ($1,941,800) (2) Gymnasium Basketball Courts ($1,500,000) 245 miles of trails ($1,126,000) Summary of Costs for SDC Eligible Growth Required & Deficiency Projects Item Cost 1) SDC Eligible Growth Cost $23,940,720 2) Park SDC Deficiency $3,881,780 TOTAL $27,822,500 As the City’s population increases, new facilities must be built to maintain the City’s current level of park, recreation and leisure services. Growth required facilities that were not built in the past become deficiency projects which can no longer be funded through park SDC funds. The 25-year cost of deficiency projects totals $3,881,780, which, when spread out over a 25-year period, will require $155,271 per year to complete. This is considered achievable anticipating grants, donations through the Parks and Recreation Foundation, volunteer efforts, as well as non-SDC funding sources both existing and proposed such as the Car Rental Tax, the Park Utility Fee, and a $10,000,000 bond which is assumed in the park SDC methodology. This Leisure Service plan contemplates all future park funding needs, both required and hoped for. It includes current maintenance and deferred maintenance from past funding shortfalls; replacement of aging facilities; upgrades needed to reduce maintenance costs; and new facilities expected of a vital and contemporary park system. The Parks and Recreation Department proposes a number of innovative funding strategies for the creation and maintenance of a park system the citizens of Medford have envisioned and need for their health and welfare. TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ....................................................1 Plan Development Public Involvement Report Organization CHAPTER 2: COMMUNITY PROFILE .........................................5 Regional Context Planning Area Natural Features Climate and Vegetation Demographic Characteristics CHAPTER 3: EXISTING PARKS AND FACILITIES ..................21 Park Land Classification City Park Land Sports Facilities CHAPTER 4: NEEDS ASSESSMENT........................................31 Community Workshop Findings Recreation Survey Results Summary of Park Land Needs Summary of Recreation Facility Needs CHAPTER 5: PLANNING POLICES AND GUIDELINES...........49 Conclusions Goals, Policies, and Implementation Strategies Guidelines for Site Selection and Development CHAPTER 6: STRATEGIES........................................................67 Parks and Facilities Trails, Pathways, and Bikeways Administration and Management Maintenance Recreation Programs and Services CHAPTER 7: IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY ...................... 111 Capital Projects Non-Capital Projects Preliminary Project Priorities Project Actions Basis for Estimating Costs Capital Costs Current Funding Availability Financing Strategy Maintenance and Operations Impacts Funding Sources BIBLIOGRAPHY ....................................................................... 129 APPENDICES (Published under a separate cover) Medford Parks, Greenways, and Recreation Areas A Parks and Facilities Provided by Others B Sports Facility Inventory C Recreation Demand D Park and Facility Needs Assessment E Priority Maintenance Projects F Opinion of Probable Construction Costs G FIGURES Figure # Planning Process 1.1 Regional Context 2.1 Medford Planning Area 2.2 Existing Park and Recreation Resources Map 3.1 Neighborhood Park Service Area Map 4.1 Community Park Service Area Map 4.2 Facility Plan 6.1 Trails Plan 6.2 TABLES Table # Historical Population Growth 1910-2000 2.1 Population Growth 1985-2003 2.2 Age Distributions 2000 2.3 Age by Category 2000 2.4 Income Levels 2000 2.5 Employment Classification 2000 2.6 Poverty Status 1990 2.7 Race Classification 1990 2.8 Percent Hispanic/Latino by Area 2000 2.9 Population Projections 2.10 Summary of Park Land by Classification 3.1 Summary of City Parks by Classification 3.2 Summary of Sports Facilities 3.3 Survey Summary 4.1 Household Survey Areas 4.2 Population Data Used in Analysis 4.3 Summary of Park Land Needs 4.4 Summary of Recreation Facility Needs 4.5 TABLES (Continued) Table # Index of Existing Parks 6.1 Index of Proposed Parks 6.2 Trails System 6.3 Estimated Costs for Capital Projects 7.1 Non-Capital Project Priorities 7.2 All Projects to Complete Plan 7.3 Summary of Probable Costs for Highest Priority Projects 7.4 Summary of Fund Appropriations 7.5 25-Year Capital Facilities Plan 7.6 Maintenance and Operating Impacts (Options A, B, C) 7.7 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION In the summer of 2004, the City of Medford began updating the Leisure Services Plan to address park, recreation, and service needs for next 20 years. This plan describes a strategy for meeting these future community needs. It assesses the public demand for park and recreation facilities, establishes policies and guidelines for park planning and development, identifies general locations of future parks and trails, recommends improvements to existing facilities, and describes a financing strategy to implement priority recommendations. Leisure Services Plan Development: 1. Leisure Service Planning Process 2. Parks SDC Methodology Update 3. Final Leisure Services Plan adoption In the past, the City has shown great vision in acquiring and developing park and recreation facilities that have become major assets in the community. Facilities such as the Bear Creek Greenway and Bear Creek Park are considered jewels in Medford, attracting residents from all parts of Jackson County. In addition, through a cooperative effort with the Medford School District, the City has developed one of the best neighborhood school-park systems in the Northwest. As Medford grows, the City will need to meet future financial challenges in order to acquire new park and open space sites, develop facilities and trails, and adequately maintain the park system. Simultaneously, programs and services will need to be expanded to meet increasing community needs. This plan provides guidance on how to implement these recommendations while developing an interconnected and accessible park system. 1.1 PLAN DEVELOPMENT The planning process for updating the City’s Leisure Services Plan was made up of three steps; the Leisure Services Planning process, the Parks & Recreation SDC Methodology Update, and the Final Leisure Services Plan adoption. Leisure Service Planning Process � Phase I: To establish a framework for the plan, Phase I included an inventory and analysis of existing recreation resources in the Medford planning area. This information incorporated a community profile, a review of population growth patterns, an inventory of the City’s existing parks and recreation facilities, and an analysis of park and recreation operations, maintenance, and programs. � Phase II: A comprehensive assessment of recreation needs in the Medford area began by measuring public opinion, recreation Leisure Services Plan Update 1 CHAPTER 1 patterns, and perceived needs through a community workshop, city-wide recreation survey, and sport group questionnaire. From this information and with input from an advisory committee, needs were determined for park land, open space, and recreation facilities. � Phase III: In Phase III, recommendations were developed for improving existing parks and acquiring and developing new parks, trails, and recreational facilities. In addition, strategies were proposed to bring administration, maintenance, and programming in line with community expectations. � Phase IV: The last phase involved creating an action plan to implement recommendations and a financing strategy for funding priority improvements. Parks and Recreation System Development Charges Methodology Update Phase I: In October of 2005, Don Ganer & Associates, Inc. developed a System Development Charge fee of $5,528/single family residence based on a project list from MIG’s Leisure Services Plan resulting in a SDC fee roughly twice as large as the community was willing to support. Phase II: Parks & Recreation staff developed a greatly reduced project list (totaling $27,822,500) supporting an SDC fee of $2,544. Council adopted this project list in a 25-year SDC Capacity Improvements Plan, and adopted a three year stepped SDC fee increase graduated up to the $2,544 amount. Final Leisure Service Plan Phase I: Park staff then merged the collective work of the two year process with the adopted 25-year plan into a Final Leisure Services Plan Phase II: Incorporation of this Final Parks, Recreation and Leisure Services Plan Update into the City of Medford Comprehensive Plan through a plan amendment is the final step of this process. 1.2 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT To develop a solid foundation for the Leisure Services Plan, the planning process involved input from several public involvement 2 Leisure Services Plan Update CHAPTER 1 activities and review by an advisory group. Medford residents contributed to the development of the plan through three public involvement venues: � Recreation Survey: A city-wide survey of public attitudes, recreation interests, and recreation participation was conducted in Fall 2004. A survey sample of 438 responses was obtained from the four quadrants of the City. � Community Workshop: Sixteen people attending a community workshop on September 14, 2004, to discuss their vision for parks, recreation facilities, and programs in Medford. � Sports Group Survey: Organizations providing sports leagues in Medford were asked to fill out a questionnaire regarding the number of teams and players in the league, season of play, and field requirements. The sports group survey obtained information regarding 27 different programs for adults and youth provided by both the City and private providers in Medford. This data was used to determine sports field and facility needs. In addition to the public involvement activities, a Steering Committee, consisting of key City staff and citizens representing a variety of community interests, met regularly throughout the planning process. This group provided advice and insight by discussing critical issues facing Medford parks and recreation and by reviewing key reports in the development of the Plan. Similarly, the Parks and Recreation Commission also provided direction during the planning process. 1.3 REPORT ORGANIZATION The Leisure Service Plan is organized into seven chapters and seven appendices: � Chapter 1: Introduction describes the purpose of the report, the planning process, the public involvement activities, and the organization of this document. � Chapter 2: Community Profile discusses the profile of Medford that provides the framework for the Plan. This includes a discussion of the planning area, the regional context, natural features, climate, and demographic characteristics. � Chapter 3: Existing Parks and Facilities summarizes the park and facility inventory and analyzes the City’s park land according to a park classification system. Leisure Services Plan Update 3 CHAPTER 1 � Chapter 4: Needs Assessment presents methodology overview and results of the facility needs assessment process. � Chapter 5: Planning Policies and Guidelines introduces the goals and policies that will guide the implementation of this Plan. This chapter also presents guidelines for the design and development of parks and facilities. � Chapter 6: Strategies identifies the anticipated methods for improving the existing parks system and the goals for the acquisition and development of new sites and specialized facilities. It also introduces strategies for recreation programming and the administration and maintenance of parks and facilities. � Chapter 7: Implementation Strategy identifies potential funding sources and financing strategies for priority capital improvements, programs, and projects. � Appendix A: City of Medford Parks, Greenways, and Recreation Areas provides a summary description of existing City parks, along with their facilities and significant natural areas. � Appendix B: Parks and Facilities Provided by Others describes the park and recreation resources owned by other public and private entities that attract people to the Medford Planning Area and surrounding region. � Appendix C: Sports Facility Inventory contains a detailed inventory of sports fields, gymnasiums, and pools in Medford. � Appendix D: Recreation Demand includes an account of all public involvement results. � Appendix E: Park and Facility Needs Assessment presents the analysis of park land and recreation facilities used in the identification of community needs for these resources. � Appendix F: Priority Maintenance Projects lists projects identified by Maintenance Staff as significant maintenance projects that have been deferred over the last 3-4 years. � Appendix G: Opinion of Probable Costs lists MIG’s estimated costs for all projects identified by maintenance staff as Priority 1. The appendices are published under a separate cover. 4 Leisure Services Plan Update CHAPTER 2 Leisure Services Plan Update 5 COMMUNITY PROFILE Key Elements of the Community Profile: 1. Regional Context 2. Planning Area 3. Natural Features 4. Climate and Vegetation 5. Demographics The City of Medford is a major provider of park and recreation services in the city and in the region. This chapter provides a profile of Medford characteristics in the planning context of parks, recreation facilities, and programs. This profile includes a description of the region, planning area, natural features, climate and vegetation, and population characteristics. 2.1 REGIONAL CONTEXT Medford is located in southern Oregon in the heart of the Rogue River Valley. Located off Interstate 5, just 27 miles north of the California border, Medford is the industrial, medical, and service center of southern Oregon and northern California. The City lies approximately 25 miles southeast of Grants Pass, 12 miles northwest of Ashland, 76 miles west of Klamath Falls, and 118 miles east of the Pacific Ocean. Medford is about midway between Portland, 273 miles to the north, and San Francisco, 373 miles to the south. Medford borders the City of Central Point on the northwest and is conveniently connected to Phoenix, Talent, and Ashland to the southeast by I-5 and the Bear Creek Greenway Trail. Figure 2.1 illustrates the regional context of Medford. Figure 2.1: Regional Context CHAPTER 2 6 Leisure Services Plan Update 2.2 PLANNING AREA The planning area for this study includes land within the City limits of Medford plus the unincorporated land within the City’s urban growth boundary (UGB). The specific boundaries are a point north of East Vilas Road on the north, Oregon Hills/Roxy Ann Butte on the east, Stage Road on the south, and the Central Point City limits and a point west of Ross Lane/Thomas Lane on the west. Figure 2.2 illustrates the planning area. 2.3 NATURAL FEATURES Medford’s terrain is defined by its location in a river valley surrounded by mountains. The Rogue River runs approximately three miles north of the City, at its closest point. At 1,382 feet above sea level, Medford is surrounded by rugged mountains that range from 3,000 to more than 8,000 feet in elevation. These include the Umpqua Divide to the north, the Cascades to the east, the Coast Range to the west, and the Siskiyous to the south. Visually, the snow-capped volcanic peak of Mount McLoughlin dominates the skyline east of Medford. Just north of the City, there are two flat-topped volcanic buttes, the Upper and Lower Table Rocks, which rise nearly 800 feet above the valley floor. Physical features have divided the City into two distinct areas based on topography: the valley floor and the hillsides. The valley floor extends from the western edge of the planning area to Foothill Road, which runs near the eastern edge of town. The terrain is generally level and consists of gentle to moderate slopes. East of Foothill Road, the terrain changes to moderate to steep hillsides that slope toward Bear Creek. These hillsides, particularly in southeast Medford, have experienced increasing development in the last few years. Medford has several natural features that provide unique recreational opportunities. Bear Creek and Roxy Ann Butte are two of the City’s most notable features. Bear Creek, which flows through the City, is bordered by steep banks and riparian vegetation. The City and the Bear Creek Greenway Foundation have acquired portions of this corridor in an effort to create a continuous greenway from Central Point to Ashland. On the eastern edge of Medford, Roxy Ann Butte offers excellent views of the valley and the surrounding area. The City owns Prescott Park, which encompasses a majority of Roxy Ann Butte. CHAPTER 2 Leisure Services Plan Update 7 Insert Medford Planning Area map (Figure 2.2) CHAPTER 2 8 Leisure Services Plan Update Back – leave blank CHAPTER 2 Leisure Services Plan Update 9 Other notable features in the area include Larson Creek, Lazy Creek, Crooked Creek, and Griffin Creek. Each of these creeks is a tributary of the Bear Creek drainage corridor. The City has developed some pathways and trails along these corridors that could eventually provide connections to the Bear Creek Greenway. Some canals, such as Hopkins Canal, Phoenix Canal, and Main Canal, also may provide possible corridors for future trails. Medford’s varying terrain and natural resources provide many opportunities for recreation. 2.4 CLIMATE AND VEGETATION Protected by the surrounding mountains, Medford has a relatively mild climate and four distinct seasons, providing diverse opportunities for year-round recreation. In general, the climate is wet and cool in the winters and hot and dry in the summers. Medford averages 20.6 inches of precipitation per year, of which 3-8 inches is snowfall on the valley floor. Yearly snowfall is more common and heavy in the surrounding mountains than in the valley, where any accumulation typically melts within a few hours. The average winter temperature is 36 degrees. Summers average 94 degrees and typically have 15 days over 100 degrees. Humidity is low, and the average growing season is 170 days. The native vegetation around Medford is a mix of three plant communities: � Oak savannah: Once covered with native bunch grasses, this grassland is now dominated by non-native grasses, colorful wildflowers, white oak, and some ponderosa pine. � Rogue Valley chaparral: Plants found in chaparral must be able to live in hot, dry conditions in shallow soils. Shrubs such as the buckbrush and white-leaf manzanita are common. � Oak-pine woodland: This type of mixed woodland is a zone where oak savanna and chaparral communities merge with a sparse mix of madrone, black oak, Douglas fir, and Ponderosa pine. Poison oak is common here. This natural vegetation affects the development of parks and facilities by introducing a variety of opportunities and challenges. For example, native and non-native grasses and broadleafs affect the quality and maintenance of athletic fields, and lush green lawns will require significant irrigation. CHAPTER 2 10 Leisure Services Plan Update Additional trees may be desired in City parks to provide more shade than provided by the sparse trees that grow there naturally. Also, poison oak is a concern in places such as Prescott Park. In addition to native plant communities, Medford is well known for pear orchards that once covered the valley and the gently sloping foothills around the city. These orchards have influenced the character and economy of the City, as well as inspired several special events, such as the springtime Pear Blossom Festival. This Citywide, five-day festival includes a parade, a golf tournament, a 5-K run, an arts and crafts fair, and other recreational opportunities. 2.5 DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS Demographic characteristics and trends are important to note because they influence recreational interests and participation. Just as population growth creates new demand for park and recreation services, factors such as age, employment, income, and ethnicity also play a role in determining recreational interests. These factors may affect an individual’s level of participation as well as his or her ability and desire to pursue active recreation. Population With an estimated 2003 population of 68,080, the City of Medford is the largest city in Jackson County and the seventh largest city in Oregon. According to the U.S. Census, the City's 2000 population was 63,154 persons. The population base creates a sizable demand for parks and recreation opportunities. Since Medford is the service center for southern Oregon, the City’s facilities draw people from throughout the County. In 2003, Jackson County’s population was estimated at 189,100 persons. The U.S. Census recorded 181,269 people in Jackson County in 2000. Of this, 111,905 (61.7%) were from the Medford Census County Division (CCD). This statistical county subdivision includes Central Point, Jacksonville, Phoenix, Medford, and the Medford vicinity. Population Growth The City of Medford has grown continuously since its incorporation in 1885, with the exception of a period from 1910- 1920. Table 2.1 illustrates population growth for the City of Medford and Jackson County since 1900. Although the growth rate has fluctuated over the last century, Medford has seen a steady increase in population throughout the last 60 years. CHAPTER 2 Leisure Services Plan Update 11 Table 2.1 Historical Population Growth 1910-2000 City of Medford and Jackson County Year City of Medford Percent Increase Jackson County Percent Increase 1900 1,791 --- NA 1910 8,840 +393.5% NA 1920 5,756 -34.9% NA 1930 11,007 +90.2% NA 1940 11,281 +2.5% 36,213 --- 1950 17,305 +53.4% 58,510 +61.6% 1960 24,425 +41.1% 73,962 +26.4% 1970 28,454 +16.5% 94,533 +27.8% 1980 39,746 +39.7% 132,456 +40.1% 1990 46,951 +18.1% 146,389 +10.6% 2000 63,154 +34.5% 181,269 +23.8% Sources: Portland State Population Research Center, U.S. Census Bureau Bold numbers represent periods of significant population growth As the table above shows, Medford’s population grew from 46,951 to 63,151 persons between the years 1990 and 2000. This 34.5 percent increase is even greater than Jackson County’s overall rate of growth (23.8%). Table 2.2 illustrates the population growth in the City of Medford on an annual basis starting in 1985. Medford’s population has steadily increased since then, averaging about 3.3% growth annually during that period. Even in the last 10 years, Medford has reported an average annual increase of 2.97%. This rate of growth will be significant in predicting the community’s need for recreation resources in the future. CHAPTER 2 12 Leisure Services Plan Update Table 2.2 Population Growth 1985-2003 City of Medford Year Population % Change 1985 41,975 ------ 1986 42,460 1.2% 1987 43,875 3.3% 1988 45,000 2.6% 1989 45,290 0.6% 1990 46,951 3.7% 1991 49,050 4.5% 1992 49,900 1.7% 1993 51,215 2.6% 1994 52,504 2.5% 1995 55,090 4.9% 1996 57,155 3.7% 1997 57,610 0.8% 1998 58,895 2.2% 1999 No data ------ 2000 63,720 ------ 2001 64,730 1.6% 2002 66,090 2.1% 2003 68,080 3.0% Note: Data for the years 2001-2003 are estimates. Sources: Portland State Population Research Center, City of Medford Planning Department Age Age is a significant factor in determining recreational interests. In general, the older the population, the less they participate in active or competitive recreation activities. Youths tend to participate in recreation activities more frequently than any other age group and favor activities that are more active and competitive in nature. These activities have historically included basketball, baseball, soccer, swimming, and bicycling. However, an emerging trend has been towards extreme, non-competitive sports, such as skateboarding, in-line skating, and mountain biking. Young adults (ages 18-35) are also active and form the core of adult competitive sports. Older adults (ages 35-65) typically have less time to devote to recreational activities and tend to be more concerned about maintaining a home and a job. Recreational time is at a premium and often limited to weekends and occasional evenings. However, some of these adults may participate in parent/child programs. CHAPTER 2 Leisure Services Plan Update 13 Jackson County has a slightly different population profile than the rest of the State of Oregon. In general, the county population is slightly older than the state population overall (Table 2.3). The median age in Jackson County is 39.2, whereas the median age for the State is 36.3. In the City of Medford, an analysis of age distribution indicates a higher percentage of people over the age of 65 than in the rest of the state. Approximately, 16.5% of the City’s population is age 65 and over, in comparison to 12.8% in Oregon overall. Medford is characterized by an above average number of senior citizens and retirees. The City’s adult population tends to be smaller than in both Jackson County and the State. However, over a quarter of Medford’s population is youth ages 18 and under. This profile may suggest the City should pay special attention to the needs of youth and seniors before other age groups. Table 2.3 Age Distributions 2000 Selected Geographic Areas Selected Geographical Area Ages 18 and Under Ages 18 to 64 Age 65 and Over Median Age State of Oregon 24.7% 62.4% 12.8% 36.3 Jackson County 24.4% 59.6% 16.0% 39.2 City of Medford 25.8% 57.7% 16.5% 37.0 City of Ashland 18.8% 66.3% 14.8% 37.9 City of Grants Pass 26.0% 54.5% 19.4% 37.9 City of Klamath Falls 25.5% 61.8% 12.8% 33.4 City of Roseburg 23.2% 57.8% 18.9% 39.2 Sources: Portland State Population Research Center, U.S. Census Bureau CHAPTER 2 14 Leisure Services Plan Update Table 2.4 lists the specific age breakdowns for the City of Medford, along with their percentage of the total population. Table 2.4 Age by Category 2000 City of Medford Category Population Percentage 0-4 4,398 7.0% 5-9 4,652 7.4% 10-14 4,553 7.2% 15-19 4,193 6.6% 20-24 3,956 6.3% 25-34 8,064 12.8% 35-44 9,150 14.5% 45-54 8,521 13.5% 55-59 3,018 4.8% 60-64 2,214 3.5% 65-74 4,529 7.2% 75-84 4,230 6.7% 85+ 1,676 2.7% TOTAL 63,154 100.0% Sources: Portland State Population Research Center, U.S. Census Bureau Income and Employment Income levels are also important clues in recreation planning. In general, the higher income groups tend to be more active and participate in more expensive types of activities. Although income levels within the City of Medford are lower than the State of Oregon as a whole, they are slightly higher than the rest of Jackson County and higher than similar cites in neighboring counties. Table 2.5 shows a comparison of the median household and per capita incomes from Medford and selected areas. CHAPTER 2 Leisure Services Plan Update 15 Table 2.5 Income Levels 2000 Selected Areas Selected Geographical Area Median Household Income Per Capita Income State of Oregon $40,916 $20,940 Jackson County $36,461 $19,498 City of Medford $36,481 $20,170 City of Ashland $32,670 $21,292 City of Grants Pass $29,197 $16,234 City of Klamath Falls $28,498 $16,710 City of Roseburg $31,250 $17,082 Sources: Portland State Population Research Center, U.S. Census Bureau Table 2.6 includes an occupational analysis of the labor force in Medford and other cities in Southern Oregon. Data shows that the greatest percentage of people in Medford work in sales, management, or other professional or office positions. This has changed since 1990, when the largest number of residents were employed in service occupations, followed by manufacturing. This shift parallels an upward shift in household income since 1990 for many households in the City. Not everyone in Medford is making more money, as the average numbers would indicate. A large percentage of families in southern Oregon fall below poverty level (Table 2.7). Medford’s poverty rate is higher than in Jackson County and the State of Oregon overall. In general, impoverished families may rely on the use of City-provided facilities, such as playgrounds, for recreation. They also create a demand for inexpensive leisure services and the possibility for scholarship opportunities. Although homelessness is difficult to gauge using census data, Medford’s large number of families below poverty level may correspond to a high incidence of homelessness in the area. Transient populations may use park facilities, such as restrooms and picnic shelters, in a way that limits use by other groups. They may also create a perceived need for increased security in parks. CHAPTER 2 16 Leisure Services Plan Update Table 2.6 Employment Classification 2000 Selected Areas Selected Geographical Area Management, Professional and Related Occupations Service Occupations Sales and Office Occupations Farming, Fishing and Forestry Occupations Construction, Extraction, and Maintenance Occupations Production, Transportation, and Material Moving Occupations State of Oregon 33.1% 15.3% 26.1% 1.7% 9.1% 14.7% Jackson County 30.6% 17.4% 26.6% 1.5% 9.5% 14.4% City of Medford 29.2% 17.5% 29.3% 1.4% 8.9% 13.8% City of Ashland 49.8% 19.8% 21.0% 0.3% 3.4% 5.8% City of Grants Pass 28.7% 20.4% 26.8% 1.2% 10.7% 12.4% City of Klamath Falls 31.1% 18.6% 23.4% 1.7% 9.6% 15.7% City of Roseburg 30.8% 19.7% 23.8% 1.1% 8.0% 16.6% Sources: Portland State Population Research Center, U.S. Census Bureau Table 2.7 Poverty Status 1999 Selected Areas Area Percent Below Poverty Level State of Oregon 7.9% Jackson County 8.9% City of Medford 10.3% City of Ashland 12.5% City of Grants Pass 12.2% City of Klamath Falls 16.2% City of Roseburg 11.0% Source: Portland State Population Research Center CHAPTER 2 Leisure Services Plan Update 17 Ethnicity Ethnicity is a significant factor in determining recreation interests and participation levels. Some ethnic groups have a higher level of participation in specific types of recreational activities, which would increase the demand for certain types of facilities. Population classifications based on race are listed in Table 2.8. An analysis of race and ethnic background in Medford reveals that a majority of City residents (90.0%) are white. However, a significant percentage of Medford’s population (9.2%) is also Hispanic or Latino. Table 2.9 shows a comparison of the total population of Hispanic or Latino descent in Medford and selected areas. Medford has a higher percentage of residents of Hispanic/Latino descent than in Jackson County and the State of Oregon overall. Table 2.8 Race Classification 1990 City of Medford Type Percentage White 90.0% Other 3.9% American Indian and Alaskan Native 1.1% Asian Black or African American 0.5% Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 0.3% Two or more races 3.2% Sources: Portland State Population Research Center, U.S. Census Bureau CHAPTER 2 18 Leisure Services Plan Update Table 2.9 Percent Hispanic/Latino by Area 2000 Selected Areas Selected Geographical Areas Percent Hispanic or Latino State of Oregon 8.0% Jackson County 6.7% City of Medford 9.2% City of Ashland 3.6% City of Grants Pass 5.4% City of Klamath Falls 9.3% City of Roseburg 3.7% Source: U.S. Census Bureau Population Projections New population growth is a basic reason for increased demand for park and recreation services. As reported in the 2004 State of the City address, “Southern Oregon, with Medford as its economic driver, is predicted to be the fastest growing region in the state for the 2002-2012 timeframe, growing at a rate of 15.6% during those years.” This growth will place pressure on Medford’s existing recreational resources and create a demand for new facilities, programs, and services. Table 2.10 shows a 50-year population forecast for the City of Medford. According to the projected data, Medford will have a population of 74,164 in 2010. If Medford continues to grow at its current rate (approximately 3% annually), the City could expect in the year 2010 to have a population of 82,100. According to the Planning Department, long-term population forecasts for the region anticipate population growth at a slightly decreasing rate in the next 50 years. The City will surpass 100,000 people by the end of decade 2030, and there will be over 111,000 people living in Medford by the year 2050. The City will need to be able to expand park land, recreation facilities, and programs to meet the needs of this sizable population base. CHAPTER 2 Leisure Services Plan Update 19 Table 2.10 Population Projections City of Medford Year Medford Population 2000 63,154 2003 68,080 2005 69,222 2010 74,164 2020 84,471 2030 93,770 2040 102,054 2050 111,068 Source: Medford Planning Department CHAPTER 3 Leisure Services Plan Update 21 Park Classifications: 1. Neighborhood Parks 2. Community Parks 3. Special Use Areas 4. Linear Parks 5. Natural Open Space/Greenways EXISTING PARKS AND FACILITIES The City of Medford Parks and Recreation Department is the primary provider of park land and recreation facilities for City residents. This chapter provides a summary of existing City parks and recreation resources in the Medford planning area. Section 3.1 describes the park land classification system used to categorize and analyze specific park sites. Section 3.2 provides a detailed account of City-owned or City-leased parks and facilities. Section 3.3 includes a summary of sports facilities for the Medford planning area. A complete inventory of City parks, along with a one-page summary of facilities, site deficiencies, and planned improvements, is included in Appendix A. Other public agencies and private organizations–including Jackson County, two school districts, and private clubs–also provide some park and recreation facilities in the Medford vicinity. Appendix B notes the recreation resources of these other providers. 3.1 PARK LAND CLASSIFICATIONS The most effective park system to develop and manage is one made up of different types of parks, open space areas, and recreational venues, each designed to provide a specific type of recreation experience and opportunity. A park system that is classified and used properly is easier to maintain, encounters less conflicts between user groups, and minimizes negative impacts on adjoining neighbors. A good park classification system also helps assess what facilities are available for current use and what types of parks will be needed to serve the community in the future. In order to assess the park system in Medford and to address specific park land needs, parks have been divided into the following categories: � Neighborhood parks: Neighborhood parks are a combination playground and park designed primarily for non- supervised, non-organized recreation activities. Located within walking and bicycling distance of most users, they are generally moderate in size (about 1 - 5 acres) and serve people living within approximately one-half mile of the park. Neighborhood parks provide access to basic recreation opportunities for nearby residents, enhance neighborhood identity, and preserve neighborhood open space. Facilities typically found in neighborhood parks include playgrounds, picnic tables and benches, trails, open grass areas/informal play areas, and outdoor basketball courts. When neighborhood parks are designed in conjunction with school sites, these sites typically include multi-use sport fields. CHAPTER 3 22 Leisure Services Plan Update Donahue-Frohnmayer Park and Lone Pine School Park are examples of neighborhood parks. � Community parks: A community park is a larger park that provides active and structured recreation opportunities primarily for young people and adults. These parks serve a much larger area, roughly up to two-miles from the park. Community parks typically include facilities to support large group activities, such as a sports field complex. Also, they are large enough to allow for passive recreation opportunities as well as individual and family use. Community parks may provide pools, community gardens, or indoor facilities to meet a wider range of recreation interests. As a result, they require more support facilities such as parking and restrooms. Fichtner-Mainwaring Park and Hawthorne Park are examples of community parks. � Special use areas: Special use areas are sites often occupied by a specialized facility. Parks in this category include waterfront parks, boat ramps, botanical gardens, memorials, community gardens, single purpose sites used for a particular field sport, or sites occupied by buildings. The portion of Railroad Park used by the train clubs would be an example of a special use area. � Linear parks: Linear parks are developed, landscaped areas that follow linear corridors such as street rights-of-way and other elongated features. This type of park usually contains paved path, landscaped areas, viewpoints, and seating areas. The Biddle Road Pathway is an example of a linear park. � Natural open space areas/greenways: Natural open space is undeveloped land primarily left in its natural form and secondarily managed for recreational use. This type of park may include wetlands, steep hillsides, or other similar spaces. In some cases, environmentally sensitive areas are considered open space and can include wildlife habitats, stream and creek corridors, or unique and/or endangered plant species. Natural open space areas can provide some opportunities for nature-based recreation, such as hiking, wildlife viewing, environmental education, and nature photography. Public access may be limited in these areas. Prescott Park and the Bear Creek Greenway are considered natural open space/greenways. � Undeveloped sites: Undeveloped sites have been acquired by the City and designated as future park sites. Currently, these sites have not been developed, and in many cases, they have been designated for a specific park use. Table Rock Park is an example of an undeveloped site. CHAPTER 3 Leisure Services Plan Update 23 � Beautification areas: Beautification areas may include landscaped areas around buildings, greens, entryways, street islands, and maintained strips along street rights-of-way and pathways. The landscaping in these areas may vary widely, ranging from low maintenance trees and mulch to high maintenance flowerbeds and facilities, such as fountains, picnic tables, hanging baskets, sculpture/artwork, gardens, and signage. � Trails: The City has the foundation to a trail system with the Bear Creek Greenway trail. When it is completed, it will connect the city to adjacent cities from Ashland to Central Point as well as parks within the city. Trail surfaces include a standard for a ten (10) foot wide asphalt trail as well as gravel roads and unpaved trail systems at parks such as Prescott Park and Holmes Park. Maintenance of the trails includes repairs from root damage, occasional flooding and erosion, removal of trees that have fallen, and general wear from use. CHAPTER 3 24 Leisure Services Plan Update 3.2 CITY PARK LAND The park system in Medford consists of a variety of parks, recreation facilities, and open space areas. The City of Medford is the primary provider of these parks and facilities. The Medford Parks and Recreation Department manages 2,509.42 acres of park land, including 2,434.53 acres owned by the City and 74.89 acres leased from two school districts. Combined, the acreage supports twenty-one neighborhood parks, six community parks, seven special use areas, two linear parks, six greenways, and four undeveloped sites. Figure 3.1 illustrates the location of these facilities. The majority of these parks are owned by the City of Medford. However, special leasing agreements with the Medford School District and the Phoenix/Talent School District have been highly successful in providing parks and recreation opportunities at school sites. The City of Medford leases 71.89 acres at 11 schools from the Medford School District. Additionally, the City leases 3.0 acres from the Phoenix/Talent School District at one site. Together, these leased school parks contribute 74.89 acres to the City’s parkland inventory. (See Appendix B for details on park land provided by school districts.) Park land in the Medford Planning Area is summarized by park classification in Table 3.1 Table 3.1 Summary of Park Land by Classification Medford Planning Area Park Land Areas City-Owned Acreage City-Leased Acreage Number of Sites City of Medford Park Land Neighborhood Parks 73.77 57.09 21 Community Parks 210.39 17.80 6 Special Use Areas 212.84 6 Linear Parks 14.42 2 Natural Open Space/Greenways 1,923.11 6 TOTAL 2,434.53 74.89 47 * TOTAL PARK LAND ACREAGE 2,509.42 * Some sites have multiple park types such as Railroad Park- a Special Use area and Neighborhood park. CHAPTER 3 Leisure Services Plan Update 25 Insert Figure 3.1: Existing Resources Map CHAPTER 3 26 Leisure Services Plan Update Figure 3.1: Existing Resources Map (back) CHAPTER 3 Leisure Services Plan Update 27 Park sites owned and leased by the City of Medford are presented by park classification in Table 3.2. The first column may contain (in parentheses) the total acreage of the park. The second column would then identify the portion of the total which is of the particular park classification being listed in the table. Table 3.2 Summary of City Parks by Classification Medford Planning Area Park Area Acres Status Neighborhood Parks Alba Park 1.52 Developed Chrissy Park (165.58) 1.50 Undeveloped Cherry Lane 1.56 Under construction Delta Waters School Park 13.26 Partially Developed Donahue-Frohnmayer Park 10.20 Partially Developed Earhart Park 1.60 Partially Developed Hoover School Park 3.85 Developed Holmes Park (18.36) 4.49 Partially Developed Howard School Park 8.55 Developed Jackson School Park 9.44 Developed Jefferson School Park 8.45 Developed Kennedy School Park 12.96 Partially Developed Lewis Street Park 8.56 Under construction Lone Pine School Park 9.82 Partially Developed Midway Park 3.00 Undeveloped Orchard Hill School Park 3.00 Developed Oregon Hills Park (16.00) 3.00 Undeveloped Railroad Park (12.34) 2.34 Developed Roosevelt School Park 2.78 Developed Ruhl Park 1.15 Developed Table Rock Park (7.49) 3.00 Undeveloped Union Park 2.16 Developed Veteran’s Park 2.29 Developed Washington School Park 4.56 Developed Wilson School Park 7.82 Developed TOTAL 130.86 Community Parks Bear Creek Park (101.23) 50.69 Partially Developed Fichtner-Mainwaring Park 30.95 Partially Developed Hawthorne Park 13.00 Developed Prescott Park (1,740) 15.00 Partially Developed Sports Park (132.72) 100.00 Partially Developed North Medford School Park 17.80 Developed TOTAL 228.19 CHAPTER 3 28 Leisure Services Plan Update Table 3.2 (continued) Park Area Acres Status Special Use Areas Carnegie Building 1.75 Partially Developed Chrissy Park (165.85) 164.08 Undeveloped Holmes Park (18.36) 13.87 Partially Developed IOOF/Eastwood Historic Cemetery 19.00 Developed Railroad Park (12.34) 10.00 Developed Santo Community Center 3.90 Developed Virginia Vogel Plaza 0.24 Developed TOTAL 212.84 Linear Parks Biddle Road Pathway 5.63 Developed East McAndrews Pathway 8.79 Developed TOTAL 14.42 Natural Open Space Areas/Greenways Bear Creek Park (101.23) 50.31 Partially Developed Bear Creek Greenway properties 83.09 Partially Developed Larson Creek Greenway 8.20 Partially Developed Lazy Creek Greenway 6.30 Partially Developed Prescott Park (1,740) 1,725.00 Partially Developed Table Rock Park (7.49) 4.49 Undeveloped Medford Sports Park (132.72) 32.72 Undeveloped Oregon Hills (16.00) 13.00 Undeveloped TOTAL 1,923.11 TOTAL PARK LAND 2,509.42 CHAPTER 3 Leisure Services Plan Update 29 3.3 SPORTS FACILITIES The City of Medford provides many sports facilities throughout the Medford Planning Area. Facility categories include: � Adult baseball fields � Adult softball fields � Youth baseball/softball fields � Soccer fields (youth and adult) � Football fields � Gymnasiums (indoor courts) � Swimming pools � Trails Facility Inventory Sports facilities within the Medford Planning Area were counted using the following definitions: � Total inventory: This total count includes all facilities in the Medford Planning Area that are available or potentially available for use as game or practice facilities. � Restricted inventory: This count excludes sites that do not meet the standard or definition for the individual facility. The remaining facilities are available for play, although actual scheduling may be limited because of restrictions. � Unrestricted inventory: This count excludes facilities with use restrictions that affect the scheduling of the field/facility (e.g., overlays, size limitations, scheduling issues, and ownership/ control of facility). The facilities in this count have no additional restrictions in terms of scheduling or playability. The following facilities are excluded from the Restricted Inventory: � Abandoned facilities: Abandoned fields are not counted, although they are noted in the total inventory in the event significant upgrades are made in the future to make them playable again. � Inadequate size: Fields with short field dimension or obstacles in the field does not meet the definition for the facility. They are counted in the total inventory because they are useful as practice facilities; however, they are not counted as restricted facilities. A number of factors further influence the playability of a field or the ability to schedule games and/or practices. Because of these CHAPTER 3 30 Leisure Services Plan Update factors, few facilities in Medford have unrestricted use. The unrestricted inventory includes fields and gymnasiums that are not hampered with any of the following limitations: � Size limitations: If a field is too small for one type of play but is still used for a league with a smaller dimensional requirement, it is noted as a field with limited use. � Overlays/multi-use fields: In some cases, fields have been developed as overlays (multi-use fields). If fields overlap or are overlaid, they are counted as facilities with limited use. Both fields are playable if the playing seasons are at different times of the year. Otherwise, one field has to be given priority in scheduling over the other. � Scheduling restrictions: Some facilities are only used in specific circumstances, such as tournaments, and are not otherwise used for regular season play. These limitations are noted. � School ownership/control: Several sport fields and all gymnasiums are owned by the Medford School District or private schools, which control scheduling for those facilities. The facilities are considered restricted, although they may be available through current use agreements or could become available if a lease agreement or user agreement could be negotiated. Table 3.3 summarizes number of sports facilities according to the different facility inventories. A complete inventory of each facility type by site is included in Appendix C. Table 3.3 Summary of Sports Facilities Medford Planning Area Facility Total Inventory Restricted Inventory Unrestricted Inventory Adult Baseball Fields 6 5 1 Adult Softball Fields 12 6 6 Youth Baseball/Softball Fields 26 20 6 Soccer Fields 30 12 18 Football Fields 6 5 1 Gymnasiums 22 20 2 Pool Space 4,200 sf 4,200 sf 0 sf Trails 30 miles 0 30 miles CHAPTER 4 Leisure Services Plan Update 31 NEEDS ASSESSMENT Public involvement is instrumental in identifying park and facility needs in Medford. This chapter discusses the public demand and need for parks and facilities within the city. It contains a summary of the public involvement findings from the community workshop and recreation survey, as well as a summary of the park and facility needs assessment, which incorporates the results of the sports group survey. Specific information on the public involvement processes and on the determination of needs is presented in Appendices D and E. Recreation Demand and Needs Assessment: 1. Community Workshop 2. Recreation Survey 3. Analysis of Park Land Needs 4. Analysis of Facility Needs 4.1 COMMUNITY WORKSHOP FINDINGS On September 14, 2004, the City of Medford Parks and Recreation Department held a Community Workshop as part of an effort to involve Medford residents in updating the Leisure Services Plan. Sixteen people attended the meeting. Workshop participants broke into small groups to answer questions on the following subjects: � What improvements are most needed in the existing park system? � What programs should be offered or emphasized by the City? � What should be the City’s priorities for providing park and recreation services? An interactive display allowed participants to mark their perceptions of City priorities for parks and facility development. Key findings from the workshop include: � Sports or sporting events were the most frequently mentioned favorite experience associated with a park or recreation program in Medford. Specific programs, such as swimming, summer camps, and outdoor concerts, were also noted frequently. For specific sites, Bear Creek Park and Prescott Park were mentioned more than other parks, and natural qualities in parks (e.g., shade, open space, and greenery) were appreciated. � All groups noted that sports fields are the most needed facilities in the community. An indoor, multi-use recreation center was also noted frequently. Participants wanted improvements for parking, restrooms, and pathways (access). CHAPTER 4 32 Leisure Services Plan Update � Prescott Park is clearly valued as a natural open space area. Improved trails and trailheads are desired. Most agreed that vehicle access is needed, but should be limited to only portions of the park. Participants suggested a number of ways to improve access, such as adding parking at a trail head, offering tours, providing interpretive and directional signage, and providing trail maps. � Medford parks received moderate ratings in maintenance, development, and diversity. Participants noted that park maintenance is uneven and inconsistent from park to park, but moderate overall. Comments regarding park development suggested that several popular contemporary facilities (skate park, BMX track, water play structure) balance out inadequate facilities (sport fields and restrooms), creating an average rating. � While many respondents were not familiar with the recreation services available to various demographic groups in Medford, most participants indicated the City needs to provide more programs and services. � Although several issues were identified, three key park and recreation issues emerged: funding, maintenance, and improvements to existing parks. � The most frequently suggested park improvements overall involved renovating or adding restrooms. � The City should consider the following facilities for priority development: sport field complex, indoor recreation center, city-wide trail system. CHAPTER 4 Leisure Services Plan Update 33 4.2 RECREATION SURVEY RESULTS A survey of public attitudes, recreation interests, and recreation participation characteristics was conducted in the City of Medford during Fall 2004. Questionnaires were distributed to randomly selected households within the city limits. Every household member age 10 and over was asked to fill out a separate questionnaire, so feedback would be provided by a broad spectrum of population, including youth, adults, and seniors. The survey was designed to achieve statistical reliability for the Medford planning area. For the total sample, the 438 responses exceeded the minimum needed to achieve a 95% confidence level with a margin of error no greater than 5%. A summary of the survey process is illustrated in Table 4.1 and Table 4.2: Table 4.1 Survey Summary City of Medford Survey Summary Number Households Surveyed 267 Questionnaires Distributed 1,243 Questionnaires Returned 438 Return Ratio 35% Table 4.2 Household Survey Areas City of Medford Area Number of Returns Percent (n=438) Northwest 108 24.7% Northeast 107 24.4% Southeast 112 25.6% Southwest 94 21.5% Unknown 17 3.9% Total 438 100.0% CHAPTER 4 34 Leisure Services Plan Update Key findings from the survey include the following: � Neighborhood parks are the most frequently visited type of facility with 12.5 per capita visits annually. � Respondents who seldom visit parks reported they did not find parks interesting (14.6%), or parks did not have the facilities they desired (13.8%). � In an open-ended question, Bear Creek Park and Hawthorne Park were cited the most frequently as parks in need of improvement, followed distantly by Donahue-Frohnmayer and Fichtner-Mainwaring Parks. � In open-ended responses, the most needed park improvements included in priority order: restrooms, park security, lighting, playgrounds, and pathways. � Respondents feel relatively safe in parks, rating perceived safety as 6.2 on a 10-point scale. However, security is a notable concern. Lighting (22%), followed by increased police patrols in parks and greenways (18.6%) were the two most popular solutions. � Forty-seven percent of respondents would like to see more beautification efforts along city streets, including landscaping medians and planting street trees. � Park maintenance was rated moderately high in all areas. � More than 60% of respondents prefer the development of an overlook/viewpoint and trailheads at Prescott Park. � Upgrades to existing parks are the highest priority park improvement noted by respondents, followed by the development a sports complex and City-wide trail system. � Of all park and recreation services, residents want: � Upgrades to existing parks � Sports field development � More trails � The following are most desired in an indoor recreation facility: indoor pool, gymnasiums, space for teen activities, and space for senior activities. CHAPTER 4 Leisure Services Plan Update 35 � Respondents clearly prefer an indoor pool/aquatic center to meet future swimming needs. � Only 20% of respondents have participated in a City recreation program last year. The level of participation for communities throughout the west coast typically ranges from 25-30%. � For those who did not participate, 26% of respondents noted they were unaware of the programs offered by the City. Of those who participate, 27% receive their information from the Medford Parks & Recreation Activity and Services Guide. � Three of the top four desired recreation activities in Medford were programs specifically for youth. After school activities (18.6%), summer youth activities (15.5%), and youth organized sports (11.2%) accounted for over 45% of all responses. � Teens (ages 13-17) are inadequately served by City recreation programs. The most needed activities for all youth include special interest classes, organized sports, drop-in sports, outdoor education, and opportunities for extreme sports. This follows a national trend among teens for extreme sports such as cross country mountain biking and skateboarding. � Most respondents (54.9%) did not know if adequate service is provided for seniors. Of the remaining respondents, more (24.6%) felt that seniors are underserved. The top ranking ways to improve senior services included offering special interest classes and providing health and wellness classes. � On a prioritized list of the six most needed types of pathways and trails, respondents ranked off-street, paved multi- purpose trails first, followed by on-street, commuter bike lanes. � According to results, respondents think that recreation programs offered by the City should be subsidized, particularly for youth and seniors, but also partially for adults and non-residents. � More than three-fourths of respondents (76%) favor concessions in parks. Results indicate that mobile vendors selling food would be most popular. Concessions should be provided by commercial vendors (45%) or non-profit organizations (31%). CHAPTER 4 36 Leisure Services Plan Update The recreation survey also measured participation rates for residents in indoor and outdoor recreation activities in Medford. These results were compared to the Northwest Average, which is the average of the last 15 communities surveyed by MIG, Inc., to see where specific activities are above or below the norm. Key findings include: � Medford is a very active community, with higher participation levels than the NW Average in their top 20 ranked activities. This level of participation would support an expansion of recreation programs to meet community recreation needs. � The top five activities in order of frequency of participation are: computers (personal), walking for pleasure, family activities, exercising/aerobics, and gardening. � Four of the top ten activities involved trails, greenways, and open space areas: walking for pleasure, nature walks, bird watching/feeding, and wildlife watching. � Participation in organized sports is average in comparison to other communities in the northwest, with baseball (17), football (19), and softball (20) ranked in the top 20 activities. � Respondents would like to spend more time participating in the following activities if facilities were available: attending concerts, swimming indoors, playing golf, making arts and crafts, attending cultural arts, and making pottery and ceramics (ranked in order of preference). � Arts, crafts, cultural arts, and concerts are areas where programs could be expanded to increase participation. Programming could also target special events, such as fairs and festivals, along with family activities. CHAPTER 4 Leisure Services Plan Update 37 4.3 SUMMARY OF PARK LAND NEEDS Quantifying park and recreation facility needs is difficult because many different variables influence recreation needs. Community values, participation patterns, and willingness to pay for services vary widely from one community to another. Consequently, what seems appropriate for one community may not be suitable for another. One of the problems associated with determining needs is that overstating the demand can result in the development of underutilized facilities. Conversely, under-estimating needs can result in overused facilities, lost opportunities for recreation participation and programming, and a lack of usable park land and open space. Methodology Developing a statement of need for parks and open space areas depends on localized values, availability of land, financial resources, and desired service levels. To determine specific park land needs for the Medford Planning Area, several analytical methods were used. These include: � Recreation demand (measured through public interest and/or involvement in activities); � National trends and standards; � Land availability; and � Geographical deficiencies for parks and open space areas. In synthesizing this information, park land standards were developed for each park classification. These standards are based on a ratio of park acreage to population, expressed in terms of number of acres per 1,000 people. The standard indicates a level of service desired by the Medford community, or in other words, how many facilities or acres of parks the City should provide to meet the needs of all residents in Medford. The analysis looks at the existing ratio of facility or park land in comparison to the city’s existing population. Then a demand standard is calculated based on the anticipated needs of the estimated population at build-out, when the city is fully developed within the urban growth boundary. This new demand standard can then be used to express current and future community needs for specific types of park land. Table 4.3 summarizes the population data used in the analysis: CHAPTER 4 38 Leisure Services Plan Update Table 4.3 Population Data Used in Analysis City of Medford Population Year # of People Existing 2005 69,222 Build-out 2030 93,770 Source: Medford Planning Department Table 4.4 summarizes existing and future park land needs for the Medford Planning Area for each park type. These needs are based on a proposed demand standard listed in Column 6 of the table. The following terms are used in the analysis: � Existing ratio is the amount of existing park land or a facility divided by the existing population. The existing ratio is expressed in terms of acres per 1,000 people. � 1997 Plan standard is the standard proposed in the 1997 Leisure Services Plan. It is expressed in terms of a unit (such as acres or fields) per 1,000 people. � Adopted demand standard is the amount of facility or park land at the time of build-out, expressed in terms of a unit (such as acres) per 1,000 people. The standard is a ratio of the unit (acres) alloted for each facility/park type divided by the build- out population for the planning area. The standard is developed via the adoption of a 25-year project list. � Total current need is the number of facilities or acres needed in Medford today to meet the needs of all City residents. � Net current need takes into account Medford’s existing park sites or facilities and determines if more are needed to meet current community needs. If additional parks or facilities are needed, the number are noted in appropriate table (follows). � Total need at build-out is the park acreage or facility that will be needed in Medford at build-out (the year 2030) to serve the City’s future population. � Net need at build-out is the number of additional park facility, sites or acres that will be needed in 2030. CHAPTER 4 Leisure Services Plan Update 39 Net Need at Build- out (Sites) 5 3 N/A N/A N/A Net Need at Build- out (Acres 15 30 N/A N/A 0 T o tal Need at Build- Out (Acres) 145.86 258.19 N/A N/A -47.71 Net Current Need (Sites) 0 0 N/A N/A 0 Net Current Need (Acres) -22.33 -37.59 N/A N/A -539 Table 4.4 Summary of Park Land Needs Medford Planning Area To ta l Current Need (Acres) 107.68 190.60 N/A 47.66 1,384 Current Standard (Acres / 1000 People) 1.56 2.75 None None 20 1997 Plan Standard (Acres / 1000 People) 2.2 2.2 1.6 0.4 1.0 Existing Ratio (Acres / 1000 People) 1.89 3.30 N/A 0.2 27.78 To ta l Existing Park Land (Acres) 130.86 228.19 212.84 14.42 1,923.11 To ta l Park Land (# of sites) 21 6 7 2 10 Park Land Classification Ne ighbor-hood Parks Community Pa rk s Sp ecial Use Areas L i n ear Parks Natural Open Sp ace / Green ways CHAPTER 4 40 Leisure Services Plan Update Needs Assessment According to calculations indicated in the previous table, the City of Medford has sufficient neighborhood parks, community parks, and Natural Open Space. Standards for Special Use Areas and Linear Parks have been removed from this plan as they have not historically been funded by Parks SDC funds. The recommendations by M.I.G. in their Parks, Recreation, and Leisure Services Plan Update of 2005 conclude that: In the next 25 years, Medford would need to develop an additional 13 neighborhood parks, 5 community parks, and 3 special use areas. Assuming that some of these needs can be met by developing currently undeveloped park land, the City may need to acquire between 5 and 6 acres per year to meet neighborhood and community park needs in 2030. Figures 4.1 and 4.2 illustrate the findings of the neighborhood park and community park service area analysis, indicating which areas are underserved for these park types. However, the City would not and could not support the costs of the proposal. A greatly reduced 25-year project list was developed by staff and adopted by council on 1/19/06. All of MIG’s potential park sites remain in this plan. As stated above, they are not all SDC eligible projects on the 25-year project list. The Medford City Council will need to select which of the 5 Neighborhood Parks (of the 13 potential sites) and 3 Community Parks (of the 5 potential sites) are to be developed with SDC fees as identified in the adopted project list. All other potential park sites must be constructed using some other funding source. An increase to the 25-year project list may occur with Council approval, with an associated Park SDC fee increase. Appendix E provides additional information on park land needs. CHAPTER 4 Leisure Services Plan Update 41 Insert Figure 4.1 (Neighborhood Park Service Area Map) CHAPTER 4 42 Leisure Services Plan Update Back of Figure 4.1 (Neighborhood Park Service Area Map) CHAPTER 4 Leisure Services Plan Update 43 Insert Figure 4.2 (Community Park Service Area Map) CHAPTER 4 44 Leisure Services Plan Update Back of Figure 4.2 (Community Park Service Area Map) CHAPTER 4 Leisure Services Plan Update 45 4.4 SUMMARY OF RECREATION FACILITY NEEDS Similar to the discussion of park land needs, community needs for recreation facilities are described in terms of a ratio of the number of existing facilities to the City’s current population. This ratio is expressed in terms of one facility to the number of people served. The suggested demand standard is based on the desired level of service and the anticipated number of facilities needed at build- out. By applying this standard to the existing and future population forecast, recreation facility needs are assessed. Leisure Services Methodology The need for sport fields, pools, and trails was calculated using several analytical approaches. Methodology included an analysis of present recreation participation levels, facility needs expressed in the public involvement processes, play and practice time requirements for sports leagues as indicated in a sport group survey, and mathematical models developed over the years from other studies. To determine the need for sport fields and gymnasiums, a demand model was created that compared the supply of fields/courts against the demand created by the number of teams using them. Within this demand model, there are many variables (or service levels) that will affect the eventual need statement. These variables include: � Demand variables: Demand variables include the number of teams, along with the number of games and practices permitted per team per week. � Supply variables: Supply variables include the number of fields, number of games/practices permitted per field per week, and the existence of lighted or unlighted fields. Factors, such as weather, playing season, and field constraints affect the supply of fields. Physical contraints similarily affected the number of fields and gymnasiums that could be counted in determining recreation facility needs. (See Chapter 3, Section 3.3 for an explanation of inventory methods and factors that affect field and court usability.) For the purposes of this analysis, calculations of sports facility needs are generally based upon their unrestricted inventory. Table 4.5 summarizes existing and future needs for recreation facilities. CHAPTER 4 46 Leisure Services Plan Update Net Forecasted Need 5 fields 8 fields 18 fields 10 fields 2 fields 4 courts 16,101 sq F t/1000 8.4 miles 6.4 miles To ta l Forecasted Need 5 fields 14 fields 24 fields 28 fields 7 fields 26 courts 20,301 sq F t/1000 26 miles 18.7 miles Net Current Need 3 fields 4 fields 11.7 fields 2.5 fields 0 fields 0 10,542 sq F t/1000 1.16 miles 0.77 miles To ta l Current Need 3 fields 10 fields 18 fields 20.5 fields 5 fields 19 courts 14,742 sq F t/1000 17.5 miles 12.38 miles Proposed Standard (# per people) 1 field per 22,700 1 field per 7,143 1 field per 3,846 1 field per 3,333 1 field per 13,000 1 court per 3,600 216.5 sq F t/1000 Table 4.5 Sum m a ry of Recreation Facility Needs Medford Planning Area 0.27 0.19 1997 Plan Standard (# per people) 1 field per 5,500 1 field per 3,500 1 field per 1,500 1 field per 2,000 N/A 1 court per 1,700 84.3 sq F t/1000 0.27 -- Existing Ratio (# per people) None 1 field per 11,537 1 field per 3,845 1 field / 3,845 1 field / 13,844 1 court / 3404 61.7 sq F t/1000 0.25 0.18 Ex is ting Un restricted Facilities 0 fields 6 6 18 5 22 4.200 sq F t/1000 17.53 miles 12.38 miles Recreatio n Facility Ad u l t Baseb all Adult Softball Fie lds Youth Baseball/Softball Fie lds So ccer F i eld s Footba ll Fie lds Gymn asiu m s (courts) Swimming Pools Un p aved T r ails Paved T r ails CHAPTER 4 Leisure Services Plan Update 47 Needs Assessment According to calculations on the previous table, the City of Medford has a current need for the following recreation facilities: adult baseball, youth baseball/softball fields, adult softball fields, soccer fields, pools, and trails. In the year 2030, the need for all types of recreational facilities will have grown substantially, and the City will need to maximize all opportunities to develop these facilities, if community needs are to be met. This Leisure Services Plan maintains or slightly increases the demand standard for most sport facilities. Adult baseball leagues presently rely on restricted ball fields, utilizing school facilities. Additional league play is anticipated following the construction of the unrestricted ball fields at the Medford Sports park. Trail use is increasing locally, regionally, and nation-wide, so the City anticipates the development of approximately 15 miles of trails within the next 25 years. Trails are planned for developed within each new park, as a part of the completion of the Bear Creek Greenway tail system, development of the Southeast Medford plan area through gifts and developer agreements, and within the Prescott Park area. Appendix E provides additional information on recreation facility needs. CHAPTER 5 Leisure Services Plan Update 49 Planning Policies and Guidelines: 1. Conclusions from the Leisure Services Plan 2. Goals, Policies, and Implementation Strategies 3. Guidelines for Site Selection and Development PLANNING POLICIES AND GUIDELINES This chapter discusses the planning policies and guidelines for the provision of park and recreation services within the City of Medford. This includes the conclusions, goals, policies, and implementation strategies for implementing a comprehensive leisure services program. 5.1 CONCLUSIONS The following are conclusions drawn from the public involvement activities, the community needs assessment, and the analysis of existing facilities and operations. These conclusions provide a foundation for the Goals, Policies, and Implementation Strategies, as well as for the development of recommendations presented in Chapter 6. 1. Medford’s population is growing rapidly. This population increase is the primary reason for the increasing demands for parks and recreation services. 2. In the past, the City has shown great vision in acquiring and developing park and recreation facilities to meet the growing need. As Medford grows, the City will need to meet existing financial challenges in order to acquire new parks, facilities, and trails and adequately maintain current ones. 3. Medford is a very active community, with higher measured participation levels than the average of other Northwest cities surveyed. This level of participation would support an expansion of programs and facilities to meet existing and future community needs. 4. The basic concept of the proposed park system is to assure that every neighborhood in Medford is served by a neighborhood or community park. Thirteen additional neighborhood parks and five community parks would be needed to meet community needs in the years 2005-2030. 5. Of all park and recreation services in the community, surveyed residents want the City to upgrade existing parks, provide more sports fields, and develop a city-wide trail system. 6. The City of Medford is a significant provider of recreational programs in the region. Programs and services need to be expanded in nearly all areas, especially for youth, teens, and seniors, to meet increasing community needs. 7. To increase program participation, recreation programs could be expanded in several areas identified by survey CHAPTER 5 50 Leisure Services Plan Update respondents, including arts and crafts, cultural arts, concerts, special events, and family activities. 8. Recreation programs are often subsidized by the City to keep programs affordable. According to the results of the survey, residents would like program subsidies to continue, particularly for youth and seniors. However, recreation programming must be more cost-effective. 9. Future park and recreation services in Medford must reflect the needs of a changing population. Medford has an above average and increasing proportion of senior citizens. 10. The City needs to remove or replace the deteriorating swimming pools at Hawthorne Park and Jackson Park. City residents clearly prefer an indoor pool/aquatic center to meet future swimming needs. 11. While Prescott Park is valued as a natural area, community residents want park access improved, with overlook & viewpoints and trailheads developed at the site. Prescott Park is also a desirable location for the development of a community park to meet the needs of east Medford. 12. Medford has several creek corridors that offer exceptional recreation and conservation opportunities. 13. By the year 2030, Medford will need an additional 15 miles of trails. A system of recreational trails, pathways, and bikeways would provide a safe place for walking, biking, and non- motorized transportation. 14. City of Medford General Fund, grants, and donations are the primary sources of funding for improvements, maintenance, and the expansion of facilities in existing parks. 15. An increase in the use of concessionaires in the City’s parks would generate needed revenue for the park and recreation system, while providing user support services and business opportunities. 16. Parks System Development Charges (SDCs) are an important source of funding for the acquisition and development of new parks and open space areas. Since SDCs are paid by new residential development, the fees are meant to fund capacity enhancement projects. The City regularly updates its SDC methodology and increases the SDC rate for all housing units. SDC funds will be particularly important to fund new parkland in Southeast Medford, where the City is rapidly growing. CHAPTER 5 Leisure Services Plan Update 51 5.2 GOALS, POLICIES, IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES The goals, planning policies, and implementation strategies listed below create a framework for the realization of the Parks and Leisure Services Plan and also will help measure its success. Goal 1: To provide for a full range of recreational activities and opportunities to meet the needs of all residents of Medford. Policy 1-A: The City of Medford shall use the Parks, Recreation, and Leisure Services Plan as a factual basis in the land use decision-making process. Policy 1-B: The City of Medford shall recognize the social and economic value of other providers in the City and nearby county, state, and national recreation resources that provide recreation for Medford residents, create tourist expenditures within the City of Medford, and attract businesses and industries to the City. Implementation 1-B (1): Provide park and recreation programs that complement nearby county, state, and national recreation resources. Implementation 1-B (2): Pursue partnerships as a key means for leveraging community resources and minimizing duplications of effort. Policy 1-C: The City of Medford shall serve as the overall coordinator and/or administrator of recreation programs and services community-wide. Implementation 1-C (1): Provide park and recreation facilities to support community programming needs. Implementation 1-C (2): Expand the City’s role as a primary provider of recreation programs and services and increase programming to meet changing demographics and growing community needs. Implementation 1-C (3): Establish more revenue- generating programs to increase program funding to help fund or subsidize other programs and services. Implementation 1-C (4): Provide a new water park at Hawthorne Park to generate additional revenue and to meet a growing, community-wide demand for aquatic services. Implementation 1-C (5): In the long term, consider an indoor recreation center/aquatic facility to help meet future CHAPTER 5 52 Leisure Services Plan Update community needs for swimming, gymnasium, and programming space. Implementation 1-C (6): Consider other financing approaches, including a general obligation bond, to fund the development of additional facilities and significant park upgrades. Policy 1-D: The City of Medford shall provide park land and facilities conveniently located and economically accessible to all members of the community. Implementation 1-D (1): Locate parks and facilities in underserved areas. Implementation 1-D (2): Provide program services to all ages, abilities, and economic and cultural backgrounds. Implementation 1-D (3): Offer programs at a range of costs (free, low-cost, full price) and implement other strategies to ensure program affordability, while meeting city financial goals. Implementation 1-D (4): Implement the Southeast Medford Area Plan Map with regards to greenway trails, parks, and recreation facilities. Goal 2: To preserve natural resources in the Medford Urban Growth Boundary that provide open space or have unique recreational potential, encouraging development with parks and recreation facilities if appropriate. Policy 2-A: The City of Medford shall emphasize acquiring park land having natural features or resources that need protection or are of significant interest to the public. Implementation 2-A (1): The City should seek to acquire riparian corridors where feasible to protect these natural resources and to offer potential sites for trail development. Implementation 2-A (2): Develop effective natural resource management plans for significant natural areas within parks and other City-owned or controlled lands, such as oak savanna, riparian areas, and wetlands, to identify management priorities and to guide acquisition, development, and restoration decisions. Policy 2-B: The City of Medford shall give special consideration to the Bear Creek corridor in order to protect this dynamic natural and recreational resource for the enjoyment of present and future generations. CHAPTER 5 Leisure Services Plan Update 53 Implementation 2-B (1): Directly and/or cooperatively acquire and plan appropriate park and recreation sites and public access along the Bear Creek corridor. Policy 2-C: The City of Medford shall give special consideration to Prescott Park in order to protect this dynamic natural and recreational resource and most significant scenic view for the enjoyment of present and future generations. Implementation 2-C (1): Follow the recommendations of the Prescott Park Management Plan and regularly update the Plan. Implementation 2-C (2): Pursue land additions to Prescott Park when opportunities become available. Implementation 2-C (3): Pursue inclusion of Prescott Park in the Medford Urban Growth Boundary for eventual inclusion within the City of Medford. Implementation 2-C (4): Increase access and public enjoyment of Prescott Park by developing appropriate facilities to enhance appreciation of natural resources, the outdoors, and Medford’s unique environment. Goal 3: To provide an interconnected park and recreation system that is well integrated with the community. Policy 3-A: The City of Medford shall seek to develop a major intra-community system of pathways to provide linkages between parks, neighborhoods, community facilities, schools, and open space sites. Implementation 3-A (1): Seek links to other transportation methods, such as developing parks along bus routes or encouraging bus transit to serve the parks. Implementation 3-A (2): Develop a detailed trails plan to recommend routes for meeting future community needs for an additional 15 miles of trails by the year 2030. Policy 3-B: The City of Medford shall seek to acquire natural and other corridors to link parks and open space throughout the community. Implementation 3-B (1): Develop a long-range public open space plan that provides for an interconnected system of creek corridors, greenways, wetlands, and other significant natural resource areas. Implementation 3-B (2): Acquire missing links in corridors and parcels that are contiguous to other public open CHAPTER 5 54 Leisure Services Plan Update spaces to provide maximum benefits for recreation and wildlife. Goal 4: To coordinate park and recreation planning, acquisition, maintenance, and development in the City of Medford to serve a broad spectrum of citizen and institutional interests. Policy 4-A: The City of Medford shall design and maintain parks and recreation facilities in a safe, attractive manner, to serve as positive amenities for the community and the neighborhoods in which they are located. Implementation 4-A (1): Adopt and utilize the Guidelines for Site Selection and Development in the acquisition and/or development of parks within each park classification. Implementation 4-A (2): Implement a consistent park signage program for use throughout the system and install signage where needed. Policy 4-B: The City of Medford shall evaluate and design park and recreation facilities to minimize operation and maintenance costs. Implementation 4-B (1): Include projected maintenance costs in design proposals for parks and recreation facilities. Implementation 4-B (2): Consider maintenance costs, including transportation and loading/unloading of equipment, before acquiring park sites smaller than one acre. Policy 4-C: The City of Medford shall define and standardize maintenance procedures, including cost estimates for maintaining Medford parks, recreation facilities, and beautification areas. Implementation 4-C (1): Allocate an average minimum maintenance cost per acre annually for maintenance of each park type and increase maintenance funds using this guideline as new parks are added to the City’s system. Implementation 4-C (2): Develop an Integrated Pest Management Plan to define use of herbicides and pesticides on City-owned or controlled properties. CHAPTER 5 Leisure Services Plan Update 55 Implementation 4-C (3): Develop a parks maintenance management plan that defines maintenance levels, performance standards, and budget allocation. Policy 4-D: The City of Medford shall encourage joint acquisition and use of contiguous school and park sites for recreational purposes. Policy 4-E: The City of Medford shall work with partner agencies, especially schools, to help meet demand for indoor and outdoor sports facilities. Implementation 4-E (1): Develop and maintain inventories and evaluations of shared sports facilities. Implementation 4-E (2): Continue partnering with the school districts to ensure community access to school gymnasiums and other sports facilities. Policy 4-F: The City of Medford shall allow compatible, revenue-producing concession facilities and services within parks that enhance visitor use and enjoyment of the City’s parks. Goal 5: To maintain and enhance community livability in Medford by promoting the aesthetic quality of the urban environment. Policy 5-A: The City of Medford shall recognize trees as valuable amenities that contribute to the livability of our city through the proper selection, placement, preservation and maintenance of trees along our streets, in open spaces, and in parks. Implementation 5-A (1): Develop a tree protection ordinance for adoption by the City Council. Implementation 5-A (2): Develop a street tree ordinance for adoption by the City Council. Implementation 5-A (3): Provide a mechanism for a tree recognition program. Policy 5-B: The City of Medford shall require the provision and continued maintenance of appropriate landscaping in conjunction with new development. Policy 5-C: The City of Medford shall encourage the establishment of public art in parks, on public grounds, and in public buildings. CHAPTER 5 56 Leisure Services Plan Update Implementation 5-C (1): Investigate mechanisms for displaying art in public places. 5.3 GUIDELINES FOR SITE SELECTION AND DEVELOPMENT The following design guidelines apply to the acquisition and/or development of parks within each park classification. Each park classification includes a description of the park type, site selection and development guidelines, features to consider, and features to avoid. Mini Parks Description: � Mini parks may be considered when they are privately developed and maintained, or in neighborhoods where there are no other viable options. � The typical mini park user: � Comes from within a quarter mile or half mile of the park. � Arrives on foot or by bicycle. � Visits the park on a short time basis. Site Selection and Development Guidelines: � Typical size is less than 1acre. � Access to the site should be provided via a local street with sidewalks. Mini parks fronting on arterial streets should be discouraged. � The site should ideally have a minimum of 100-150 feet of street frontage. � Parking Requirements: On-street parking should be provided as street frontage allows. Features and Amenities to Consider: � General landscape improvements (including tree planting) � Children’s playground or tot-lot � Pathway connecting park elements � Picnic tables and/or small picnic shelter � Interpretive signage Features to Avoid: CHAPTER 5 Leisure Services Plan Update 57 � Indoor recreation facilities � Active sports facilities Neighborhood Parks Description: � Neighborhood parks provide nearby residents with access to basic recreation opportunities. These parks are being designed to enhance neighborhood identity, preserve or provide neighborhood open space, and improve the quality of life of nearby residents. They are designed for passive and unstructured activities. � The typical neighborhood park user: � Comes from within a half mile of the park. � Arrives on foot or by bicycle. � Visits the park on a short time basis. Site Selection and Development Guidelines: � Optimum size is 3 to 5 acres, depending upon the availability of land. � At least 50% of site will be relatively level and usable, providing space for both active and passive uses. � The site will have at least 200 feet of street frontage. � Access to the site should be provided via local streets with sidewalks. Neighborhood parks fronting on arterial streets will be discouraged. � Parking Requirements: A minimum of three spaces per acre of usable active park area. Generally, if on-street parking is available in front of park, this guideline can be reduced by one car per 25 feet of street frontage. City code requirements will provide more specific parking requirements. � Active and noise producing facilities, such as tennis and basketball courts, should be located at least 100' from nearby homes or property zoned for a residential use. CHAPTER 5 58 Leisure Services Plan Update Features and Amenities to Consider: � Open turf area for unstructured play � General landscape improvements (including tree planting) � Children’s playground � Basketball (full or half) court � Pathway connecting park elements � Picnic tables � Small picnic shelter � Volleyball court � Multi-use fields for practice � Interpretive signage � Natural area/greenspace � Permanent restrooms Features to Avoid: � High maintenance horticultural or annual plantings, unless sponsored and maintained by a neighborhood or community group � Indoor recreation facilities � Wading pools and similar types of amenities that require staff supervision or highly specialized maintenance Additional Considerations for School Parks: � The school park concept is primarily associated with elementary schools and should be planned and designed as a composite unit whenever possible. � Because of the potential of jointly developing school sites, facilities on the site itself will be a mixture of active and passive uses. This could include: � Pathways systems � Picnic areas/facilities � Multi-purpose paved court � A small piece of playground equipment � Baseball and soccer fields � Because these sites are adjacent to school grounds, landscaping will address safety and security issues. Facilities generating crowd noise will be located in a manner so as not to disturb adjoining residential areas. � When sport fields utilized for league play are located on school grounds, the City should assist in maintaining these fields. Community Parks CHAPTER 5 Leisure Services Plan Update 59 Description: � Community Parks (CP) provide visitors with active and passive recreation opportunities. These parks often accommodate large group activities and include major recreation facilities, such as sports fields. Community Parks are designed to enhance neighborhood and community identity, preserve open space, and enhance the quality of life of community residents. � Typical community park users: � Come from within one mile of the park. � Arrive by auto, bus, bicycle or foot. � Visit the park for 1 to 3 hours. Site Selection and Development Guidelines: � Average site size will be 15 acres with the optimum at 20-30 acres, but may exceed 50 acres � Due to their size requirements, the acquisition of CP park sites will occur far in advance of need. Park development will occur when the area it serves becomes 50% developed. � Whenever possible CP will be located adjacent to middle or high schools. � At least two-thirds of the site will be available for active recreation use. Adequate buffers or natural open space areas will separate active recreation areas from nearby homes. � The site will be visible from adjoining streets and have a minimum of 400' of street frontage. � Parking Requirements: Dependent upon facilities provided. Generally, 50 off-street spaces per ball field are required, plus 5 spaces per acre of active use areas. City code requirements will provide more specific parking requirements. � Permanent restrooms are appropriate for this type of park. � Access to the site will be provided via a collector or arterial street with sidewalks and bicycle lanes. Facilities and Amenities to Consider: � Tot and youth playground � Designated sports fields for baseball, softball, and soccer. Fields may be in a complex within the park � Open turf area for unstructured play � General landscape improvements CHAPTER 5 60 Leisure Services Plan Update � Looped pathway system � Picnic shelters, including at least one capable of accommodating groups of 25 to 50 people � Permanent restrooms � Volleyball courts � Tennis courts � Basketball courts � Horseshoe pits � Other sporting facilities (lawn bowling, croquet, bocce court) � Community scale skate park � Water playground � Off-leash dog area or designated dog park � Community gardens � Concessions or vendor space � Interpretive signage � Natural area/greenspace � Indoor recreation center or other indoor recreation space � Public art � Performance space, such as a stage area or bandshell � Special facilities such as an indoor recreation center or swimming pool � Storage or maintenance buildings. If visible, these will be architecturally compatible with other park elements and any exterior work areas will be screened from view Special Use Areas Description: � Special use areas are unique sites often occupied by a specialized facility. Some uses that fall into this category include waterfront parks, boat ramps, botanical gardens, memorials, community gardens, single purpose sites used for a particular field sport, or sites occupied by buildings. � Typical users of special use areas: � May come from throughout the city or beyond (depends on site). � Arrive by auto, bus, bicycle or foot. � Depend on site: May visit the park for one hour to more than three hours. Site Selection and Development Guidelines: CHAPTER 5 Leisure Services Plan Update 61 � Siting criteria depend on the types of facilities proposed. � Prior to the development of any specialized recreation facility, such as a pool, recreation center, sports complex, etc., the City will prepare a detailed cost/benefit analysis and maintenance impact statement. � Size will depend upon the facilities provided. � Site should front on a public street. � Parking Requirements: Depends on facilities provided. Facilities and Amenities to Consider: � Facilities and amenities will depend on the proposed activities and site use. Linear Parks Description: � Linear parks are developed or landscaped areas and other lands that follow linear corridors such as railroad rights-of-way, creeks, canals, power lines, and other elongated features. This type of park usually contains trails, landscaped areas, viewpoints, and seating areas. Activities are generally passive in nature, such as walking, biking, wildlife watching, etc. � Typical linear park users: � May come from throughout the city (depends on site). � Arrive by auto, bus, bicycle, or foot. � May visit the park for one or more hours. Site Selection and Development Guidelines: � Linear parks should generally follow continuous special feature strips, with a minimum corridor width of 50-75 feet. � Due to the shape, configuration, and potential for user noise in linear parks, user impacts on adjoining neighbors will be considered. Fences, walls, or landscaping may be used to CHAPTER 5 62 Leisure Services Plan Update provide some privacy for neighbors, but the provision of these features will consider user safety. � Paved pathways will be designed to accommodate maintenance and patrol vehicles. Facilities and Amenities to Consider: � Paved pathways � Landscaped areas � Maintained natural vegetation � Picnic tables � Orientation and information signage � Trailhead or entry/ kiosk � Turf areas � Ornamental plantings � Fences, landscaping, or other features to control access near adjoining residential areas � Viewpoints � Seating areas � On-street or off-street parking at trailheads. Amount depends on facilities and anticipated use of the trails Facilities to Avoid: � Active use areas (sport fields, paved courts, etc.) Natural Open Space/Greenways Description: � Natural open space/greenways are publicly owned or controlled natural resources that are managed for conservation, environmental education, and passive recreational use, such as walking and nature viewing. This type of land may include wetlands, steep hillsides, or other similar spaces. Environmentally sensitive areas are considered open space and can include wildlife habitats, stream and creek corridors, or areas with unique and/or endangered plant species. � Typical open space/greenway users: � Come from throughout the city. � Arrive by auto, bus, bicycle or foot. � Visit the park for one or more hours. CHAPTER 5 Leisure Services Plan Update 63 Site Selection and Development Guidelines: � Site size will be based on natural resource needs. Acreage will be sufficient to preserve or protect the resource. � The City will consider alternative ways of preserving natural open space besides outright purchase, such as acquiring conservation easements, encouraging donations of land, land trades, etc. � Emphasis for acquisition will be on lands offering unique features or have the potential to be lost to development. � An analysis should be made to determine if unique qualities and conditions exist to warrant acquisition. � Development and site improvements should be kept to a minimum, with the natural environment, interpretive and educational features emphasized. � Natural open space areas should be managed and maintained for a sense of solitude, separation, or environmental protection. � Parking and site use should be limited to the numbers and types of visitors the area can accommodate while still retaining its natural character and the intended level of solitude. � Where feasible, public access and use of these areas should be encouraged, but environmentally sensitive areas should be protected from overuse. Facilities and Amenities to Consider: � Interpretive signage � Off-street parking if a trail is located within the site � Picnic shelters � Picnic areas � Trail and pathway system � Trailhead or entry/ kiosk � Viewpoints or viewing blinds � Interpretive or educational facilities Facilities and Amenities to Avoid: � Turf areas � Ornamental plantings � Active use areas CHAPTER 5 64 Leisure Services Plan Update Recreation Pathways and Trails Description: � Recreation pathways and trails, as described here, provide off- street bicycle and pedestrian links to parks, with recreation emphasized. These include paths within greenways and linear parks. Guidelines are not presented for on-street bikeways or accessways intended mainly for transportation. � Typical pathway users: � May come from throughout the city (depends on site). � Arrive by auto, bus, bicycle, or foot. Site Selection: � Non-motorized routes provide the following primary purposes: 1) recreation off street trails providing a recreation experience; or 2) non-motorized transportation links which may be identified in the Medford Transportation System Plan; 3) on- street bike lanes. � The city will seek to develop non-motorized routes to provide linkages to parks, schools, and other destination points. � Recreation trails will be located outside street rights-of-ways, or will be separated by traffic lanes by a generous landscaped separation. � Where routes use street rights-of-way, the street should be designed to minimize potential conflicts between motorists and pedestrians and bicyclists. � Trails that are within street rights-of-way but separated will be designed, when possible, along continuous features, so that they do not pose hazards when crossing driveways and intersections. � If possible, trail crossings by streets should occur at signalized intersections. � Trails may need to utilize street rights-of-way in order to complete a segment link. CHAPTER 5 Leisure Services Plan Update 65 � Since trails are so difficult to provide after an area has been developed, advanced detailed trail planning for developing areas is essential. Facilities and Amenities to Consider: � Staging areas for trail access � Picnic sites � Seating areas � Trailhead or entry/ kiosk � Interpretive signage � Orientation and information signage � Amenities should be site specific Additional Trail Guidelines: � Trail alignments should take into account soil conditions, steep slopes, surface drainage and other physical limitations that could increase construction and/or maintenance costs. � Trail alignments should avoid sensitive environmental areas such as wetlands, riparian vegetation, large trees, etc. � Trails should be planned, sized, and designed for non- motorized multiple uses, except for dedicated nature trails, and/or areas that cannot be developed to the standard necessary to minimize potential user conflicts. � Centralized and effective staging areas should be provided for trail access. Trailheads should include parking, orientation and information, and any necessary specialized unloading features. � Trails should be looped and interconnected to provide a variety of trail lengths and destinations. They should link various parts of the community, as well as existing park sites. � Recreation trails should be interesting to the user and maximize the number and diversity of enjoyable viewing opportunities. � Trails should be located and designed to provide a diversity of challenges. Enhance accessibility wherever possible. � Linkages and trail location and orientation should encourage users to walk or bicycle to the trail, depending upon the expected and desired level of use. � Developers should be encouraged to provide public pathways through proposed developments, where such improvements CHAPTER 5 66 Leisure Services Plan Update would provide needed linkages between trail routes and access to public destinations. CHAPTER 6 Leisure Services Plan Update 67 STRATEGIES Strategies: 1. Parks and Facilities 2. Trails, Pathways, and Bikeways 3. Administration and Management 4. Maintenance 5. Programs and Services Potential Projects & Objectives This chapter provides objectives for developing and managing a comprehensive park and recreation system. These strategies were developed from staff input, public input, and Community Needs Assessment findings, which included a comprehensive analysis of park land, programs, and operations. Section 6.1 presents projects and objectives for parks and facilities, including a summary of the planning concept that underlies the proposed facility plan. Section 6.2 presents a trails plan, identifying specific trails, pathways, and bikeways. Section 6.3 summarizes administration and management strategies. Maintenance strategies are found in Section 6.4, and Section 6.5 for programs and services. A list of priority maintenance projects identified by Maintenance staff is included in Appendix F. 6.1 PARKS AND FACILITIES Planning Concept The ideal park system for Medford is one made up of a hierarchy of various park types, each offering certain types of recreation and/or open space opportunities. Separately, each park type may serve a primary function, but collectively will meet the needs of the entire community. By recognizing this concept, Medford can develop an efficient, cost effective, and comprehensive park system. The basic concept of the facility plan is to assure that every neighborhood in Medford is served by either a neighborhood park or a community park. The proposed park system expands on the existing system, providing a neighborhood park or a community park within a half-mile radius of most residents. Park facilities will be situated for easy access by bicycle or foot without crossing of major barriers, such as arterial streets and railways. To achieve this goal, 13 additional neighborhood parks and five community parks will be needed throughout the City. Neighborhood and community parks will be supplemented by other recreational resources, such as large urban parks, special use sites, mini parks, linear parks, and natural open space areas/greenways. The park types will serve the entire community, and therefore, will need to be geographically located so that they accessible to most residents. CHAPTER 6 68 Leisure Services Plan Update With 12 neighborhood parks and four community parks, Medford already has a strong foundation to expand upon this proposed concept. As Medford’s population continues to grow, the City will need to identify and acquire park sites while land is still available. Particularly in Southeast Medford, the City should carefully consider acquiring smaller neighborhood parks if larger sites (5 acres or more) cannot be obtained. The City should also consider integrating non-school neighborhood parks within the park system to provide recreational opportunities to neighborhoods during school hours. The new planning concept involves improving pedestrian and bicycle access and connectivity for parks and facilities in Medford. Strategies include developing trails, bike lanes, and pathways, connecting into the existing Bear Creek Greenway path and adding east-west connections, along with connections between parks and a loop around the City. The strategies in the facility plan are designed, in part, to provide facilities that will accommodate new programs and services, as the City expands its role in providing recreation programs and services to the Medford community and the region overall. Facility Plan The Facility Plan is a graphic representation of the park system at build-out. Figure 6.1 maps the conceptual location and routing of proposed park sites and trails, along with the location of existing facilities. This conceptual plan takes into account general land- use patterns, the expertise of key City staff, and existing plans for parks (i.e., the Southeast Plan). However, the map does not pinpoint exact locations for these sites. Some important notes about the Facility Plan include: 1. Each site is coded with letters and numbers (such as NP-12). The letter represents the park type, and the number is for site identification only. These references are included on the Facility Plan Map and with project descriptions for each site. Some sites have more than one designation (CP/OSG, a Community Park with Open Space Areas within part of the park land) NP Neighborhood Park CP Community Park SU Special Use Area LP Linear Park OSG Natural Open Space Areas/Greenways UD Undeveloped Park Land T Trail CHAPTER 6 Leisure Services Plan Update 69 Insert Figure 6.1: Facilities Plan Map CHAPTER 6 70 Leisure Services Plan Update Back of Map CHAPTER 6 Leisure Services Plan Update 71 2. On the Facility Plan, colored asterisks indicate proposed neighborhood parks, community parks, and special use areas. The symbols show a general location for each proposed park. The final location of park sites will be determined later in the development of City plans and will be influenced by land availability, acquisition costs, and property ownership. When possible, the proposed location matches existing City plans. 3. Names for proposed sites are for reference only and have not been approved by City staff, the Parks Commission, or the City Council. Park and Facility Projects Preliminary projects for park land are listed by park classification. Parks are listed in alphabetical order within each park class. Existing parks are presented first, followed by new (proposed) sites. Proposed sites are also listed in alphabetical order. Table 6.1 is provided to locate the page number where a specific existing park is discussed. CHAPTER 6 72 Leisure Services Plan Update Table 6.1 Index of Existing Parks Medford Planning Area Site Number Park Name Page Number NP-16 Alba Park 73 OSG-8 Bear Creek Greenway 87 OSG-3 Bear Creek Greenway Park 87 CP-22 Bear Creek Park 80 LP-30 Biddle Road Pathway 86 SU-14 Carnegie Building 84 NP-60/SU Chrissy Park 81/85 NP-34 Delta Waters School Park 74 NP-37 Donahue-Frohnmayer Park 74 MP-32 Earhart Park 74 LP-52 East McAndrews Pathway 86 CP-23 Fichtner-Mainwaring Park 81 CP-31 Hawthorne Park 82 NP-40 Holmes Park 80/90 NP-41 Hoover School Park 75 NP-5 Howard School Park 75 SU-39 IOOF/Eastwood Historic Cemetery 85 NP-11 Jackson School Park 75 NP-24 Jefferson School Park 75 NP-35 Kennedy School Park 75 OSG-44 Larson Creek Greenway 87 OSG-42 Lazy Creek Greenway 88 NP-17 Lewis Street Park 78 NP-46 Lone Pine School Park 76 CP-26/OSG Medford Communiyt Sports Park 82 CP-36 North Medford School Park 83 NP-43 Orchard Hill School Park 75 NP-54 Oregon Hills Park 79 OSG-61 Prescott Park 83/88 NP/SU-7 Railroad Park 76/85 OSG-6 Railroad Park Greenway 88 NP-33 Roosevelt School Park 76 MP-38 Ruhl Park 76 SU-9 Santo Community Center 85 NP-2/OSG Table Rock Park 79/86 NP-18 Union Park 77 NP-25 Veterans Park 77 SU-15 Virginia Vogel Plaza 85 NP-19 Washington School Park 77 NP-29 Wilson School Park 77 CHAPTER 6 Leisure Services Plan Update 73 Table 6.2 Index of Proposed Parks Medford Planning Area Site Number Park Name Page Number NP-47 Brookdale Park 77 NP-45 Cedar Links Park 77 NP-56 Cherry Park 77 NP-21 Columbus Park 78 NP-49 Country Club Park 78 NP-51 Foothills Park 83 CP-55 Hillcrest Park 83 CP-27 Hopkins Creek Park 83 SU-62 Larson Creek (Middle Fork) Park 87 SU-50 Larson Creek (North Fork) Park 87 SU-59 Larson Creek (South Fork) Park 87 NP-12 Liberty Park 79 NP-4 Midway/Merriman Park 78 NP-13 Oak Grove Park 78 NP-58 Oak Tree Park 78 CP-53 Orchard Park 83 SU-48 Summerfield Park 76 NP-10 Ross Lane Park 79 CP-57 Shamrock Park 84 CP-20 Sunset Park 84 NP-28 Whittle Avenue Park 79 Neighborhood Parks The optimum size for neighborhood parks is about 3 to 5 acres. The Neighborhood Park Service Areas are identified in Figure 4.1 in Chapter 4. Potential improvement projects for neighborhood parks include: Alba Park Site NP-16 � Develop a master plan for this park to address the following: � Consider the feasibility of joining this park with the Carnegie Building site by closing Ivy Street from 8th to Main Street � Consider the feasibility of turning the park into a plaza in conjunction with the Carnegie Building and City Hall for functions such as the Pear Blossom Festival CHAPTER 6 74 Leisure Services Plan Update � Make sidewalks wider throughout the park � Replace sidewalks on all sides � Rebuild gazebo and make larger � Remodel and open restroom � Improve lighting � Redesign irrigation system � Redesign park to preserve historical features � Add public art � Add hard-surface courtyard around shelter � Continue to remove and replace hazardous trees Delta Waters School Park Site NP-34 � Implement Phase Two of the master plan, which includes a restroom, building, parking lot, picnic area, and more landscaping. � Pave decomposed granite pathways. � Expand drainage in upper field and along pathway. Donohue-Frohnmayer Park Site NP-37 � Continue to work with the Winter Springs project to facilitate completion of this site. � Provide two additional covered picnic areas. � Add three more BBQ’s in the park. � Expand irrigation system to north and southeast ends of the park. � Upgrade play equipment. � Prune the numerous native oak trees, eliminating mistletoe. � Plant more trees. � Widen entrance to park. � Connect drainage to the City storm drain system. � Add asphalt pathway/repair section in north part of park. Earhart Park Site NP-32 � This park is underutilized by the public. Develop a master plan that will increase use of this space. Holmes Park Site NP/SU-40 � Develop site master plan for park renovation. � Replace/move potable water line and sewer line from underneath the parking lot for maintenance and repair. � Renovate playground. � Resurface tennis courts. � Install additional lighting. � Improve and resurface pathways. CHAPTER 6 Leisure Services Plan Update 75 � Renovate restroom for ADA compliance. � Renovate irrigation system. � Add parking at improved section. � Consider demolishing pickelball court and building a picnic shelter/area. Hoover School Park Site NP-41 � No major renovations required. Howard School Park Site NP-5 � Improve drainage in turf areas. � Convert tennis courts to a new use such as a skate facility. � Provide permanent restrooms. � Replace failing irrigation mainline pipe. � Add irrigation to east side and extreme south ends of park. Jackson School Park Site NP-11 � Expand parking. � Renovate metal restroom and abandon the old block restroom. � In the short term, increase pool repairs and maintenance. � Resurface one tennis court. � Consider converting tennis court to a new use such as a skate facility or pavilion. � Overlay and widen asphalt paths. � Eliminate looped irrigation mainline. � Replace concession stand and bleachers at Fagone Field. � Demolish and relocate the Youth Activity Center to the Santo Community Center. � Add drainage in grass areas. Jefferson School Park Site NP-24 � Add a fence along the eastside of the #1 softball field to keep kids out of the creek. � Provide additional parking. � Provide a permanent restroom. Kennedy School Park Site NP-35 � Implement Phase Two of the master plan, adding parking and connecting the park drainage system to the City’s storm drainage system. Add a restroom building and landscaping. Lone Pine School Park Site NP-46 CHAPTER 6 76 Leisure Services Plan Update � Plant more trees. � Implement the next phase in the master plan, which includes a restroom building, a children’s water playground and landscaping. � Maintain baseball field as a practice field. � Re-landscape around fence lines of the practice ball field. � Add parking for 6-10 cars. � Add small shelter. � Complete walkways and paths. Orchard Hill School Park Site NP-43 � Plant additional trees along western property line. Railroad Park Site NP-7 � Renovate pavilion. � Increase maintenance along the greenway. � Renovate restrooms. � Add a gate by the Fire Station. Ruhl Park Site NP-38 � Resurface paths. � Provide drinking fountain near play area. � Provide ADA accessible sidewalks on Modoc. � Improve irrigation. � Consider the need for a permanent restroom and parking. Roosevelt School Park Site NP-33 � This school park is underutilized by the public. Add park signage to inform the public of weekend, summer, and after school hours availability. Summerfield Park Site NP-48 � The first park to be developed through a developer’s agreement. � A Neighborhood park with small parking, restroom, play area, and walking trail. Union Park Site NP-18 CHAPTER 6 Leisure Services Plan Update 77 � Involve the neighborhood in a master plan process to renovate the park and address the following considerations: � Removing tennis courts because of complaints from neighbors regarding noise � Removing aging restrooms � Improving irrigation head spacing � Improving the entrance off of Hamilton � Addressing soil and drainage problems Veterans Park Site NP-25 � Plant additional trees. � Develop a site master plan to address the following: � Drainage system for northwest corner � Hazardous drop-off on east side of site � Aging restroom building Washington School Park Site NP-19 � Replace/renovate restroom to meet ADA compliance. � Upgrade irrigation east of the running track. Wilson School Park Site NP-29 � Pave the running track. � Improve irrigation head spacing on easterly ball field. � Improve drainage on the left field of Field Two and extreme northwest corner of the park. Proposed Brookdale Park Site NP-47 � Acquire and develop a site in service area NP#8. Proposed Cedar Links Park Site NP-45 � Acquire and develop a site in service area NP#7. Proposed Cherry Lane Park Site NP-56 � Acquire and develop a site in service area NP#11. � Consider all options to meet service area needs, such as acquiring a park site outside of the UGB or developing neighborhood park facilities at Chrissy Park if a separate site cannot be acquired. CHAPTER 6 78 Leisure Services Plan Update Proposed Oak Tree Park Site NP-58 � Acquire and develop the site identified in the Southeast Plan to meet the needs for service area NP#13. � Preserve the existing scattered oak savanna at the site. � Develop a site master plan, which may include a picnic area, small parking lot, restroom, trails, and playground, in accordance to the Southeast Plan. Proposed Columbus Park Site NP-21 � Acquire and develop a site in service area NP#5. Proposed Country Club Park Site NP-49 � Examine the feasibility of acquiring and developing a site in service area NP#12. Consider a small parcel to meet service area needs only if the recommended minimum acreage is unavailable. Proposed Foothills Park Site NP-51 � Acquire and develop a site in service area CP#2. Proposed Lewis Street Park Site NP-17 � Develop Lewis Street Park as a neighborhood park per master plan to serve residents in service area NP#4. Proposed Midway/Merriman Park Site NP-4 � Acquire and develop a site in service area NP#1. Proposed Oak Grove Park Site NP-13 � Acquire and develop a site in service area NP#3. � Examine the feasibility of developing a school park in conjunction with Oak Grove Elementary. Proposed Liberty Park Site NP-12 � Partner with the Medford Urban Renewal Agency to develop this northwest site (in a high density area) as a small urban park to serve as a community gathering place. CHAPTER 6 Leisure Services Plan Update 79 Proposed Oregon Hills Park Site NP-54 � Develop Oregon Hills Park as a neighborhood park to serve residents in service area NP#10. � Work with the Engineering Department to co-develop a master plan for this site as a park and storm water detention facility. Proposed Ross Lane Park Site NP-10 � Acquire and develop a site in service area NP#2. Proposed Table Rock Park Site NP/SU-2 � Consider trading this park land for similar park land in a residential neighborhood. Proposed Whittle Avenue Park Site NP-28 � Acquire and develop a site in service area NP#6. CHAPTER 6 80 Leisure Services Plan Update Community Parks Proposed community parks offer the most potential for the development of additional sports facilities, which were identified as a significant community need. However, not all sites proposed for community parks have topography suitable for sports field development. To meet sports field needs, see additional information for Sports Facilities in this chapter. The Community Park Service Areas are identified in Figure 4.2 in Chapter 4. Projects for community parks include: Bear Creek Park Site CP-22/OSP � Provide additional lighting. � Expand parking. � Enlarge Siskiyou parking lot and improve entry � Enlarge parking lot off Highland Street � Add new parking lot between fire station and skate park � Install four new park signs. � Replace roof on picnic shelter located by tennis courts. � Install storm drain in Skate Park to capture ground water entering from north center of park. � Add shelter building to skate park for shade. � Remove blackberry vines along Highland and Bear Creek to improve visibility. � Repair railing on Lazy Creek Bridge near the BMX facility. � Relocate Highland Street entry to location across from Greenwood Street. Install three lane entry to existing parking lot, continue two lanes to the south past the BMX track. Replace Lazy Creek bridge by BMX facility. Continue to new parking area south of Lazy Creek, and develop area currently occupied by temporary dog park. Master plan for this area includes community center, basketball court, pool, parking, and landscaping. � Install perennial flower beds in park. � Develop undeveloped areas to the north of the Skate Park and south of the tennis courts. � Resurface tennis courts. � Renovate amphitheater, cover amphitheater stage, and install loading docks or ramp. � Improve access road behind the amphitheater. � Renovate/replace restrooms near the play area. � Resurface pathways. � Redesign irrigation system around tennis courts. � Remove lower Jacob Point path and plant area with native vegetation. � Beautify the Bear Creek Overlook and make ADA accessible. CHAPTER 6 Leisure Services Plan Update 81 � Renovate area with path and turf that seasonally floods in conjunction with ODF&W recommendations. � Install maintenance access gate to tennis courts (to fix lights). � Address hazards in Baby Bear Creek (steep banks, glass and metal exposed from previous landfill). � Renovate/replace aging Leather’s playground equipment. � Move the temporary dog park to a permanent location. � Improve the Little League fields as follows: � Add irrigation system to five infields � Provide additional shade � Pave the existing crushed granite pathway from old restroom to existing paved path � Renovate restroom to meet ADA compliance � Pave parking lot � Move footbridge downstream for use by overflow parking by Amphitheater patrons Proposed Chrissy Park Site NP-60/SU � Develop Chrissy Park is a mixed use area; both a Neighborhood Park and a Special Use Area, combining trail uses with a Neighborhood Park. � Develop a Neighborhood Park to meet the park needs for service area NP#11. � Develop a paved, multi-use pathway that serves as a link for the proposed pathways along the trail corridors toward Prescott Park and the Middle & North Forks of Larson Creek. � Develop a trail system with informational and interpretive signage, benches, water fountains, and other support facilities. Fichtner-Mainwaring Site CP-23 � Provide additional lighting for parking lots and pathways. � Expand parking area on southwest and southeast sides. � Provide an additional permanent restroom on the west side of the park with storage capability. � Retrofit existing restroom maintenance area to include a concession area. � Develop a picnic area, shelter, and BBQ pit on the southeast side. � Add sidewalk inside fence along Stuart Avenue. � Renovate existing playground. Expand facility and replace safety surfacing under equipment. � Develop the southwest corner of park; add parking and restroom building. � Resurface tennis courts. � Install two additional sand volley courts. Develop a sustainable and safe border around courts. � Replace water wash-off shower with sand trap drain. CHAPTER 6 82 Leisure Services Plan Update � Add three new park signs. � Add additional seating benches throughout park. � Re-stripe parking lot. � Replace the irrigation system’s easterly mainline, increase pipe size, and eliminate loop system. � Install a pump on the soccer field mainline or replace with low pressure sprinkler heads. Hawthorne Park Site CP-31 � Develop site master plan for park renovation considering the following issues: � Expand parking. � Replace restroom. � Examine the feasibility of replacing the pool with a water park and ice rink. (See further discussion under Specialized Facilities.) � Renovate bathhouse once a future design of a new aquatic facility is determined. � Relocate the picnic shelter and remove fencing. � Renovate playground. Provide new equipment, safety surfacing, and border. � Improve park lighting. � Explore ideas to improve park security. � Redesign irrigation system in several locations (e.g., old ball field and easterly shrub bed). � Remove sycamore trees around pool. � Add a park sign and banner setup in the northwest corner of the park. � Widen/repair/resurface paths. � Add skate/BMX bike spot in undeveloped area under I-5 freeway. � Replace flagpole. Medford Community Sports Park Site CP/OSP-26 � Implement the master plan for this park. � Mixed use park; both Open Space and a Community Park � Seek community partnerships in developing sports facilities, a nature center, a dog park, and in restoring and managing the riparian corridor. North Medford School Park Site CP-36 CHAPTER 6 Leisure Services Plan Update 83 � Install drainage system to capture runoff from school’s baseball fields. � Install drainage line between baseball and softball fields. � Renovate outfield turf and level grade in ball field #2 after drainage issue is addressed. � Renovate restroom (new doors). Proposed Hillcrest Park Site CP-55 � Develop a 15 acre site in Prescott Park. � Create an caretaker’s residence at the gateway separating the community park from the Open Space portion of Prescott Park � Create parking, trail head, trails, amphitheater, and a turf sports area. Enhance the on site natural features with pick- nick areas, overlooks, gazebo, restroom, and signage. Proposed Hopkins Creek Park Site CP-27 � Acquire and develop a site in service area CP#1. Proposed Orchard Park Site CP-53 � Acquire and develop a site in service area NP#9, when this area is brought within the UGB. Prescott Park CP/OSG-61 • Consider the development of a 15 acre community park facility to meet the community park needs for service area CP#3. � Develop an onsite caretaker’s residence for security of park and patrons, enabling expanded use of the park in its current natural state. Along with this residence, consider: � Expand parking near the residence for visitors, including space for buses. � Expand residence infrastructure to provide trail head facilities such as drinking fountain, phone, restroom. � Provide an informational kiosk, including interpretive signage, trails maps, etc. Proposed Shamrock Park Site CP-57 CHAPTER 6 84 Leisure Services Plan Update � If feasible, coordinate a lease agreement with the Medford School District for use and joint development of the proposed school site in service area CP#4, according to the Southeast Plan. � Acquiring a 15 acre or larger park site outside of the UGB. � Assess site in terms of sports field development. � Connect this park to Chrissy Park via a trail Proposed Sunset Park Site CP-20 � Acquire and develop a site in service area CP#5. � Consider alternative options if necessary to meet service area needs, such as acquiring a park site outside of the UGB. � Assess site in terms of sports field development. Special Use Areas Special use areas typically are single-purpose sites, sites occupied by specialized facilities, or sites proposed for development not defined by other park types. This discussion of special use areas includes the acquisition and development of greenway connectors and small parks linking greenway corridors. The amenities and facilities proposed for these sites depend on their location and whether they are found in a commercial or residential area. Projects for special use areas include: Carnegie Building Site SU-14 � Develop a feasibility study and master plan before renovating the historic Carnegie Building for future use. � Develop a joint site master plan with Alba Park, considering options for turning the block into a plaza for functions such as the Pear Blossom Festival. Include facilities appropriate for large gatherings and expand parking. Holmes Park Site NP/SU-40 � Improve natural trail system. IOOF/Eastwood Historic Cemetery Site SU-39 CHAPTER 6 Leisure Services Plan Update 85 � Maintain per Eastwood/IOOF Cemetery Management Plan ensuring the preservation of this historic landmark in accordance with the area’s historic rural character. � Upgrade facility to restore historic features. � Place a gravel base on the roads within the site. Railroad Park Site NP/SU-7 � Work with volunteers in developing the special use areas of this Neighborhood Park/Special Use Area. Santo Community Center Site SU-9 � Implement next phase of the Master Plan, including new entry, interior remodel, drill hall improvements, and site work. � Develop a gymnasium on this site. � Examine the feasibility of converting the former mechanical building into a multi-purpose youth room/teen center to replace the Youth Activity Center in Jackson Park. Virginia Vogel Plaza Site SU-15 � Renovate the fountain pumping/filtration system. � Cover shelter area. Proposed Chrissy Park Site NP/SU-60 � Develop Chrissy Park as a special-use park, combining equestrian and pedestrian trail uses with natural areas. � Develop a paved, multi-use pathway that serves as a link for the proposed pathways along the trail corridors toward Prescott Park and the Middle Fork of Larson Creek. � Develop a trail system with informational and interpretive signage, benches, water fountains, and other support facilities. � Consider the development of a 3 acre neighborhood park and equestrian trail head facility at Chrissy Park to meet the park needs for service area NP#11. Proposed Table Rock Park Site NP/SU-2 � Consider trading this park land for similar park land in a residential neighborhood. CHAPTER 6 86 Leisure Services Plan Update � If a trade is not forthcoming, create a site master plan that includes a limited amount of neighborhood play opportunities, a trailhead, and access to the greenway. Linear Parks Improving access and connectivity between parks via pedestrian and bike pathways is highly desirable. A discussion relating to the acquisition and development of proposed trails and pathways are found later in this chapter (Section 6.2). Some of these proposed pathways may be developed within linear parks, if wider corridors can be acquired. A minimum corridor width of 50-75 feet is needed for linear parks. Projects for linear parks include: Biddle Road Pathway LP-30 � Redesign and replace lawn irrigation system head layout. � Overlay path. � Renovate center islands. � Consider developing crosswalks at key locations on Biddle Road to improve pathway access from the east side. East McAndrews Pathway LP-52 � Excavate planter beds infested with Bermuda grass and replant landscaping. Natural Open Space Areas/Greenways The City will invest in acquiring and maintaining natural open space in dispersed areas throughout the City. Pathways may be developed within greenways. Projects for open space areas/greenways include: Bear Creek Greenway Park OSG-3 • Preserve open space within Bear Creek corridor. CHAPTER 6 Leisure Services Plan Update 87 Bear Creek Greenway OSG-8 Note: The Bear Creek Greenway is a regional facility that is maintained and funded by several different organizations. Within the downtown area, the Medford Urban Renewal Agency is searching for funds to oversee management of the corridor. � Implement the Bear Creek Greenway Master Plan. � Complete all connections of the greenway through Medford. � Widen the greenway corridor where feasible. � Continue coordination with the Rogue Valley Council of Governments for consistency in the maintenance and development of the City-owned portions of the greenway. � Continue coordination with regional agencies in managing the greenway. Proposed Larson Creek (Middle Fork) Park Site OSG-62 � Acquire and develop this southeast site as a special use area to serve as a trailhead and greenway connector. � Coordinate development with proposed site SU-59. Proposed Larson Creek (North Fork) Park Site OSG-50 � Develop this southeast site as a special use area to serve as a park and greenway connector. � Incorporate a public plaza with opportunities for commercial vendors selling coffee or food. � Develop in partnership with southeast commercial center vendors. � Coordinate with the pending master plan process for the Southeast commercial district. Proposed Larson Creek (South Fork) Park Site OSG-59 � Acquire and develop this southeast site as a special use area to serve as a greenway connector and trailhead. � Coordinate development with proposed site SU-62. Larson Creek Greenway OSG-44 � Complete this important link for the Medford loop trail, extending from the Bear Creek Greenway trail to the system of paths proposed for the southeast Medford plan area. � Acquire land from the Rogue Valley Manor and Saint Mary’s School, as well as several other properties to the east. � Improve existing pathway with asphalt overlay. � Add benches for resting or viewing nature. CHAPTER 6 88 Leisure Services Plan Update Lazy Creek Greenway OSG-42 � Improve pathway with asphalt overlay. � Add benches for resting or viewing nature. � Connect this park to a system of paths within the City. Prescott Park CP/OSG-61 � Develop overlooks/viewpoints. � Develop additional trailheads and trail support facilities. � Develop interpretative trails. � Improve maintenance of existing trails (remove poison oak). � Improve signage, including informational and directional signage, maps, and interpretation. � Explore options for increasing park use, such as opening the upper park to traffic for specific programs. � Use natural features to develop freestyle mountain biking paths. � Develop an onsite caretaker’s residence for security of park and patrons, enabling expanded use of the park in its current natural state. Along with this residence, consider: � Expand parking near the residence for visitors, including space for buses. � Expand residence infrastructure to provide trail head facilities such as drinking fountain, phone, restroom. � Provide an informational kiosk, including interpretive signage, trails maps, etc. � Consider the development of community park facilities near the entry to Prescott Park to meet the community park needs for service area CP#3. Railroad Park Greenway OSG-6 � Mow and open up the area of the park that lies along the greenway for safety and possible use. Undeveloped Park Land Descriptions of future development are included within park types based on future use. The following sites, currently undeveloped, have proposals to develop accordingly: CHAPTER 6 Leisure Services Plan Update 89 � Carnegie Building (Special Use Area) � Chrissy Park (Neighborhood Park/S.U.A.) � Lewis Street Park (Neighborhood Park) � Medford Community Sports Park (Community/S.U.A.) � Oregon Hills Park (Neighborhood Park) � Table Rock Park (Neigh. Park/Open Space) Improvements to undeveloped sites within existing parks are noted in Appendix E. Specialized Facilities Aquatic Facilities � Indoor Swimming Pool: For many years, city residents have desired an indoor swimming pool. Approximately five years ago, a bond measure was introduced to fund such a facility, but it failed. The recent recreation survey, conducted as part of the Services Plan effort, showed continued support for an indoor pool. The needs assessment identified market support for an indoor swimming pool. However, it was recognized that an aquatic complex would have a regional draw and should be developed and funded by either a regional agency or a partnership with adjoining cities. Prior to developing a major facility, a feasibility study and site location analysis will be needed. � Outdoor Swimming Pool: Currently, both outdoor pools managed by the City are old and have reached the end of their useful life. Hawthorne Pool is proposed for a new use (see discussion below). The future of Jackson Pool should depend on the timing of the indoor swimming pool. In the near term, the City will seek to keep Jackson Pool operational. In the long term, its condition will become prohibitively expensive to maintain, and the pool will be replaced. � Large Water Playground: This plans proposes the Hawthorne Pool be closed and converted to a large water playground. Renovation of the bathhouse will provide the needed support facilities for this facility. Youth Activity Center Currently, youth activities are offered in the Jackson Activity Center (formerly known as the Shack). This is an old building in CHAPTER 6 90 Leisure Services Plan Update poor condition and undersized to meet current needs. Youth activities will be moved across the street to the Santo Community Center site. An existing maintenance building found at the north end of the site will be converted to this purpose. This facility will compliment the existing meeting/class rooms and gymnasium being constructed at the Santo Center. Proposed Jefferson Nature Center A natural resource center has been proposed at the Medford Sports Park. This facility would utilize an existing farmhouse located on the site. The facility will house offices, exhibits, and educational opportunities focusing on local ecosystems as well as the current and historic aspects of the Rogue Valley. This facility will be operated and managed by a non-profit special interest group. Indoor Recreation Center Because of the demand for indoor recreation space including gymnasiums, the City will examine the feasibility of developing multi-purpose indoor recreation centers. Currently, access to school facilities has become difficult because of the demands of other user groups. Such facilities would expand recreation opportunities considerably and help meet community needs for gymnasium and programming space. According to the survey and input at the public meetings. Recreation centers would have substantial community support. Desired amenities for a recreation center could include: � Indoor pool/water park � Gymnasium space for basketball, volleyball and other similar activities and organized sports � Fitness space (exercise/aerobics areas and weight training rooms) � Places for large group gatherings � Multi-purpose classrooms and meeting space � Specialized activity areas, such as dance studios, stage for performing arts, and other indoor recreation activities An indoor recreation center could become a part of an indoor aquatic complex described above. Public Restrooms The public has clearly requested that restrooms be placed in public parks. Although public restrooms in parks are expensive to construct and maintain, yet they provide a convenience to the park user. CHAPTER 6 Leisure Services Plan Update 91 � Permanent restrooms will be provided in Neighborhood and Community parks � Portable restrooms may be provided to facilitate seasonal uses of parks. Sports Facilities The need for additional sports fields and facilities was noted in the survey and documented in the Needs Assessment. The following is a list of objectives for the development and management of sports facilities: Development � Work with partner agencies, especially schools, to help meet demand for indoor and outdoor sports facilities. Develop and maintain inventories and evaluations of shared sports facilities. � Continue partnering with the school districts to ensure community access to school gymnasiums. � Assess existing and proposed sites for the feasibility of developing additional sports fields, particularly adult softball fields, youth baseball/softball fields, and adult and youth soccer fields. � Design soccer fields to accommodate related field sports, such as lacrosse, ultimate Frisbee, and rugby. � Provide all-weather field surfaces and outdoor lighting to expand usability and playing seasons in community parks, special use facilities, or in shared school/park facilities . Consider lighting impacts to nearby residences when developing plans for these facilities. � Design sports fields in complexes to facilitate tournament play and league play, as well as to improve maintenance and programming efficiencies. � Pursue partnerships to develop a multi-use, indoor aquatic complex (in the long term). Management and Operations � Consider a 3-tier maintenance schedule for sport fields with tournament fields receiving the highest level of maintenance and practice fields receiving the lowest level of maintenance. CHAPTER 6 92 Leisure Services Plan Update � Create a field scheduling committee to maintain the most efficient use of fields. This committee should be headed by City staff, but include representatives of the user groups and school officials. The procedure for scheduling should follow the methodology created in the Needs Assessment. � To maintain the fields for quality playing conditions, a rest and rotation schedule should be developed and followed. 6.2 TRAILS, PATHWAYS, AND BIKEWAYS Planning Concept The Leisure Services Plan includes a major intra-community system of pathway system to provide linkages between parks, community facilities, residential areas, schools, and open space sites. The system is based on providing east-west linkages to connect to the Bear Creek Greenway path and a corridor outside of the Medford Urban Growth Boundary to create a loop trail. Some of the trail pieces are already owned and maintained by the City. However, most of the system is not in place. Much of Medford will have to be retrofitted to accommodate paths and trails. With an aggressive approach toward connecting existing and future pieces, Medford could create an extensive trail network to provide a wide variety of pathway experiences. The focus of pathway development should be placed on undeveloped areas and even “future growth areas” outside the current UGB. Since the undeveloped areas are fast being developed, these areas are most urgent. Medford also needs to place more emphasis on the paths and trails already in existence. In public involvement venues, the community expressed a preference for off-street, paved pathways for pedestrian and bicycle use. However, where trail opportunities have been lost to development, it may be necessary to construct on-street bike lanes to complete specific segments. It also will be necessary to coordinate with Jackson County for portions of the trails that lay outside of the City limits and the urban growth boundary. Several of the proposed pathways may be developed with linear parks and greenways, where wider corridors (minimum 50 feet) can be acquired. This development will help meet identified community needs for open space, greenways, and linear parks. Trail Types CHAPTER 6 Leisure Services Plan Update 93 The purpose of the proposed Medford Trails Plan is to show how existing and proposed park and recreation facilities can be interconnected via the trail system. The proposed plan attempts to identify conceptual routes for pathways and trails. A more specific trails plan that identifies the type of trail will be needed to determine at the time of review whether proposed public improvement projects and private development projects are aiding or hindering implementation of the plan. Paths within Public Street Rights-of-Way � The easiest walkways and bikeways to build are those within public street rights-of-way. These paths include three types: � Sidewalks and on-street bicycle lanes: Pedestrian/bicycle ways within public street rights-of- way are typically sidewalks and on-street bicycle lanes. By state law, all new streets must have sidewalks and all new major streets must have bicycle lanes. Medford also requires sidewalks to be set back from traffic lanes by a planter strip. The adopted Medford Transportation System Plan (TSP) indicates existing and planned bicycle lanes and sidewalks. The planned walkways and bikeways will be part of new streets or improvement projects. The Medford Bicycle Task Force is currently developing recommendations regarding funding priorities. � Paths within street rights-of-way but separated: Paths that are within street rights-of-way but separated have two major concerns: (1) they can be dangerous, and (2) they result in having to acquire a much wider right-of-way. These separated paths are undesirable because they are not perceived as a sidewalk, yet they cross many driveway and street intersections. These paths require very detailed design for even minimal safety. Pathways that are along a continuous feature, such as the Biddle Road Pathway, can be safer since there are few intersections. These routes are ideal within linear parks; however, they are unsafe for cyclists because they do not have suitable locations to enter or exit from the street without causing the cyclist to ride against traffic. Additional on-street bicycle lanes are needed when a path abuts a major street to avoid conflicts between walkers and faster cyclists. This results in the need for a very wide right-of-way which can be nearly impossible to acquire in a developed area due to cost and impact. A separated path along a street, if necessary, can be accommodated more easily in undeveloped areas and would have to be coordinated very closely with street design engineers. CHAPTER 6 94 Leisure Services Plan Update � Accessways: Accessways are short public paths that serve as connections for non-vehicular travel. The City requires accessways to be constructed when cul-de- sacs are necessary or where there are overly long blocks. They are also useful to provide access to parks and schools if they do not abut a street. Paths Not Within Street Rights-of-Way � Rights-of-ways for paths that are not within streets are very difficult to acquire unless done at the time of initial land planning and development. Property owners are reluctant to grant or sell easements or land and often object to the public near their property if not on a street. These issues can be reduced if a detailed trail plan is adopted prior to any development. Studies have shown that properties near paths/trails have higher values. Paths should not be crossed frequently by at-grade intersections, so the best locations are along linear features that have few access points or crossings such as creeks, canals, freeways, airports, railroads, etc. Several proposed paths have been adopted in the Medford Transportation System. Many irrigation canals exist in Medford usually within easements granted to the Irrigation Districts. The City could work with the property owners and districts to obtain public access easements along the canals as some other Southern Oregon cities are doing. Paths in Greenways � Greenways are typically linear open space areas and contain natural habitat or vegetation, and most often, a waterway or wetland. Provision of greenways is less difficult to acquire since they are undevelopable, and property owners may be willing to donate or sell them. Medford already has regulations that restrict disturbance within 50 feet of Bear Creek and Larson Creek. Medford also has an adopted Greenways and Trails Plan for the Southeast Planning Area. Policies to guide the management of the Bear Creek Greenway and other existing greenways are needed. In order to meet community needs for both trails and greenways, it is recommended that the City Council set a policy to strive to acquire all remaining natural areas that lend themselves to being greenways. Eugene has similar policies in place to protect riparian habitat. A Riparian Area Inventory and Assessment has already been prepared for the Medford UGB. In the past, Medford has avoided acquiring natural areas or their maintenance responsibility due to a lack of committed funding. However, public agencies may be the CHAPTER 6 Leisure Services Plan Update 95 best steward of such areas, and greenways lend themselves to outdoor education/recreation opportunities as well as creating open space and separation between residential areas. Greenway trails also provide opportunities for many top ranking recreational activities, both in terms of measured local participation and national and state trends. Greenways often contain paths and trails, which can conflict with habitat preservation. However, paths in greenways are less objectionable to property owners because few greenways directly abut private properties. It is recommended that the City Council set a policy to acquire public access easements when storm water maintenance easements are acquired within and along waterways. This dual purpose use is required within the Southeast Area. Trails Plan Table 6.3 lists the proposed trails/pathways that are noted in the Trails Plan. Each trail should be assessed for its suitability to develop as part of a linear park or greenway, in order to meet community needs for these park types. Preliminary indications for trail inclusion as a linear park (LP) or greenway (OSG) are noted in the table, along with any applicable comments. Each trail should also be assessed to indicate trail type. Figure 6.2 illustrates the proposed Trails Plan, including existing trails and conceptual routes for proposed multi-use pathways, planned sidewalks, and planned bicycle lanes. Note that bike lanes not only provide connections where off-street pathways are not possible, but they also support commuter bicycle travel. CHAPTER 6 96 Leisure Services Plan Update Table 6.3 Proposed Trails Medford Planning Area # Name Linear Park/ Greenway Comments T-1 Swanson Creek Trail OSG, part LP Mostly outside UGB; connects Prescott to Expo T-2 East Vilas Road Trail T-3 Medco Haul/ Cedar Links Road Trail LP Connects T-2, Kennedy School, NP-45 and T-6 T-4 Crater Lake Hwy Trail T-5 Hopkins Creek Trail OSG Connects NP-28 to CP-7 to Prescott T-6 Foothill Road/Main Canal Trail LP/OSG Connects Prescott, East McAndrews Pathway, SU- 48, SU-50, and Larson Creek Greenway T-7 North Fork Lazy Creek Trail OSG Connects Prescott, East McAndrews Pathway, Oregon Hills Park, SU-48, T-6, and T-8 T-8 East McAndrews Pathway Extension LP Connects East McAndrews Pathway, Oregon Hills Park, and CP-55 T-9 Prescott/Chrissy/SE Area Trail LP Connects Prescott and Chrissy Parks T-10 Larson Creek (North Fork) Trail OSG Connects T-9, NP-56, CP- 57, and SU-50 T-11 Larson Creek (Middle Fork) Trail OSG Connects the Bear Creek Greenway to the two existing OSG for Larson Creek to Chrissy Park T-12 Larson Creek (South Fork) Trail OSG Connects T-11 to NP-59 T-13 Bear Creek Greenway Extension OSG Links Bear Creek Greenway T-14 Garfield Street Trail LP Connects Jefferson School Park to Bear Creek Greenway T-15 Stage Road Trail OSG Mostly outside UGB; connects Oak Grove School (NP-13), CP-20, and the Bear Creek Greenway at the Medford Sports Park T-16 Table Rock Trail OSG CHAPTER 6 Leisure Services Plan Update 97 Insert Figure 6.2: Trails Plan CHAPTER 6 98 Leisure Services Plan Update Figure 6.2: Trails Plan Back CHAPTER 6 Leisure Services Plan Update 99 Trails, Pathways, and Bikeways Maintenance and development strategies for trails, pathways, and bikeways include: � Maintain and repair existing pathways and trails. � Coordinate with the Rogue Valley Council of Governments (RVCOG) for consistency in the maintenance and development of the City-owned portion of the Bear Creek Greenway. � Develop and adopt RVCOG standards for greenways maintenance and development and to apply to other existing greenways. � Increase recreational trails, pathways, and bikeways to provide a safe trail network that links neighborhoods, parks, natural open space, schools, recreation sites and other key community attractions. Consider the following: � Improve accessible pedestrian trail opportunities in existing and future parks; � Provide multi-use pathways and trails to meet the current need for an additional 25.9 miles of paved and unpaved trails; � Provide multi-use pathways and trails to meet the need for 38.9 miles of paved and unpaved trails at build-out; � Provide off-street pave trails wherever feasible, for opportunities for walking and recreational biking; � Provide on-street bike lanes along major routes for commuter biking; and � Emphasize park access and connectivity when acquiring trail corridors. � Develop and adopt a detailed trails plan prior to any new development, such as was done for the Southeast Planning Area. � Balance the geographic distribution of trails throughout the City. Seek additional routes for future trails and pathways, especially in West Medford. � Identify trail corridors that are appropriate for inclusion in greenways or linear parks. � Identify trail types for each proposed trail according to the City’s trail classification. � Partner with Jackson County in developing trails proposed outside the UGB. CHAPTER 6 100 Leisure Services Plan Update � Partner with Jackson County and the City of Jacksonville in developing a trail from downtown Medford to Jakcksonville. � Continue to support high community participation in walking and bicycling for pleasure, nature walks, and bird/wildlife watching by acquiring natural open space areas, greenways, and linear corridors for pathway development. � Provide trail accessibility to key natural areas, including Prescott Park and Chrissy Park, and provide maps, public information, and signage to highlight access routes. � Provide additional trail support facilities, such as trailheads, benches, and signage, where appropriate, to facilitate trail use. Incorporate accessibility, mileage, and challenge level information. Upgrade existing trail support facilities as needed. � Provide hiking and bicycle trail maps to facilitate trail use. Include these maps in the Activity and Services Guide, at trailheads, at the Santo Community Center, and public counters. � Seek ways to meet lesser community needs for mountain bike trails and equestrian trails, such as shared trail use, or partner with other agencies to advertise where those opportunities are available. � Evaluate unofficial trails. Upgrade these trails to meet pedestrian trail specifications or close them to use. � Improve security of trails. Consider methods such as: � Lighting where appropriate; � Community events and activities to increase visibility and use; � Increased trail maintenance; and � Additional security or volunteer patrol of trail systems, including staffed facilities or park hosts in remote areas. CHAPTER 6 Leisure Services Plan Update 101 6.3 ADMINISTRATION AND MANAGEMENT Parks and programs administration and management goals and objectives include: Park Planning and Design � Seek funding mechanisms for the acquisition, protection, and management of riparian corridors where feasible. � Coordinate with the City Council to develop greenways by acquiring public access easements when storm water maintenance easements are obtained. � Work with property owners to obtain public access easements along irrigation canals. � Acquire parkland and natural open space in advance of need to reduce land acquisition costs and to protect critical resources. � Consider maintenance costs in the acquisition and development of parks. � Develop park master plans for all parks to coordinate improvements. � Implement a consistent park signage program for use throughout the park system and install additional signage where needed. � Develop an interdepartmental policy increasing control of design, installation specifications, installation inspection, and final acceptance of the project for the agency that will ultimately be responsible for maintenance of the project. � Implement the ADA transition plan for existing facilities and develop an ADA transition plan for parks. � Consider transportation requirements when planning and designing parks and recreation facilities, and coordinate transportation improvements with other City divisions and other agencies, such as ODOT, Jackson County, and Rogue Valley Transportation District. � Consider acquiring land within Candidate Growth Areas outside of the UGB to meet future park needs. CHAPTER 6 102 Leisure Services Plan Update Public Information and Program Marketing � Update marketing plans in order to increase public awareness and use of parks, recreation facilities, programs and services offered by Medford Parks and Recreation. � Emphasize the benefits and developmental assets supported by parks, recreation, and programs in all marketing materials. � Reference the website in all marketing efforts. � Implement marketing strategies to increase program awareness and participation among targeted groups, such as youth and seniors. � Seek alternative methods of increasing program awareness, such as community open houses, presentations to neighborhood groups, and booths at community events. � Implement strategies to encourage use of parks and natural areas, such as improving park signage and providing printed maps at trail heads and public counters. � Include a map and information about trails, pathways, and bike lanes in the Activity & Services Guide. � Seek opportunities to have Parks and Recreation Commission meetings on public access television. � Strengthen relationships with all local media. � Increase diversity in program participation by providing public information, such as flyers, brochures, maps, and signage, in Spanish. Partnerships � Pursue partnerships as a key means for leveraging community resources and minimizing duplications of effort. � Consider all potential partnerships for joint facility development and maintenance of an indoor aquatic and community center and other needed major facilities. � Partner with the Medford Police Department and other community organizations and neighborhood groups to improve safety and security in public parks. CHAPTER 6 Leisure Services Plan Update 103 � Develop a partnership with the Rogue Valley Transportation District to improve use of bus transit by program participants, park visitors, and facility users. � Develop new partnerships and continue existing partnerships with schools, RVCOG, Job Council, Watershed Council, and other organizations. � Partner with businesses to provide services and amenities such as vendors in parks. � Continue to partner with the Medford and Phoenix-Talent School Districts to meet community needs for parks and facilities, developing additional lease agreements as needed for the use of new park sites and scheduling of sports fields. � Partner with Medford Senior Center to develop a senior services strategy for the community. � Partner with Jackson County and the City of Jacksonville to develop a trail from downtown Medford to Jacksonville. � Coordinate with developers to ensure that new residents will be adequately served by parks and open space. Financial Resources/Funding � Continue developing programs to maximize donations, grants, and funding opportunities provided by partnerships to increase the resources available for parks and recreation. � Establish more revenue-generating programs to increase recreation program funding and provide subsidized services. � Increase fees for programs and services, in alignment with fees charged by other providers community-wide, while maintaining program affordability. � Re-evaluate policies on program subsidies, examining ways to increase revenue, e.g., increasing fees for non-City residents. � Periodically evaluate the City’s park System Development Charges (SDCs) to ensure that the rates are providing adequate funding to enhance the park system capacity as the City grows. � Consider all financing options to address the current deficiency in funding park acquisition and facility development (estimated at $96,500,000). � Assist the development of the Medford Parks Foundation. CHAPTER 6 104 Leisure Services Plan Update 6.4 MAINTENANCE Facility maintenance and improvements, equipment needs, and potential areas for change in operations/organization include: Maintenance Management � Develop an Integrated Pest Management Plan to define use of herbicides and pesticides. � Develop a maintenance management plan that includes maintenance standards, specific tasks, task frequencies, and budget. � Regularly assess long-term maintenance, repair, and replacement needs for all parks, facilities, and equipment. Maintenance Staffing � Designate a lead person for irrigation. � Designate a lead person for turf and athletic field maintenance. � Designate a lead person for shop area and seasonal staff, working out of the shop. � Increase park area staffing. � Ensure that seasonal staff are assigned to peak seasons. � Increase training opportunities for staff. � Limit staff involvement in special tasks that pull staff away from regular maintenance responsibilities. Maintenance Assistance � Contract out work in specific areas, such as street beautification, fencing, tree maintenance, and construction. � Continue facilitating and encouraging the formation of adopt-a- park groups for each park and facility to support park maintenance. CHAPTER 6 Leisure Services Plan Update 105 Park Acquisition, Design, and Development � Consider maintenance costs, including transportation and loading/unloading of equipment, before acquiring smaller-sized park sites to meet neighborhood recreation needs. � Involve maintenance staff in reviewing all park and facility designs. � Include projected maintenance costs in design proposals. � Evaluate the need for mowed and irrigated turf when designing new parks or renovating existing ones to efficiently utilize maintenance resources. � Develop effective natural resource management plans for significant natural areas within parks, such as oak savanna, riparian areas, and wetlands, to identify management priorities and to guide acquisition, development, and restoration decisions. Funding/Budgets � Create a fund for deferred maintenance projects, including irrigation and drainage, tree pruning and dead tree removal, pathway repair and overlays, restroom repairs, landscaping, and other deferred maintenance. See Appendix E for a list of priority maintenance projects. � Create a separate budget for street beautification, so that funds are not taken from parks maintenance. � Allocate an average minimum maintenance cost per acre annually for maintenance of each park type. Increase maintenance funds using this guideline as new parks are added to the City’s system. Maintenance Facility and Equipment Needs � Develop a satellite maintenance station for the SE area. � Consider the following equipment needs: � New tractor with power take-off � Large trailer for mowers � Smaller utility trailers (2) � Boom truck � Large brush mower � Scissor lift � Forklift with pneumatic CHAPTER 6 106 Leisure Services Plan Update � Sprayer with boom on a trailer � Turf vacuum for picking up leaves � Tandem axel trailer with dump lift � Pick-up trucks (3) � Van (1) � Replacement for 1-ton truck 6.5 PROGRAMS AND SERVICES Rrecreation programs and services goals and objectives include: Recreation Facilities � Serve as the primary provider City-wide of the following types of recreation facilities: � Neighborhood parks � Community � Special use areas � Linear parks � Teen center � Community center � Provide the following types of recreation facilities, coordinating (when possible) with other facility providers: � Natural open space/greenways (public and private parties) � Aquatic facilities (YMCA and private providers) � Gymnasiums (School Districts, YMCA, private providers) � Sports fields (School Districts) � Trails and pathways (County) � Partner to offer programs at easily accessible facilities throughout the community, such as schools, churches, the senior center, etc. � Evaluate current parks and facilities for opportunities to support specialized programming and events. � Prioritize proposed parks and facility development that offers programming opportunities, such as prioritizing trail development at Prescott Park to support a freestyle mountain biking event or interpretative nature hikes. CHAPTER 6 Leisure Services Plan Update 107 Programming � Serve as the overall coordinator/administrator of programs and services community-wide. � Expand the City’s role as a primary provider of recreation programs and services. � Continue to expand and enhance recreation programs in the following areas: � Aquatics � Instructional classes � Special interest programs � Outdoor/interpretative programs � Special events (fairs and festivals) � Sports (adult and youth) � Senior programs � Teen programs � Summer playground program � Plan new programs for youth to support the 40 Developmental Assets identified by the Search Institute and measure program outcomes according to how well programs support the development of these assets. � Provide drop-in activities that respond to residents' active, busy lifestyles. � Expand and partner to provide low- and no-cost activities, such as drop-in activities and open gyms. � Expand aquatic programming, including lessons (private and semi-private) and pool rentals. � Significantly expand and broaden offerings in instructional classes and special interest programs to meet community needs. Age-group Programming � Offer intergenerational activities and programs in addition to traditional age-group oriented programming. � Provide active recreation programs and activities for seniors and older adults, such as fitness classes, volunteer opportunities and outdoor activities, to reflect changing demographics and trends. � Provide special interest classes, along with health and wellness classes for seniors and older adults, to meet community needs. CHAPTER 6 108 Leisure Services Plan Update � Continue to increase recreation services to teenagers (ages 13-17). � Develop programming and services for teens consistent with a new teen center at Santo Community Center. � Develop facilities reflecting the current trend in teen sports towards individual sports (such as Skateboarding, In-line Skating, Freestyle BMX, and Freestyle Mountain Biking). � Develop a comprehensive strategy for fostering youth development during out-of-school times, such as mornings, afternoons, and school vacations. � Continue to target underserved age groups with expanded programming (e.g., tot sports) � Develop a portable summer playground program, housed in a trailer, for outreach to youth at neighborhood parks. Outdoor/Environmental Programs � Increase outdoor/interpretive programming, by designing programs to utilize facilities such as Prescott Park and the proposed Jefferson Nature Center. � Promote programs and activities to encourage trail use. � Develop walking programs and activities such as “First Saturday Park Walks,” naturalist hikes, or a children’s scavenger hunt to encourage movement and exercise and to increase awareness of Medford’s parks and natural areas. Volunteer Programs � Develop volunteer opportunities and expand recruitment of youth and senior volunteers. � Consider establishing a volunteer patrol program where adults volunteer to be present in parks to deter inappropriate activities, such as vandalism, and to report issues or problems. � Continue the “Adopt a Park” program to promote adoption of all significant parks, recreation, and open space facilities. � Increase volunteer opportunities related to programs and services, such as during City-wide special events and youth sporting events. � Partner with school volunteers to update the wetlands education area in Delta Waters Park. CHAPTER 6 Leisure Services Plan Update 109 Program Registration � Continue to seek ways to facilitate program registration, including offering registration opportunities at the Santo Community Center and implementing on-line registration for recreation activities. Program Revenue/Recreation Fees � Establish more revenue-generating programs to increase program funding and provide more subsidized program services or help fund other programs. � Increase fees for programs and services, in alignment with fees charged by other providers community-wide, while maintaining program affordability. � Re-evaluate policies on subsidizing program costs, examining ways to increase revenue, such as by charging more to non- City residents. � Seek to subsidize or expand programs through business sponsorships. � Develop a grant program through community donations and the Parks Foundation to provide individual scholarships and allow discounted program fees for families in need. � Set and periodically reevaluate revenue targets for core program areas. � Offer programs at a range of costs (free, low-cost, etc.) and implement strategies to ensure program affordability, while meeting financial goals. CHAPTER 7 Leisure Services Plan Update 111 IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY This chapter identifies an implementation strategy for funding the improvements recommended in the Leisure Services Plan. It includes a capital facilities plan and a Capital Improvement plan to increase capacity for the next twenty-five years. It also includes a general master project list which includes all projects ranging from projects funded in the 25-year plan, defered maintenance projects, as well as a “wish list” developed by the maintenance staff. 7.1 CAPITAL PROJECTS Below is a list of all projects in the General Master Project list along with potential development cost estimate which were developed by the consulting fim Moore, Iacofano, Goltsman, Inc. The City of Medford will confirm the figures upon upgrading the project’s priority into an active status from this general list of projectrs. Table 7.1 Estimated Cost for Capital Projects Medford Planning Area Map Key Size (Acres) Park Opinion of Probable Cost NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS NP/OS-2 7.49 Table Rock Park $630,000 NP-4 3.00 Midway/Merriman Park $630,000 NP-5 8.55 Howard School Park $322,800 NP/SU-7 12.34 Railroad Park $85,800 NP-10 3.00 Ross Lane Park $1,230,000 NP-11 9.44 Jackson School Park $960,300 NP-13 3.00 Oak Grove School Park $1,230,000 NP-16 1.52 Alba Park $91,050 NP-17 8.56 Lewis Street Park $1,844,622 NP-18 2.16 Union Park $52,020 NP-19 4.56 Washington School Park $194,700 NP-21 3.00 Columbus Park $1,230,000 NP-25 2.29 Veterans Park $155,100 NP-24 8.45 Jefferson School Park $236,940 NP-28 3.00 Whittle Avenue Park $1,230,000 NP-29 4.56 Wilson School Park $69,300 NP-32 1.60 Earhart Park $21,000 NP-33 2.78 Roosevelt School Park $3,960 NP-34 13.26 Delta Waters School Park $420,000 NP-35 12.96 Kennedy School Park $577,500 Implementation: 1. Capital Projects 2. Non-Capital Projects 3. Preliminary Project Priorities 4. Project Actions 5. Project Costs 6. Funding Availability 7. Financing Strategy 8. Maintenance and Operations Impacts 9. Funding Sources CHAPTER 7 112 Leisure Services Plan Update Table 7.1 (continued) Map Key Size (Acres) Park Opinion of Probable Cost NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS (continued) NP-37 10.20 Donohue-Fronmayer Park $210,000 NP-38 1.15 Ruhl Park $15,180 NP-40 18.36 Holmes Park $171,300 NP-41 3.85 Hoover School Park $0 NP-43 3.00 Orchard Hill Park $4,620 NP-45 3.00 Cedar Links Park $1,230,000 NP-46 9.82 Lone Pine Park $426,975 NP-47 3.00 Brookdale Park $1,230,000 NP-48 1.60 Summerfield Park $315,000 NP-49 3.00 Country Club Park $1,230,000 NP-53 3.00 Orchard Park $1,230,000 NP-54 16.00 Oregon Hills Park $630,000 NP-56 3.00 Cherry Lane Park $1,230,000 NP-58 3.00 Oak Tree Park $1,230,000 NP/OS-60 165.58 Chrissy Park $315,000 Subtotal $20,683,167 COMMUNITY PARKS CP-20 15.00 Sunset Park $4,200,000 CP-22 101.23 Bear Creek Park $8,929,140 CP-23 30.95 Fichtner-Mainwaring Park $842,820 CP/OS-26 132.72 Medford Sports & Community Park $18,000,000 CP-27 15.00 Hopkins Creek Park $4,200,000 CP-31 13.00 Hawthorne Park $701,590 CP-36 17.80 North Medford School Park $125,400 CP-51 15.00 Foothills Park $4,200,000 CP-55 15.00 Hillcrest Park $4,200,000 CP-57 15.00 Shamrock Park $4,200,000 Subtotal $49,598,950 CHAPTER 7 Leisure Services Plan Update 113 Table 7.1 (continued) Map Key Size (Acres) Park Opinion of Probable Cost SPECIAL USE AREA SU-9 3.90 Santo Community Center $584,100 SU-12 1.00 Liberty Park $575,100 SU-14 1.75 Carnegie Building $330,000 SU-15 0.24 Vogel Park $3,300 SU-39 19.00 Eastwood Historic Cemetery $33,000 SU-50 1.50 Phoenix Road Park $846,900 SU-59 2.00 South Fork Larson Creek Park $800,850 SU-62 1.00 Middle Fork Larson Creek Park $530,250 Subtotal $3,703,500 LINEAR PARK LP-30 5.63 Biddle Road Pathway $210,474 LP-52 8.79 East McAndrews Pathway $9,900 Subtotal $220,374 NATURAL OPEN SPACE/GREENWAYS OSG-1 NA Bear Creek Greenway $0 OSG-3 3.13 Bear Creek Greenway Park $0 OSG-6 36.09 Railroad Park Greenway $756,582 OSG-8 43.87 Bear Green Greenway $798,000 OSG-42 8.20 Lazy Creek Greenway $56,100 OSG-44 6.30 Larson Creek Greenway $610,500 OSG-61 1700.00 Prescott Park $650,100 Subtotal $2,871,282.00 MAJOR FACILITIES Water Park (Feasibility Study & Design) $264,000 Nature Center $231,000 Pathway Development $2,787,840 Subtotal $3,282,840 CHAPTER 7 114 Leisure Services Plan Update 7.2 NON-CAPITAL PROJECTS These non-capital projects are programs and services prioritized according to the criteria listed below. 1 = High priority Projects to complete in the next 6 years 2 = Medium priority Projects to complete in the next 12 years 3 = Low priority Projects to complete if funding becomes available Table 7.2 Non-Capital Project Priorities (Programs and Services) Medford Planning Area Action Priority TRAILS, PATHWAYS, AND BIKEWAYS Provide maps and public information relating to natural areas 1 Provide hiking and bicycle maps to facilitate trail use 1 Develop a financial feasibility study for trail acquisition and a detailed trails plan identifying specific routes, trail types, and opportunities for pathway development 1 PARK FACILITIES, PLANNING, AND DESIGN Implement and develop ADA transition plan 2 Develop a financial feasibility study and master plan for a new waterpark at Hawthorne Park 1 Develop a joint master plan for Alba Park and Carnegie Building 2 Develop a long-term plan to decommission Jackson Pool 2 Demolish and relocate the Youth Activity Center 1 Update the Santo CC master plan to incorporate a gymnasium and Youth Activity Center 1 PUBLIC INFORMATION/PROGRAM MARKETING Provide public information (brochures, flyers, etc.) emphasizing benefits of parks and recreation 1 Provide public information (brochures, flyers, etc) to promote the developmental assets associated with youth programming 1 Create a workshop kit for program marketing to use at community open houses, community events, etc. 1 Provide printed maps at trailheads and public counters 1 Provide public information (brochures, maps, signage) in Spanish 2 CHAPTER 7 Leisure Services Plan Update 115 Table 7.2 (continued) Action Priority PROGRAMS AND SERVICES Offer additional aquatics programs 1 Offer additional instructional classes 1 Offer additional special interest programs 1 Offer additional outdoor/interpretative programs 1 Offer additional special events 2 Offer additional adult and youth sports 1 Offer senior programs 2 Offer additional teen programs 1 Provide staffing for teen center at Santo CC 1 Provide staffing for mobile art and playground program 1 Provide a park host at Prescott Park 2 MAINTENANCE Develop an integrated pest management plan 1 Develop a maintenance management plan 1 7.3 PRELIMINARY PROJECT PRIORITIES The total cost for all the improvements identified in Table 7.1 is approximately $80.360 million. This is more than the City can, or will, finance in the near term. To be able to direct funding toward the most significant projects in terms of meeting community needs, all projects were prioritized, with the most important SDC eligible capital projects identified in the 25-Year Capital List (see Table 7.6). Additional SDC eligible projects will be implemented secondarily, using funds other than System Development Charges. Projects identified as non-SDC eligible projects were then rated from highest to the lowest priority, and will be completed only as additional funding becomes available. These priorities reflect current and anticipated financial resources and community needs. In implementing projects, the City will retain the maximum degree of flexibility to adjust priorities for park development and open space acquisition as new and unforeseen opportunities and funding present themselves. CHAPTER 7 116 Leisure Services Plan Update 7.4 PROJECT ACTIONS The projects listed on the following pages have been identified through the master plan process. To further refine the specific projects, actions associated with each task have been broken into the categories listed below: � Administration: This includes, but is not limited to, project budgeting, staffing, and other work associated with project initiation. � Planning: This includes work associated with land use planning, environmental assessment, preparation of site master plans and the public process. � Acquisition: This includes work related to alternative site evaluation and selection, property appraisals, real estate negotiations and property transfers/easements. � Development: For new site or facility development, this includes work associated with selecting a design team, concept development, preparation of contract documents, project management, and construction administration. � Major Rehabilitation: This includes major renovation work (work costing more than $25,000) to existing facilities. � Minor Improvements: This includes minor repairs or improvements to existing sites (work costing less than $25,000). � Other: Work by other agencies or work associated with other issues, such as transportation improvements, mitigation, and storm water detention, is noted in this category. CHAPTER 7 Leisure Services Plan Update 117 Table 7.3 All Projects in General Master Project List Medford Planning Area Facility Adminis tra tion Pla nning/ Master Pla nning Ac quis i tion Develo p m en t Major Rehabilitation. Minor Imp r o vemen ts. Other NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS NP-2 Table Rock Park X X X X NP-4 Midway/Merriman Park (P) X X X X NP-5 Howard School Park X X NP-7 Railroad Park X X Np-10 Ross Lane Park (P) X X X X NP-11 Jackson School Park X X NP-13 Oak Grove School Park (P) X X X X NP-17 Lewis Street Park X X X NP-16 Alba Park X X X NP-18 Union Park X X X NP-19 Washington School Park X X NP-21 Columbus Park (P) X X X X NP-24 Jefferson School Park X X NP-25 Veterans Park X X X NP-29 Wilson School Park X X NP-32 Earhart Park X X X NP-33 Roosevelt School Park X X NP-34 Delta Waters School Park X X NP-35 Kennedy School Park X X NP-37 Donohue-Fronmayer Park X X NP-38 Ruhl Park X X NP-40 Holmes Park X X X NP-41 Hoover School Park X NP-43 Orchard Hill Park X X NP-45 Cedar Links Park (P) X X X X NP-46 Lone Pine Park X X NP-47 Brookdale Park (P) X X X X NP-48 Summerfield Park (P) X X X X NP-49 Country Club Park (P) X X X X NP-53 Orchard Park (P) X X X X NP-54 Oregon Hills Park X X X NP-56 Cherry Lane Park (P) X X X X NP-58 Oak Tree Park (P) X X X X NP-60 Chrissy Park X X X (P) = Proposed CHAPTER 7 118 Leisure Services Plan Update Table 7.3 (continued) Facility Adminis tra tion Pla nning/ Master Pla nning Ac quis i tion Develo p m en t Major Rehabilitation. Minor Imp r o vemen ts. Other COMMUNITY PARKS CP-20 Sunset Park (P) X X X X CP-22 Bear Creek Park X X X CP-23 Fichtner-Mainwaring Park X X CP-27 Hopkins Creek Park (P) X X X X CP-26 Medford Sports Complex X X CP-31 Hawthorne Park X X CP-36 North Medford Park X X CP-51 Foothills Park (P) X X X X CP-55 Hillcrest Park (P) X X X CP-57 Shamrock Park (P) X X X X SPECIAL USE AREAS SU-9 Santo Community Center X X SU-12 Liberty Park (P) X X X X SU-14 Carnegie Building X X SU-15 Vogel Park X X X SU-39 Eastwood Historic Cemetery X X SU-50 Phoenix Road Park (P) X X X X SU-59 South Fork Larson Creek Park (P) X X X X SU-62 Middle Fork Larson Creek Park (P) X X X X (P) = Proposed CHAPTER 7 Leisure Services Plan Update 119 Table 7.3 (continued) Facility Adminis tra tion Pla nning/ Master Pla nning Ac quis i tion Develo p m en t Major Rehabilitation. Minor Imp r o vemen ts. Other LINEAR PARKS LP-30 Biddle Road Pathway X X LP-52 East McAndrews Pathway X X NATURAL OPEN SPACE/ GREENWAYS OSG-1 Bear Creek Greenway X X OSG-3 Bear Creek Greenway Park X X OSG-6 Railroad Park Greenway X X X OSG-8 Bear Green Greenway X X OSG-42 Lazy Creek Greenway X X OSG-44 Larson Creek Greenway X X OSG-61 Prescott Park X X X X MAJOR FACILITIES Water Park (P) X X Nature Center (P) X X Pathway Development (P) X X X X (P) = Proposed 7.5 BASIS FOR ESTIMATING COSTS Development costs can vary widely depending on the location, facility type, construction method, off-site costs, quality of development, and other constraints on the project. For purposes of estimating cost, the following assumptions were made: � Land Acquisition: The cost of land will vary widely depending on its location within the Medford community. For development, land prices were estimated at $200,000 per acre. In some areas of the City, land acquisition could well exceed this amount. � Development: Potential costs were established for each element of park development for each park site. These costs include street improvements but not other off-site costs. CHAPTER 7 120 Leisure Services Plan Update � Design: The figures assume a project designed by a professional design firm and bid through a competitive public bidding process. 7.6 CAPITAL COSTS Table 7.4 represents an informal summary of probable construction costs of high priority projects. For convenience, the projects are divided into categories based on the purpose of the expenditure. Table 7.4 Summary of Probable Cost for Highest Priority Projects General Master Project List* Item Cost 1) Land Acquisition $28,864,000 2) Planning $634,000 3) Development $31,847,000 4) Major Rehabilitation $3,310,000 5) Minor Park Improvements $544,000 6) Other $28,000 TOTAL $65,227,000 * General Master Project List includes the approved 25-year project list, deferred maintenance projects, needed capital projects, and a general “wish list” by the maintenance staff. A detailed opinion of probable costs for each of the projects is found in Appendix G. CHAPTER 7 Leisure Services Plan Update 121 7.7 CURRENT & PROJECTED FUNDING AVAILABILITY The current & projected appropriation and/or balances from available funding sources are listed in the following table: Table 7.5 Funding Sources Summary of Funding Sources (Five Years) Funding Source Amount SDC- Park Dedication Fund (Carry-over from '04 - '05) $3,666,488 Park Dedication Fund: Lodging Tax, Car Rental, License Fee (Dedicated to Revenue Bond payments) $0 Revenue Bond- (2) $5,456,200 SDC's (1 million annually) (1) $5,000,000 General Grants (anticipate $25,000 annually) $125,000 CDBG Grants (anticipate $25,000 annually) $125,000 Donations (anticipate $25,000 annually) $125,000 Total Revenue $14, 497,688 (1) SDC estimate based on new fees (2) Revenue bond is paid by a portion of the City business license tax, transit lodging tax, and car rental tax. 7.8 FINANCING STRATEGY The following 25-Year Capital plan was adopted 1/19/2006, funded by a 3-step SDC fee increasing over three years. An SDC fee for single family residences of $2,544 starts at 80% of this amount in ‘06, moves to 90% in ’07, and 100% in ’08. CHAPTER 7 122 Leisure Services Plan Update Table 7.6 25-Year Capital Plan City of Medford Item Cost 2007 - 2012 Budget Neighborhood Park $1,860,000 Community/Urban Park $2,718,765 Recreation Facilities $444,300 Sub-total: $5,023,065 2012 - 2017 Budget Neighborhood Parks $1,200,000 Community/Urban Parks $3,000,000 Recreation Facilities $549,000 Sub-total: $4,749,00 2017 – 2022 Budget Neighborhood Parks $1,860,000 Community/Urban Parks $2,589,300 Recreation Facilities $596,700 Sub-total: $5,046,000 2022 – 2027 Budget Neighborhood Parks $1,207,500 Community/Urban Parks $2,589,300 Recreation Facilities $889,000 Sub-total: $4,685,800 2027 – 2032 Budget Neighborhood Parks $2,835,000 Community/Urban Parks $0 Recreation Facilities $1,916,420 Sub-total: $4,751,420 25-year Compliance Costs $1,575,000 TOTAL $27,822,500 The total cost for the 25-year Parks Master Plan was initially estimated to be $118,951,250, requiring an SDC fee for single family residence of $5,900. This is far more than the City will or can finance through SDC fees. The City adopted a reduced project list totaling $27,822,500 by eliminating a standard for Special Use Areas and linear parks; eliminating 5 Neighborhood and 2 Community Parks; eliminating 5 Adult Baseball/softball fields, 2 Football fields, 9 Soccer Fields, and 1 Gymnasium; and by not including Community Centers, an Aquatic Center, and many proposed trails. These eliminated facilities may be developed using alternative funding sources or developed with an increase to current SDC rates. The 25-year plan funds five new Neighborhood Parks, three utilizing existing park land. It also funds the completion of three existing and unfinished Neighborhood Parks. One additional new Neighborhood Park, Summerfield Park, is funded in the current budget, and should be constructed in the fall of 2006. CHAPTER 7 Leisure Services Plan Update 123 The plan also completes one existing Community Park, funds the development of one Community Park on existing park land, and funds the acquisition and development of two new Community Parks. The following recreational facilities are funded by the 25-year plan: (18) Youth Baseball/Softball Fields ($628,200) (8) Adult Softball Fields ($1,006,200) (10) Soccer Fields ($1,941,800) (2) Gymnasium Basketball Courts ($1,500,000) 2.45 miles of trails ($1,126,000) Summary of Costs for SDC Eligible Growth Required & Deficiency Projects Item Cost 1) SDC Eligible Growth Cost $23,940,720 2) Park SDC Deficiency $3,881,780 TOTAL $27,822,500 As the City’s population increases, new facilities must be built to maintain the City’s current level of park, recreation and leisure services. Growth required facilities that were not built in the past become deficiency projects which can no longer be funded through park SDC funds. The 25-year cost of deficiency projects totals $3,881,780, which, when spread out over a 25-year period, will require $155,271 per year to complete. This is considered achievable anticipating grants, donations through the Parks and Recreation Foundation, volunteer efforts, as well as non-SDC funding sources both existing and proposed such as the Car Rental Tax, the Park Utility Fee, and a $10,000,000 bond which is assumed in the park SDC methodology. This Leisure Service plan contemplates all future park funding needs, both required and hoped for. It includes current maintenance and deferred maintenance from past funding shortfalls; replacement of aging facilities; upgrades needed to reduce maintenance costs; and new facilities expected of a vital and contemporary park system. The Parks and Recreation Department proposes a number of innovative funding strategies for the creation and maintenance of a park system the citizens of Medford have envisioned and need for their health and welfare. 7.9 MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS IMPACTS CHAPTER 7 124 Leisure Services Plan Update The City’s current (’05-’06) parks maintenance budget is roughly $1,868,000. Adding new park sites and facilities to the existing inventory will substantially increase maintenance costs. The projected cost for grounds and facilities maintenance will be analyzed prior to each specific project approval decision, with a staff summary report prepared. This will ensure that life-cycle operational costs of the proposed project are clearly stated as part of the park policy deliberations and that appropriate levels of maintenance are planned and budgeted. Table 7.12 illustrates the expected cost of maintaining the proposed system listed for two different levels of maintenance. Table 7.7 Maintenance and Operations Impacts (Current & Proposed) Item Acres or Size Current Land Level A Current Land Level B 25-Year Plan Increased Acres Level A 25-Year Plan Increased Acres Level B Existing Active Acres 334.7 1,441,672 $2,007,900 1,441,672 $2,007,900 Existing Passive Acres 1,797.6 $359,118 $898,795 $359,118 $898,795 Proposed Active Acres 77.00 N.A. N.A. $331,716 $462,000 TOTAL $1,800,790 $2,906,695 $2,132,506 $3,368,695 (1) Level A: Current level of maintenance $4,308 per developed acre; estimated $200 per acre for open space. (2) Level B: Proposed level of maintenance $6,000 per developed acre; estimated $500 per acre for open space. The projected maintenance and operating costs listed in Table 7.12 have been derived using existing data (maintenance costs per developed acre) and typical maintenance costs for similar facilities from other known communities. To address the additional maintenance requirements, the City has imposed a utility tax to pay for the ongoing maintenance and operations of the City’s right-of-way landscaped areas. This may be expanded to other parks sites in the future. 7.10 FUNDING SOURCES CHAPTER 7 Leisure Services Plan Update 125 The following are possible funding sources for acquiring, developing and maintaining parks and other recreational areas. 1. General Fund: This is one of the City’s primary source for operating revenue. Most of this revenue comes from taxes levied on property. During the last fiscal year, the City appropriates approximately $21 million from this source. In a typical year, the General Fund represents about 50% of the City’s total operating budget. 2. General Obligation Bond: These are voter-approved bonds with the assessment placed on real property. The money may only be used for capital improvements, but not for maintenance. This property tax is levied for a specified period of time (usually 15-20 years). Passage requires a two-third’s majority approval by the voters. Major disadvantages of this funding option are the high approval requirement and the high interest costs. 3. Special Serial Levy - This is a property tax assessed for the construction and/or operation of park facilities. This type of levy is established for a given rate for 3-5 years and requires a simple majority of voter approval. The advantage of this levy type is there are no interest charges. 4. Revenue Bonds: These bonds are sold and paid for from the revenue produced from the operation of a facility. The City currently does not have any recreational facilities funded through revenue bonds, but anticipates funding part of the Medford Sports Park in this manner. 5. Donations: The donations of labor, land, or cash by service agencies, private groups, or individuals are a popular way to raise small amounts of money for specific projects. Service agencies, such as Kiwanis, Lions, and Rotary Clubs, often fund small projects within the community (e.g. playground improvements). 6. Exchange of Property: If the City has an excess parcel of land with some development value, it could be traded for private land more suitable for park use. 7. Joint Public/Private Partnership: This concept has become increasingly popular for park and recreation agencies. The basic approach is for a public agency to enter into a working agreement with a private corporation to help fund, build, and/or operate a public facility. Generally, the three primary incentives a public agency can offer is free land to place a facility (usually a park or other parcel of public land), certain tax advantages and access to the facility. While the public agency may have to give up certain responsibilities or control, it is one way of obtaining public facilities at a lower cost. CHAPTER 7 126 Leisure Services Plan Update There may be some opportunity for the City to work cooperatively with local sport organizations to develop additional sport fields, provided the City makes the land available for their use. 8. Lifetime Estates - This is an agreement between a land owner where the City gives the owner the right to live on the site after it is sold. 9. System Development Charges (SDC) (also referred to as the Park Dedication Fund) - SDC’s are fees imposed on new development because of the impacts it has on the City’s infrastructure. Since Park SDCs are paid by new residential development, the fees are meant to fund capacity enhancement park projects. The City of Medford regularly updates its SDC methodology and increases the SDC rate for all housing units. 10. Certificates of Participation - This is a lease-purchase approach where the City sells Certificates of Participation (COPs) to a lending institution. The City then pays the loan off from revenue produced by the facility or from its general operating budget. The lending institution holds title to the property until the COPs are repaid. This procedure does not require a vote of the public. 11. Public/Government Grant Programs: 11a. HUD Community Development Block Grants (CDBG): These grants, from the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development, are available for a wide variety of projects. Most are distributed in the lower income areas of the community. Grants can cover up to 100% of project costs. The City has received a number of grants from this source. 11b. Oregon Parks & Rec. Grants: These grants are available to local Oregon government agencies offering public outdoor park and recreation areas and facilities in keeping with the objectives contained in the Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan. Ten percent of the grants are in the form of small $50,000 grants, with the remaining funds for larger projects up to $500,000. 11c. Land and Water Conservation Fund: This is a federal grant program that receives its money from offshore oil leases. The money is distributed through the National Park Service and is administered locally by Oregon State Parks. In the past this was one of the major sources of grant money for local agencies. In the 1990s, funding at the federal level was severely cut but in recent times more money has become CHAPTER 7 Leisure Services Plan Update 127 available. The funds can be used for acquisition and development of outdoor facilities and requires a 50% match. 11d. TEA3 (Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act): Through the years, Oregon has received considerable revenue for trail-related projects. Originally called the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA), this program funded a wide variety of transportation related projects. In 1998, the program was modified some and is now referred to as TEA21. TEA3 is the third iteration of this transportation vision. Funding for this had been reauthorized by the Federal Government through FY 2004. These funds generally can be used for landscape and amenity improvements related to trail development. Applicants must provide matching contributions of at least 50 percent. 12. Exactions: Costs of necessary public improvements can be passed onto the adjacent landowners. 13. Public Land Trusts: Private land trusts, such as the Trust for Public Land, Inc. and the Nature Conservancy, will acquire and hold land for eventual acquisition by a public agency. 14. US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFW): USFW may provide technical assistance and administer funding for projects related to water quality improvement through debris and habitat/vegetation management, watershed management and stream bank erosion, and sediment deposition projects. Other potential sources: 1. Partnerships: The City is in a unique position to develop additional partnerships with other jurisdictions or agencies to implement projects identified in the plan. Some potential partners include Jackson County, School Districts, surrounding communities, and various other private groups. 2. Private Grants and Foundations: Private grants and foundations provide money for a wide range of projects. They are sometimes difficult to find and equally difficult to secure because of the open competition. They usually fund unique projects or ones of extreme need. BIBLIOGRAPHY Leisure Services Plan Update 129 BIBLIOGRAPHY Allen, Lawrence, Bonnie Stevens, and Karen Hurtes (1998). Benefits-Based Programming of Recreation Services: Mentor Training Manual. Ashburn, Virginia: The National Recreation and Park Association. Bear Creek Greenway Foundation (2004). Bear Creek Greenway. http://www.bearcreekgreenway.com/ City of Talent (2001). Parks and Recreation Master Plan. Talent, OR: City of Talent. City of Medford (2002). Vision Strategic Plan. Medford OR: City of Medford. Also: http://www.ci.medford.or.us/Files/VSP.pdf City of Medford (2004). 2003/2005 Biennial Budget. Medford, OR: City of Medford. City of Medford (2004). 2004 State of the City. City of Medford. http://www.ci.medford.or.us/Page.asp?NavID=799/ City of Medford (2004). Community Connection: Medford Parks & Recreation Activity & Services Guide. Medford, OR: City of Medford. City of Medford (2004). Demographics. City of Medford. http://www.ci.medford.or.us/Page.asp?NavID=79/ City of Medford (2002). Prescott Park Management Plan. Medford, OR: City of Medford. City of Phoenix (2004). Public Parks. Phoenix, Oregon. http://www.phoenixoregon.net/public/parks.html/ Cogan Owens Cogan LCC (2000). Medford in the 21 st Century: A Vision for Our Future. http://www.ci.medford.or.us/Page.asp?NavID=221 Department of Land Conservation and Development (1995). Oregon’s Statewide Planning Goals & Guidelines. Department of Land Conservation and Development. Design Studios West, Inc. (2003). Bear Creek Master Plan. Medford, OR: City of Medford. BIBLIOGRPAHY 130 Leisure Services Plan Update Godby, Geoffrey, Alan Graefe and Stephen James (1992). The Benefits of Local Recreation and Park Services: A Nationwide Study of the Perceptions of the American Public. Alexandria, VA: NRPA. Jackson County Fairgrounds (2004). Facility Information. Jackson County, OR. http://www.jcfairgrounds.com/ Jackson County Parks (2004). Parks. Jackson County, OR. http://www.jacksoncountyparks.com/ JC Draggoo & Associates (1997). Parks, Recreation and Leisure Services Plan. Medford, OR: City of Medford. MIG, Inc. (2004). Discussion Paper #1: Community Profile. Medford, OR: City of Medford. MIG, Inc. (2004). Discussion Paper #2: Evaluation of Existing Park and Facility Resources. Medford, OR: City of Medford. MIG, Inc. (2004). Discussion Paper #3: Existing Operations and Management. Medford, OR: City of Medford. MIG, Inc. (2004). Discussion Paper #4: Recreation Demand. Medford, OR: City of Medford. MIG, Inc. (2004). Discussion Paper #5: Needs Assessment. Medford, OR: City of Medford. MIG, Inc. (2004). Discussion Paper #6: Recommendations. Medford, OR: City of Medford. National Recreation and Park Association (1983). Recreation, Park and Open Space Standards and Guidelines. Alexandria, VA: NRPA. National Sporting Goods Association (NGSA) (2003). Sports Participation. Mt. Prospect, Illinois: National Sporting Goods Association. www.ngsa.org. Oregon Parks and Recreation Department (OPRD) (2003). Oregon Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan 2003-2007. Salem, Oregon: State of Oregon. Oregon State Parks and Recreation Department (2004). Medford Parks. http://www.oregonstateparks.org/ BIBLIOGRAPHY Leisure Services Plan Update 131 Population Research Center (2004). Annual Oregon Population Report. Portland State University. http://www.upa.pdx.edu/CPRC/about/index.html/ Search Institute (2004). 40 Developmental Assets for Youth. www.search-institute.org U.S. Census Bureau (2004). United States Census 2000. United States Department of Commerce. http://factfinder.census.gov/home/saff/main.html/ USDI Bureau of Land Management and USDA Forest Service (2004). Medford District Map. Medford, OR: Bureau of Land Management. APPENDIX A Leisure Services Plan Update A-1 APPENDIX A: CITY OF MEDFORD PARKS, GREENWAYS, AND RECREATION AREAS A.1 INTRODUCTION An alphabetical list of all City-owned and City-leased park land within the Medford planning area is presented in Table A-1. The table includes a summary of facilities for each site, along with park classification, total site acreage, and leased acreage (where applicable). Table A-1 Existing City Park Land Medford Planning Area Area Facilities/Amenities Type Total Site Acreage Leased Acreage Alba Park Gazebo, picnic area, pathways, landscaped area, historic significance Neighborhood 1.52 0 Bear Creek Greenway Natural area, riparian corridor, pathway Open Space/ Greenway 43.87 0 Bear Creek Greenway Park Natural area, riparian corridor, pathway Open Space/ Greenway 3.13 0 Bear Creek Park Youth softball fields (6), tennis courts (4), playground, open play area, picnic area (shelter), amphitheater, BMX track, dog park, skate park, group picnic area, pathways, restrooms (2), parking areas (3), riparian corridor, locally significant wetlands Community/ Open Space/ Greenway 101.23 0 Biddle Road Pathway Pathway Linear 5.63 0 Summerfield Park Undeveloped 1.56 0 Carnegie Building Historic building Undeveloped 1.75 0 Chrissy Park Undeveloped 165.58 0 Delta Waters School Park Softball field, soccer field (overlay), basketball courts, playground, pathway, parking, restroom (portable) Neighborhood 13.26 13.26 Donahue- Frohnmayer Park Open play area, basketball court (1/2), picnic area, playground, parking area, locally significant wetland Neighborhood 10.20 0 Earhart Park Open play area, playground Neighborhood 1.60 0 East McAndrews Pathway Pathway Linear 8.79 APPENDIX A A-2 Leisure Services Plan Update Table A-1 (continued) Area Facilities/Amenities Type Total Site Acreage Leased Acreage Fichtner- Mainwaring Park Tennis courts (4), soccer fields (4), restroom, gazebo, playground, basketball court, volleyball courts (4), open play area, pathway Community 30.95 0 Hawthorne Park Soccer field, swimming pool (outdoor), picnic shelter, horseshoe pits (4), restrooms, parking area, pathways, riparian corridor Community 13.00 0 Holmes Park Tennis courts (2), restrooms, playground, open play area, picnic area, basketball court (1/2) , parking area, Frisbee golf course, pathway Neighborhood/ Special Use 18.36 0 Hoover School Park Youth baseball/softball field, soccer field (overlay), playground, restroom (portable), Neighborhood 3.85 3.85 Howard School Park Softball field, baseball/softball field, tennis courts (2), playground, parking area, pathway Neighborhood 8.55 0 IOOF/Eastwood Historic Cemetery Mausoleum, shop, shed, parking Special Use 19.00 0 Jackson School Park Softball fields (2), youth baseball/softball field, tennis courts (2), swimming pool (outdoor), recreation center, basketball court (1/2), playground, restroom, parking area Neighborhood 9.44 3.66 Jefferson School Park Softball fields (3), youth softball/baseball, soccer fields (2 – overlay), restrooms (portable), playgrounds (2), basketball court Neighborhood 8.45 8.45 Kennedy School Park Youth baseball/softball field, soccer fields (2), pathway, playgrounds, parking area, restroom (portable) Neighborhood 12.96 5.57 Larson Creek Greenway Pathway, benches, riparian corridor Open Space/ Greenway 8.20 0 Lazy Creek Greenway Pathway, benches, riparian corridor (pending) Open Space/ Greenway 6.30 0 APPENDIX A Leisure Services Plan Update A-3 Table A-1 (continued) Area Facilities/Amenities Type Total Site Acreage Leased Acreage Lewis Street Park Undeveloped 8.56 0 Lone Pine School Park Softball field, multi-use fields (2), soccer field, playground, picnic area, restroom (portable) Neighborhood 9.82 4.14 Medford Sports Park Riparian corridor, bridge Community/ Undeveloped 132.72 0 North Medford School Park Baseball fields (2), softball fields (2), soccer fields (2), tennis courts (10), football fields (2), restrooms Community 17.80 17.80 Midway Park Undeveloped 3.0 Orchard Hill School Park Track, soccer field, playground, picnic area, restroom (portable), basketball court, parking area Neighborhood 3.0 3.0 Oregon Hills Park Undeveloped 3.00 0 Prescott Park Unpaved road, picnic tables, restroom (portable), trails, lookout, gate, signs, historic significance Community/ Undeveloped Open Space 1,740.00 0 Railroad Park Restroom, picnic shelter, parking area, Neighborhood/ Special Use 12.34 0 Railroad Park Greenway Pathway, riparian corridor Greenway 36.09 Roosevelt School Park Youth baseball/softball field (2), tennis courts (2), soccer field, playground Neighborhood 2.78 2.78 Ruhl Park Gazebo, playground, basketball court (1/2), picnic area, restroom (portable) Neighborhood 1.15 0 Santo Community Center Large multi-purpose room and several classrooms Special Use 3.90 0 Table Rock Park Riparian corridor Undeveloped/ Neighborhood/ Open Space 7.49 0 Union Park Playgrounds (2), open play area, restroom, parking area Neighborhood 2.16 0 Veterans Park Restroom, picnic area, memorial, parking area Neighborhood 2.29 0 Vogel Plaza Landscaped area Special Use 0.24 0 Washington School Park Youth baseball/softball field, soccer field, tennis courts (2), track (5 lane), basketball courts (2), playground, restroom Neighborhood 4.56 4.56 Wilson School Park Softball fields (2), youth baseball/softball field, track, playground, parking area Neighborhood 7.82 7.82 APPENDIX A A-4 Leisure Services Plan Update TOTAL 2,509.42 74.89 A.2 BEAUTIFICATION AREAS Table A-2 lists all beautification areas maintained by the City. These areas contribute an estimated 14.69 acres to parks maintenance. Because of their limited recreational capacity, beautification areas are listed separately from other types of classified park land. Table A-2 City Beautification Areas Medford Planning Area Beautification Areas Acres GREENS Almond Street Green 0.62 Cottage Street Green 0.50 Court Street Green 0.29 Haven Street Green 0.06 Ivy Street Green 0.22 Keene Way Green 0.10 East Main Street Green 0.21 McAndrews/Court Street 0.10 West Main 0.22 White Oak Circle 0.20 TOTAL 2.52 ISLANDS Barnett (I-5 to Riverside) 0.10 Biddle (Jackson to Morrow) 2.44 Columbus and McAndrews (by Service Ctr) 0.01 Court/Crater Lake/Hwy99 0.50 Glen Oak 0.09 Highland and Siskiyou 0.01 Hilton Island 0.01 Holly and Monroe 0.01 Jackson and 4th (between creek and I-5) 0.05 Jackson and 4th (by Hawthorne Park) 0.05 McAndrews (Biddle to Mall) 0.10 McAndrews and Hillcrest 0.09 Siskiyou Blvd. 1.60 Stewart (Barnett to Hwy 99) 0.10 TOTAL 5.16 APPENDIX A Leisure Services Plan Update A-5 Table A-2 (continued) LANDSCAPED AREAS City Hall 1.30 Service Center 1.10 TOTAL 2.40 PATHWAYS Jefferson (770 lineal feet, 5 feet wide) 0.08 N. Medford (120 lineal feet, 10 feet wide) 0.03 Orchard Hill (225 lineal feet, 10 feet wide) 0.05 TOTAL 0.16 LANDSCAPED STRIPS Garfield 0.60 Highway 238, Big X 0.50 Highway 238, by Mall 1.50 TOTAL 2.60 STREET TREES IN ISLANDS (# of trees) 10th Street (3) 0.10 Siskiyou Blvd. at Fichtner-Mainwaring (10) 0.10 Siskiyou Blvd. at RV Med. Center (5) 0.5 Hillcrest (8) 0.05 Merriman (6) 0.05 N. Phoenix (23) 0.15 TOTAL 1.85 TOTAL BEAUTIFICATION AREAS 14.69 APPENDIX A A-6 Leisure Services Plan Update A.3 EXISITING PARKS, FACILITIES, AND OPEN SPACE AREAS Beginning on the following page is a summary description and photo of each existing park, recreation facility, and open space area maintained by the City of Medford. This inventory incorporates City-owned and City-leased park land, not including beautification areas. The summary descriptions contain the following information for each park: � Location � Size (in acres) � Ownership � Status (developed, undeveloped, partially developed) � Existing Facilities (based on a 2004 inventory) � Deficiencies (based on a 2004 assessment) � Significant Natural Areas (if any) � Planned Improvements � Comments APPENDIX A Leisure Services Plan Update A-7 Alba Park Location: Southwest quadrant; bordered by West Main Street, Holly Street, 8th Street and Ivy Street Size: 1.52 Acres Ownership: City of Medford Status: Developed Existing Facilities: Gazebo, picnic area, pathways, fountain, cannon Deficiencies: Sidewalks Planned Improvements: None Comments: Named after Medford’s sister city in Alba, Italy. Site has an open lawn area with large shade trees. The park is a significant historic resource within the Downtown Historic District and is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. APPENDIX A A-8 Leisure Services Plan Update Bear Creek Greenway Location: Along Bear Creek Size: 43.87 Acres Ownership: City of Medford Status: Partially Developed Existing Facilities: Multi-use path (a designated Oregon Recreation Trail) Deficiencies: None Significant Natural Areas: This park contains designated Riparian Corridors along Bear Creek (50 feet from top-of-bank), based on its status as a "fish-bearing" stream. The creek contains habitat for endangered salmonid species. Planned Improvements: Develop according to completed master plan Comments: The Bear Creek Greenway Foundation has plans to extend the greenway from Central Point to Ashland. Along with the portion of the greenway that is City-owned, Jackson County owns an estimated 116.0 greenway acres; the State of Oregon owns 82.0 acres, Urban Renewal own 1.8 acres, and the Rogue Rural District owns 0.6 acres. Some additional acreage is held in private ownership. APPENDIX A Leisure Services Plan Update A-9 Bear Creek Greenway Park Location: Along Bear Creek, between I-5 and Biddle Road in North Medford Size: 3.13 Acres Ownership: City of Medford Status: Partially Developed Existing Facilities: Natural area, Bear Creek Greenway multi- use path (a designated Oregon Recreation Trail) Deficiencies: None Significant Natural Areas: This park contains designated Riparian Corridors along Bear Creek (50 feet from top-of-bank), based on its status as a "fish-bearing" stream. The creek contains habitat for endangered salmonid species. Planned Improvements: None Comments: None APPENDIX A A-10 Leisure Services Plan Update Bear Creek Park Location: Southwest quadrant; bordered by Interstate 5, Barnett Road, Highland Drive and Siskiyou Boulevard Size: 101.23 Acres Ownership: City of Medford Status: Partially Developed Existing Facilities: Tennis Courts (4 lighted), softball fields (6), group picnic area, playground, amphitheater, dog park, BMX track, skate park, pathways, parking areas (3), restrooms (2), open play areas, Bear Creek Greenway multi-use path (a designated Oregon Recreation Trail) Deficiencies: Parking (inadequate), pathways, irrigation and drainage, Baby Bear Creek (filter), lighting, restrooms (ADA compliance) Significant Natural Areas: The park contains designated Riparian Corridors along Bear Creek (50-feet from top-of-bank) and Lazy Creek (pending), based on their status as "fish-bearing" streams. It also contains Locally Significant Wetlands designated on the Medford Local Wetland Inventory: LZ-W01 (1.4 acres), LZ- W02 (0.8 acres), and LZ-W03 (0.6 acres). Since these wetlands will be within the future Riparian Corridor of Lazy Creek, regulations will require a 50-foot setback around the wetland boundaries. Planned Improvements: Access improvements and expansion of the east parking area are planned for 2005. Comments: None APPENDIX A Leisure Services Plan Update A-11 Biddle Road Pathway Location: Northwest quadrant; bordered by Interstate 5, Morrow Road, Biddle Road and Jackson Road Size: 5.63 Acres Ownership: City of Medford Status: Developed Existing Facilities: Pathway (5,800 linear feet) Deficiencies: Irrigation, pathways Planned Improvements: None Comments: Asphalt path is in need of repair. APPENDIX A A-12 Leisure Services Plan Update Carnegie Building Location: Southwest quadrant; bordered by West Main Street, Oakdale Street, 8th Street and Ivy Street Size: 1.75 Acres Ownership: City of Medford Status: Undeveloped Existing Facilities: Vacant building Deficiencies: Building needs upgrades/remodeling for future use. Planned Improvements: None Comments: Former library. The building is a significant historic resource within the Downtown Historic District and is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. APPENDIX A Leisure Services Plan Update A-13 Chrissy Park Location: Southeast quadrant; beyond Cherry Lane Size: 165.58 Acres Ownership: City of Medford Status: Undeveloped Existing Facilities: None Deficiencies: None Planned Improvements: None Comments: None APPENDIX A A-14 Leisure Services Plan Update Delta Waters School Park Location: Northeast quadrant; off McLoughlin Drive Size: 13.26 Acres Ownership: Medford School District; leased to City of Medford Status: Partially Developed Existing Facilities: Softball field, soccer field (overlay), playground, basketball courts, pathway, portable restroom Deficiencies: Lacks adequate shade trees; infield of softball field has too may rocks in the soil to use Planned Improvements: Phase II of the master plan: restroom, parking lot, picnic area, and landscaping Comments: Site is adjacent to Abe Lincoln Elementary School APPENDIX A Leisure Services Plan Update A-15 Donahue-Frohnmayer Park Location: Northeast quadrant; corner of Spring Street and Springbrook Drive Size: 10.20 Acres Ownership: City of Medford Status: Partially developed Existing Facilities: Picnic area, basketball court (1/2), open play area, playground, parking, restroom Deficiencies: Tree maintenance, narrow park entrance, permanent restroom (needed) Significant Natural Areas: Locally Significant Wetland (BE-W-03; 0.9 acres) Planned Improvements: Completed park master plan. Permanent restroom and landscape improvements should be completed in 2004/05 Comments: Winter Springs project at this site [Map] APPENDIX A A-16 Leisure Services Plan Update Earhart Park Location: Southwest quadrant; bordered by Fortune Drive, Eastwood Drive and Siskiyou Boulevard Size: 1.60 Acres Ownership: City of Medford Status: Partially Developed Existing Facilities: Playground, open play area Deficiencies: Accessible routes, playground Planned Improvements: None Comments: Site is bordered by residential houses and has poor visual access APPENDIX A Leisure Services Plan Update A-17 East McAndrews Pathway Location: Along the eastern extension of McAndrews Road. Size: 8.79 Acres Ownership: City of Medford Status: Developed Existing Facilities: Pathway (approximately 2.5 miles) Deficiencies: None Planned Improvements: None Comments: None APPENDIX A A-18 Leisure Services Plan Update Fichtner-Mainwaring Park Location: Southwest quadrant; bordered by Stewart Avenue, Holly Street and Holmes Avenue Size: 30.95 Acres Ownership: City of Medford Status: Developed Existing Facilities: Tennis courts (4), soccer fields (4), restroom, basketball court, playground, volleyball courts (4), open play area, pathways, gazebo, parking areas (2) Deficiencies: Lighting, parking (inadequate), playground, volleyball court (safety border needed around sand), tennis courts (resurfacing), irrigation (loop system replacement) Planned Improvements: Spray park (to open Spring 2005) Comments: Nearly completed master plan APPENDIX A Leisure Services Plan Update A-19 Hawthorne Park Location: Southeast quadrant; bordered by Jackson Street, Hawthorne Street, East Main Street and Interstate 5 Size: 13.00 Acres Ownership: City of Medford Status: Developed Existing Facilities: Soccer field, outdoor pool, picnic shelter, playground, restrooms, pathways, parking area, horseshoe pits (4), Bear Creek Greenway multi-use path (a designated Oregon Recreation Trail) Deficiencies: Restroom, pool, playground (old equipment, safety surfacing, border), pathways, lighting, safety Significant Natural Areas: This park contains designated Riparian Corridors along Bear Creek (50-feet from top-of-bank), based on its status as a "fish-bearing" stream. The creek contains habitat for endangered salmonid species. Planned Improvements: None Comments: Picnic shelter is fenced and locked except when reserved. Single stall restrooms can be locked and used as shelter for transients. APPENDIX A A-20 Leisure Services Plan Update Holmes Park Location: Southeast quadrant; off Modoc Avenue Size: 18.36 Acres Ownership: City of Medford Status: Partially Developed Existing Facilities: Tennis courts (2), restroom, playground, open grass area, picnic area, basketball court (half), parking area, pathways, pickle ball court, Frisbee golf course Deficiencies: ADA access to restrooms, potable water line (replacement), sewer line (replacement), tree maintenance, tennis courts (resurfacing), playground (equipment and border), lighting, irrigation (booster pump insufficient) Planned Improvements: None Comments: None APPENDIX A Leisure Services Plan Update A-21 Hoover School Park Location: Southeast quadrant; off Siskiyou Boulevard between Modoc Avenue and Black Oak Drive Size: 3.85 Acres Ownership: Medford School District; leased to City of Medford Status: Developed Existing Facilities: Youth softball field, soccer field, playground, portable restroom Deficiencies: Softball field Planned Improvements: None Comments: None [Map] APPENDIX A A-22 Leisure Services Plan Update Howard School Park Location: Northwest quadrant; off Mace Road Size: 8.55 Acres Ownership: Medford School District; lease to City of Medford Status: Developed Existing Facilities: Adult softball field, youth baseball/softball field, tennis courts (2), playgrounds (2), parking area, pathway Deficiencies: Tree maintenance, shrub pruning, tennis courts (resurfacing), irrigation and infield watering system, restroom (permanent; ADA compliant) Planned Improvements: None Comments: None APPENDIX A Leisure Services Plan Update A-23 IOOF/Eastwood Cemetery Location: Southeast quadrant; off Siskiyou Boulevard Size: 19.00 Acres Ownership: City of Medford Status: Developed Existing Facilities: Historic cemetery plots, mausoleum building, shop, storage shed, small parking area Deficiencies: Irrigation Planned Improvements: None Comments: None APPENDIX A A-24 Leisure Services Plan Update Jackson School Park Location: Northwest quadrant; bordered by McAndrews Road, Columbus Road and Summit Avenue Size: 9.44 Acres Ownership: City of Medford; Medford School District (3.66 acres) leased to City Status: Developed Existing Facilities: Softball fields (2 lighted), tennis courts (2), outdoor pool, recreation center (The Shack), basketball court, playground, restroom, parking area, storage building (non- functioning restroom) Deficiencies: Restroom (ADA compliance, renovation, addition), pathways, pool, tennis courts (resurfacing), drainage, irrigation (loop system replacement), lighting, Fagone field (concession, bleachers) Planned Improvements: None Comments: None APPENDIX A Leisure Services Plan Update A-25 Jefferson School Park Location: Southeast quadrant; bordered by Holmes Avenue and Kenyon Street Size: 8.45 Acres Ownership: Medford School District, leased to City of Medford Status: Developed Existing Facilities: Softball fields (3), soccer fields (2--overlay softball fields), playgrounds (2), basketball court, restrooms (portable) Deficiencies: Parking (inadequate), infield watering system Planned Improvements: None Comments: Located across Holmes Avenue from Fitchner- Mainwaring Park APPENDIX A A-26 Leisure Services Plan Update Kennedy School Park Location: Northeast quadrant; Size: 12.96 Acres Ownership: City of Medford, Medford School District (5.57 acres) leased to City Status: Partially developed Existing Facilities: Playgrounds (3), soccer fields (2), open play area, youth baseball field, parking area, portable restroom Deficiencies: Parking (inadequate), pathways, drainage, site lacks adequate shade trees Planned Improvements: Phase II of master plan: parking, drainage system, restroom, landscaping Comments: None [Map] APPENDIX A Leisure Services Plan Update A-27 Larson Creek Greenway Location: Southeast quadrant; stretches from Black Oak Drive to Murphy Road (with paved pathway) and from Golf View Drive and Larson Creek Drive (unpaved trail) Size: 8.20 Acres Ownership: City of Medford Status: Developed Existing Facilities: Pathway/trail, benches Deficiencies: Pathways, tree pruning Significant Natural Areas: From Black Oak Road to Murphy Road, this park contains designated Riparian Corridors along Bear Creek (50-feet from top-of-bank), based on its status as a "fish- bearing" stream. The creek contains habitat for endangered salmonid species. Planned Improvements: None Comments: None APPENDIX A A-28 Leisure Services Plan Update Lazy Creek Greenway Location: Southeast quadrant; between Crestbrook Road to Siskiyou Boulevard and between Golf View Drive and Larson Creek Drive Size: 6.30 Acres Ownership: City of Medford Status: Developed Existing Facilities: Pathways (paved, unpaved) Deficiencies: Pathways, tree pruning, weeding Significant Natural Areas: This park contains designated Riparian Corridors along Bear Creek (50-feet from top-of-bank), based on its status as a "fish-bearing" stream. The creek contains habitat for endangered salmonid species. Planned Improvements: None Comments: None APPENDIX A Leisure Services Plan Update A-29 Lewis Street Park Location: Southwest quadrant; near Lewis Avenue and Meadows Lane Size: 8.56 Acres Ownership: City of Medford Status: Undeveloped Existing Facilities: None Deficiencies: None Planned Improvements: None Comments: Development as a neighborhood park is expected to begin in 2005. APPENDIX A A-30 Leisure Services Plan Update Lone Pine School Park Location: Northeast quadrant; at Lone Pine Road and Brookdale Road Size: 9.82 Acres Ownership: City of Medford; Medford School District (4.14 acres) leased to City Status: Partially developed Existing Facilities: Baseball/softball fields (1), soccer field, playground, multi-use fields/practice areas (2), picnic area, portable restroom Deficiencies: Baseball/softball field, restroom (needed) Planned Improvements: Phase II of master plan: restroom, zero depth spraypark, and landscaping. Comments: Phase II construction is expected to begin in 2005. APPENDIX A Leisure Services Plan Update A-31 Medford Sports Park Location: Southeast quadrant; between I-5 and South Pacific Hwy 99 Size: 132.72 Acres Ownership: City of Medford Status: Undeveloped Existing Facilities: Building, bridge, Bear Creek Greenway multi- use path (a designated Oregon Recreation Trail) Deficiencies: Two structures need to be removed Significant Natural Areas: The park contains designated Riparian Corridors along Bear Creek (50-feet from top-of-bank), based on its status as "fish-bearing" streams. (The creek contains habitat for endangered salmonid species.) The park also contains Locally Significant Wetlands designated on the Medford Local Wetland Inventory: BS-W06 (small portion) and BS-W09 (3.7 acres.) Since these wetlands will be within the future Riparian Corridor of Lazy Creek, regulations will require a 50-foot setback around the wetland boundaries. Planned Improvements: Phase I improvements from the master plan, infrastructure development, and the replacement of Miles Field will begin later this year. Comments: A 2004 bond for further site development did not pass. APPENDIX A A-32 Leisure Services Plan Update North Medford School Park Location: Northeast quadrant; bordered by Springbrook Road, Roberts Road, N. Keene Way Drive, and Amaryllis Street Size: 17.80 Acres Ownership: Medford School District; leased to City of Medford Status: Developed Existing Facilities: Baseball fields (2), softball fields (2), soccer fields (2), tennis courts (10), football fields (2), restrooms Deficiencies: Turf, irrigation system, drinking fountain (ADA compliance), restroom (doors) Planned Improvements: None Comments: None APPENDIX A Leisure Services Plan Update A-33 Orchard Hill School Park Location: Southeast quadrant; off Juanipero Way and La Loma Drive Size: 4.50 Acres Ownership: Phoenix-Talent School District Status: Developed Existing Facilities: Soccer field (1), track (decomposed granite), playground, picnic area, restrooms (portable), basketball court, parking area Deficiencies: Irrigation pump, lack of shade trees Planned Improvements: None Comments: None APPENDIX A A-34 Leisure Services Plan Update Oregon Hills Park Location: Southeast quadrant; just north of Hillcrest Road Size: 16.00 Acres Ownership: City of Medford Status: This is a joint use of the land, with three acres to be park land, and the remaining land to be either a buffer or Public Works detention pond. Existing Facilities: None Deficiencies: None Significant Natural Areas: The park contains two forks of Lazy Creek, which are not considered a "fish-bearing" (salmonid) section. Planned Improvements: None Comments: None APPENDIX A Leisure Services Plan Update A-35 Prescott Park Location: Roxy Ann Butte; outside UGB Size: 1,700.00 Acres Ownership: City of Medford Status: Minimally developed Existing Facilities: Unpaved road, trails, picnic tables, restroom (portable), lookout, gate, signage Deficiencies: Access, trail maintenance Planned Improvements: None Comments: Located outside the City’s urban growth boundary. Butte supports transmission towers and a rock quarry. Access road is shared with quarry trucks. Upper road closed to park traffic. The facilities in Prescott Park were constructed by the CCC in the 1930's are considered to be historic resources "having primary historic significance." These are on the National Register of Historic Places. APPENDIX A A-36 Leisure Services Plan Update Railroad Park Location: Northwest quadrant, near Table Rock Road, on Berrydale Avenue Size: 12.34 Acres Ownership: City of Medford; a portion of the park is operated by the Southern Oregon Chapter of the National Railway Historical Society and others Status: Developed Existing Facilities: Restrooms, picnic shelter, parking area, Bear Creek Greenway multi-use path (a designated Oregon Recreation Trail) Deficiencies: Restroom Planned Improvements: None Comments: Railroad Park includes an antique railroad exhibit, consisting of restored locomotives, railroad cars, and a model steam train to ride. Most of the park is fenced and is open to the public for train rides on the 2 nd and 4 th Sundays, from April through October. APPENDIX A Leisure Services Plan Update A-37 Railroad Park Greenway Location: Northwest quadrant Size: 36.09 Acres Ownership: City of Medford Status: Partially developed Existing Facilities: Pathway Deficiencies: Restroom Significant Natural Areas: This park contains designated Riparian Corridors along Bear Creek (50 feet from top-of-bank), based on its status as a "fish-bearing" stream. The creek contains habitat for endangered salmonid species. Planned Improvements: None Comments: None APPENDIX A A-38 Leisure Services Plan Update Roosevelt School Park Location: Southeast quadrant; bordered by Queen Anne, Academy, and Lindley Street Size: 2.78 Acres Ownership: Medford School District; leased to City of Medford Status: Developed Existing Facilities: Baseball/softball field (2), tennis courts (2), playgrounds (2), soccer field (1), parking Deficiencies: Restroom (ADA compliance), tennis courts (nets and posts), controller, irrigation (main) Planned Improvements: None Comments: None APPENDIX A Leisure Services Plan Update A-39 Ruhl Park Location: Southeast quadrant; bordered by Hillcrest Road and Modoc Avenue Size: 1.15 Acres Ownership: City of Medford Status: Developed Existing Facilities: Gazebo, playground, basketball court, picnic area, portable restroom Deficiencies: Pathways (accessible routes, repaving), restroom (needed), irrigation Planned Improvements: None Comments: None APPENDIX A A-40 Leisure Services Plan Update Santo Community Center Location: Northwest quadrant; on corner of N. Columbus Ave. and W. McAndrews Road Size: 3.90 Acres Ownership: City of Medford Status: Developed Existing Facilities: Large multi-purpose room and several classrooms Deficiencies: None Planned Improvements: Phase II redesign: new entry, interior remodel, drill hall improvements, site work Comments: A proposal to add a gym at this site was presented to City Council. APPENDIX A Leisure Services Plan Update A-41 Table Rock Park Location: Northeast quadrant; between Gilman Road and Table Rock Road Size: 7.49 Acres Ownership: City of Medford Status: Undeveloped Existing Facilities: None Deficiencies: None Significant Natural Areas: This park contains designated Riparian Corridors along Bear Creek (50 feet from top-of-bank), based on its status as a "fish-bearing" stream. The creek contains habitat for endangered salmonid species. Planned Improvements: None Comments: None APPENDIX A A-42 Leisure Services Plan Update Union Park Location: Southwest quadrant; off Union Avenue, between Plum Street and Hamilton Street Size: 2.16 Acres Ownership: City of Medford Status: Developed Existing Facilities: Playgrounds (2), open play area, pathway, restroom, parking area Deficiencies: Tennis court (resurfacing, net), tree pruning and maintenance, irrigation, restroom (ADA compliance, renovation), lighting, safety Planned Improvements: None Comments: Close proximity to Washington School Park APPENDIX A Leisure Services Plan Update A-43 Veterans Park Location: Southeast quadrant; located at corner of Stewart Avenue and Rogue Valley Highway Size: 2.29 Acres Ownership: City of Medford Status: Developed Existing Facilities: Restrooms, picnic area, memorial, rose garden, and parking area Deficiencies: Sidewalks (needed), drainage, hazardous drop-off (east side) Planned Improvements: None Comments: ODOT plans to alter the intersection of Stewart Avenue and HWY 99, which may have an impact on this park APPENDIX A A-44 Leisure Services Plan Update Vogel Plaza Location: Southeast quadrant; located at the corner of West Main Street and Central Avenue Size: 0.24 Acres Ownership: City of Medford Status: Developed Existing Facilities: Landscaped area Deficiencies: None Planned Improvements: None Comments: None APPENDIX A Leisure Services Plan Update A-45 Washington School Park Location: Southeast quadrant; located off Dakota Avenue, between Hamilton Street and Peach Street Size: 4.56 Acres Ownership: Medford School District, leased to City of Medford Status: Developed Existing Facilities: Baseball/softball field (1), tennis courts (2), playground, soccer field, basketball courts, track (5 lanes), restroom (unused) Deficiencies: Parking (inadequate), restrooms (inoperable, ADA compliance) Planned Improvements: None Comments: Close proximity to Union Park APPENDIX A A-46 Leisure Services Plan Update Wilson School Park Location: Northeast quadrant; located off Corona Avenue, between Grand Avenue and Johnson Street Size: 7.82 Acres Ownership: Medford School District; leased to City of Medford Status: Developed Existing Facilities: Softball fields (2), soccer field, track, playground, parking area Deficiencies: Restroom (needed), irrigation and infield watering system, turf, tree pruning Planned Improvements: None Comments: None APPENDIX B Leisure Services Plan Update B-1 APPENDIX B: PARKS AND FACILITIES PROVIDED BY OTHERS Although the City of Medford is the major provider of parks, open space, and recreation opportunities in the Medford Planning Area, other providers also contribute to this inventory. Jackson County, the State of Oregon, the Medford School District, the Phoenix/ Talent School District, and several private schools and clubs offer additional recreation opportunities. Parks and facilities provided by these public and private entities are summarized in this section. B.1 BEAR CREEK GREENWAY PROVIDERS The Bear Creek Greenway is owned by several jurisdictions within the Medford Planning Area. While some acreage is privately owned, most is provided by government agencies. Table B-1 shows Bear Creek Greenway acreage that is owned by a government agency other than the City. Table B-1 Summary of Bear Creek Greenway Providers Medford Planning Area Bear Creek Greenway Providers Acres Activity/Facility Jackson County 116.00 Greenway, path State of Oregon 82.00 Greenway, path Urban Renewal 1.8 Greenway, path Rogue River Irrigation District 0.6 Greenway, path TOTAL 200.4 B.2 PUBLIC SCHOOL FACILITIES In most communities, schools are an important source of recreation facilities, such as sport fields, playgrounds, and gymnasiums. In Medford, the relationship between parks and public schools has been clearly established. The City of Medford has long term lease agreements with the Medford School District and the Phoenix/Talent School District, which has created a special partnership with the Parks & Recreation Department in providing park land and developing park sites. Of 16 schools in Medford, 12 are designated park sites called school parks. These sites include: APPENDIX B B-2 Leisure Services Plan Update � Leased sites: The school district leases school property to the City for $1 for the entire lease period. The Parks & Recreation Department is responsible for maintenance and any improvements to the leased sites. The school districts are responsible for water and sewer payments. Most school parks are leased sites. � Adjacent sites: The City of Medford owns a park site adjacent to school grounds, but does not lease any additional school property. Howard School Park is an example of an adjacent site. � Combination sites: The school district and the City own property near a school that has been developed together as a park. The school district leases its parcel to the City. Three school parks are combination sites. Together, school parks provide 11 neighborhood parks and one community park. Due to their joint-use as school and park sites, daytime access to school facilities is limited when school is in session. Table B-2 summarizes existing public school facilities, indicating the acreage made available to the City through lease agreements. Four school sites currently do not have lease agreements with the City. Some of these school sites, such as the two middle schools and one high school, have been removed or were never included in lease agreements so that the School District would have greater control over those sites. However, the City and other providers of organized sports have been able to schedule with the School District in order to use sport fields and facilities and un-leased sites. Except one, listed sites belong to Medford School District 549C. Orchard Hill Elementary is part of the Phoenix/Talent School District. APPENDIX B Leisure Services Plan Update B-3 Table B-2 Summary of Existing Public School Facilities Medford Planning Area School Facility City-Owned Acreage City-Leased Acreage Elementary Schools Abe Lincoln Elementary/Delta Waters Park 0 13.26 Hoover Elementary School 0 3.85 Howard Elementary School 8.55 Jackson Elementary School 5.78 3.66 Jefferson Elementary School 0 8.45 Kennedy Elementary School 7.39 5.57 Lone Pine Elementary School 5.68 4.14 Oak Grove Elementary School N/A N/A Orchard Hill Elementary School 0 3.00 Roosevelt Elementary School 0 2.78 Washington Elementary School 0 4.56 Wilson Elementary School 0 7.82 Middle Schools Hedrick Middle School N/A N/A McLoughlin Middle School N/A N/A High Schools North Medford High School 0 17.80 South Medford High School N/A N/A Total 27.40 74.89 APPENDIX B B-4 Leisure Services Plan Update B.3 PRIVATE SCHOOL FACILITIES Private schools in the Medford area provide recreation opportunities as well. These schools are listed in Table B-3. Due to the private nature of these schools, access may be limited. St. Mary’s High School has small facilities that are primarily reserved for school use. However, some private providers, such as Manny Crump (basketball) and the Rogue Valley Soccer Club use some space at the school for sports. Table B-3 Summary of Existing Private School Facilities Medford Planning Area Private School Facility Elementary/Middle Schools Grace Christian Harvest Baptist Christian New Dimension Christian Rogue River Adventist Sacred Heart Catholic High Schools St. Mary’s High School B.4 PRIVATE PARK AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES Listed on the next page are privately-owned indoor and outdoor recreation facilities in the Medford Planning Area. These facilities provide recreational opportunities for profit. Consequently, they are affordable to a limited number of Medford residents. Club memberships limit who can participate at these recreation facilities. APPENDIX B Leisure Services Plan Update B-5 Table B-4 Summary of Private Recreation Facilities Medford Planning Area Recreation Facilities Activity/Facility America’s Best Kids Sport Center Gymnasium, dance studio, karate studio. Under construction: pool, climbing wall. Bear Creek Golf Course Golf course (9 holes), driving range Cascade Pool Swimming pool Cedar Links Golf Club Golf course (18 holes), driving range Curves Fitness area Flex Fitness Weight room, fitness area Gold’s Gym Weight room, fitness area Lady Fitness Weight room, fitness area Lava Lanes Bowling Center Bowling lanes Powerhouse Gym Weight room, fitness and martial arts studio Rogue Valley School of Gymnastics Gymnasium Rogue Valley Country Club Golf course, swimming pool Rogue Valley Family YMCA Pool (25-yard, 8-lane), weight room, gym, racquetball courts (3), climbing wall, fitness area Rogue Valley School of Gymnastics Gymnasium Rogue Valley Swim and Tennis Club Indoor tennis courts (5), outdoor tennis courts (3), outdoor pool, weight room, fitness area Roller Odyssey Roller skating rink Roxy Ann Lanes Bowling lanes Slender Lady Fitness area Southern Oregon Tennis Club Indoor tennis courts (4), outdoor courts (2) Stewart Meadows Golf Course Golf course (9 holes), driving range Superior Athletic Club Weight room, fitness area, swimming pool 24-hour Fitness Weight room, fitness area, lap pool, basketball courts Waterford Health & Fitness Weight room, fitness area, pool (20-m, 4 lanes) Women’s Fitness Company Weight room, fitness area APPENDIX B B-6 Leisure Services Plan Update B.5 ADDITIONAL PARK LAND RESOURCES In addition to the aforementioned sites within the Medford planning area, City residents are served by other parks, recreation, and open space areas beyond the planning area boundary. This section describes nearby recreational resources, located within 12 miles of Medford, and other significant recreational opportunities throughout the region. Nearby Recreational Resources Medford has several other parks, recreation, and open space areas located just beyond the planning area boundary. Providers of these facilities include the following: � Jackson County (JC): Jackson County’s Expo Park is home to the Jackson County Fair. The fairgrounds are used 365 day a year by community groups, private promoters, and organizations that plan special events and private functions. Facilities include the 57,600 sf Compton Arena, the 7,381 sf Padgham Pavilion, the covered Isola Arena, along with livestock barns, horse stalls, a sale pavilion, and lawn areas. An amphitheater is a new addition to the park. � Central Point (CP): The City of Central Point, contiguous on the northwest edge of Medford, has 7 parks totaling 20.43 acres. Facilities at these sites include play equipment, basketball courts, tennis courts, picnic areas, gazebos, and a stage. Since they are small, these parks have a local service area, although they may draw visitors from the northwest quadrant of Medford. � Phoenix (P): The City of Phoenix, located approximately four miles south of Medford, has 35 acres of land devoted to parks. Facilities at their three parks include playgrounds, a softball field, concession stand, picnic area, community garden, nature paths, wetland observation platforms, and support facilities such as restrooms and parking. Colver Road Park and City Hall Park have local service areas, which would not likely attract Medford residents. However, the 24-acre Blue Heron Park is connected to Medford via an extension to the Bear Creek Greenway Trail. APPENDIX B Leisure Services Plan Update B-7 � Talent (T): The City of Talent, located approximately seven miles south of Medford, manages 17.29 acres as parks and recreation facilities. The facilities for these 6 parks include playgrounds, sports fields, picnic areas and shelters, trails, and support facilities, such as restrooms and parking. Most of these parks have a local service area. However, the newly renovated Downtown Park has a multi-use facility for skateboarders, in-line skaters, and BMX bikers that may attract Medford users. Also, Lyn Newbry Park will be connected to Medford via the Bear Creek Greenway Trail. � Bear Creek Greenway Foundation: The Bear Creek Greenway is a narrow corridor (600 acres) of public-owned land that follows the Bear Creek streambed from Ashland to Central Point. Progress is continuing to develop a continuous 19-mile path from Oak Street in Ashland to the Seven Oaks Interchange in Central Point, connecting five communities and several parks. The Foundation helps fund development of the trail. � Oregon State Parks (OSP): Touvelle State Recreation Site, 9 miles north of Medford, provides water-based recreation opportunities on the Rogue River. Touvelle is a popular site locally for picnicking, boating, swimming, and fishing. Next to the park, Denman Wildlife Refuge and teems with local and migratory wildlife. The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife stocks Rainbow trout in this section of the river. � Bureau of Land Management/Nature Conservancy (BLM/NC): The Upper and Lower Table Rocks are an Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) co-managed by the BLM and the Nature Conservancy. They are located approximately 12 miles north of Medford. The Nature Conservancy manages about 3000 acres of Lower Table Rocks, and the BLM manages 1280 acres on Upper and Lower Table Rocks. The area provides outstanding opportunities for hiking and environmental education. � Private Providers (Priv): Several privately-owned recreation facilities are located near Medford. For example, the Rogue Valley Family Fun Center, located near the Jackson County Expo Park, offers a variety of active recreation opportunities. Several privately-owned golf courses are located near Medford as well. APPENDIX B B-8 Leisure Services Plan Update Table B-5 contains a synopsis of nearby recreational resources. These facilities are located within 12 miles of the Medford Planning Area and may provide service to City residents. Table B-5 Summary of Nearby Recreation Resources Medford Vicinity (Radius 12 miles) Recreation Area Provider Activity/Facility Blue Heron Park P Playground, community garden, nature paths, observation platforms. Under construction: gazebo, community center, amphitheater, basketball and tennis courts Don Jones Park CP In development Downtown Park T Skatepark, BMX facility, shelter Flanagan Park CP Picnic tables, gazebo, playground, tennis courts. Forest Glen Park CP Picnic tables, playground, basketball courts Jackson County Expo Park JC Fairgrounds, reservable pavilions and arenas, amphitheater Lyn Newbry Park T Playground, restrooms, path Menteer Park CP Picnic area, playground, basketball courts Pfaff Park CP Restrooms, picnic area, gazebo, playground, tennis courts, basketball courts, stage Rogue Valley Family Fun Center Priv Miniature golf (2), driving range, batting cages, bumper boats, go-carts. Table Rocks BLM/NC Trails, interpretative signs, vault toilets TouVelle Park OSP Picnic area, fishing area, boating area, trails, viewing area Van Horn Park CP Picnic tables, gazebo, playground, tennis courts, basketball courts Additional Recreational Resources The Rogue River Valley and surrounding mountains provide many recreational opportunities. Providers of these resources include: � Jackson County (JC): Jackson County has ten parks, offering diverse recreational opportunities. Facilities include a multi-use sports park, RV parks, campgrounds, cabin rentals, meeting space and facility rentals, picnic areas, gardens, boat launches, boat rentals, fishing platforms, swimming areas, a water slide, trails, and playgrounds. APPENDIX B Leisure Services Plan Update B-9 � Oregon State Parks (OSP): Seven state parks and recreation sites are located in the Medford vicinity. These include day-use sites, waysides, campgrounds, scenic viewpoints, and state heritage sites. These diverse sites provide recreational opportunities for picnicking, fishing, boating, swimming, bicycling, hiking, bird and wildlife watching, and cultural and environmental interpretation. � Bureau of Land Management (BLM): The BLM has a number of campgrounds, day use areas, trails, and snow parks within their Medford District. Some sites have specific functions, such as hiking trails. Some sites, such as the Hyatt Lake Recreation Complex, provide many different recreation opportunities, such as camping, fishing, swimming, hiking, etc. � U.S. Forest Service (USFS): The Rogue River National Forest has four ranger districts to the east and south of Medford. USFS recreation areas include recreation sites, trails, scenic drives, rafting, cabins and lookouts, winter recreation areas, and wilderness areas. Around Applegate Reservoir alone, there are nine campgrounds, two trailheads, and a viewpoint, which encompass facilities for picnicking, boating, swimming, hiking, etc. � Jacksonville Woodland Associations (JWA): The non- profit Jacksonville Woodlands Association has preserved 20 parcels of forested open space and has constructed eight miles of connecting interpretive and recreational trails surrounding 70% of Jacksonville’s historic district. � National Park Service (NPS): Crater Lake National Park and Oregon Caves National Monument provide excellent day-trips from Medford. � Private Providers (Priv): Many types of recreational opportunities in the region are provided by private providers. Regional attractions include the Mt. Ashland Ski and Snowboard Resort. Significant recreational sites within 75 miles of Medford are summarized in Table B-6. APPENDIX B B-10 Leisure Services Plan Update Table B-6 Summary of Existing Facilities Medford Vicinity (Radius 75 miles) Recreation Area Provider Activity/Facility Ben Hur Lampman Park OSP Picnic area, fishing area Britt Gardens JC Outdoor concerts Buck Prairie BLM Winter recreation area, cross-county ski trails Cantrall-Buckley Park JC Group picnic areas, camping, river frontage Casey Park OSP Picnic area, fishing area and boating area Crater Lake NPS Lodge, visitor center, trails, parking area Dodge Bridge Park JC Fishing area Emigrant Lake Group picnic area, camping, lake, waterslides, ballfields, volleyball courts, swimming area, concession building. Fish Lake USFS Fishing area, boating Gold Nugget Recreation Site BLM Picnic area, trails, fishing Hart-Tish USFS Campground, picnic area, trailhead, marina, swimming area Howard Prairie Park JC Fishing area, camping, boating Hyatt Lake Recreation Complex BLM Camping area, picnic area, hiking trails, horse trails, boating area, fishing, swimming area, playground, winter recreation area Jacksonville Woodlands JWA Nature park, interpretative trails Joseph Stewart Park OSP Camping area, fishing area, picnic area, swimming area, trails and boating area Kenney Meadows BLM Playground, picnic area, swimming area Lake of the Woods USFS Fishing areas, boating area, picnic area, trail Little Hyatt Lake BLM Swimming area, fishing Mount Ashland USFS, Priv Ski lifts, trails, parking Oregon Caves NPS Lodge, visitor center, trails, parking area Prospect Park OSP Picnic area, trails Rogue Elk Park JC Camping area Sports Park JC Softball fields (10), drag racing area, go-kart area, shooting ranges Sterling Mine Ditch Trail BLM Hiking trail, horse trail Takelma Park JC Fishing area Tub Springs Park OSP Picnic area Upper Rogue Regional Park JC Retreat area, camping, boating area, picnic area, fishing area Valley of the Rogue OSP Camping area, fishing area, picnic area, swimming area, trails, boating area Wildcat BLM Camping area, fishing area, boating area, trails Willow Lake Park JC Camping area, picnic area, cabins, marina, trails APPENDIX C Leisure Services Plan Update C-1 APPENDIX C: SPORTS FACILITY INVENTORY Appendix C contains an inventory of existing sports facilities in the Medford Planning Area. Facility categories include: � Adult baseball fields � Adult softball fields � Youth baseball/softball fields � Soccer fields (youth and adult) � Football fields � Gymnasiums (indoor courts) � Swimming pools Since many existing facilities have restrictions and limitations that affect scheduling and use, these facilities were counted using the following terms, which were defined in Chapter 3, Section 3.3: � Total inventory � Restricted inventory � Unrestricted inventory In each table, comments explain the use and scheduling restrictions for each facility (if any). C.1 ADULT BASEBALL FIELDS Table C-1 presents the inventory of adult baseball fields in the Medford Planning Area: Table C-1 Adult Baseball Fields Medford Planning Area Number Location Comments 1 Hedrick Middle School School District site 1 McLoughlin Middle School School District site 1 North Medford High School Park School District site (not included in lease agreement) 1 Saint Mary’s High School Private school 1 South Medford High School School District site 1 Harry & David Field Under construction 6 Total Inventory 5 Restricted Inventory 1 Unrestricted Inventory APPENDIX C C-2 Leisure Services Plan Update C.2 ADULT SOFTBALL FIELDS Table C-2 presents the inventory of adult softball fields in the Medford Planning Area: Table C-2 Adult Softball Fields Medford Planning Area Number Location Comments 1R Church of God (back lot) Inadequate size 1R Delta Waters School Park Soccer field overlay 0 Hawthorne Park Abandoned practice field; turf infield 1 UR Howard School Park 1 is heavily used 2 is not in use 1 UR 1 R Jackson School Park Lighted; Jackson Field heavily used. Jackson is limited use due to size 2 UR 1 R Jefferson School Park Jefferson 1 and 2 are heavily used; Jefferson 3 currently unused 0 McLoughlin Middle School School District site 1 UR 1 R North Medford High School Park Both Multi- use with soccer; North 1 has drainage problem; North 2 is heavily used 1 UR 1 R Wilson School Park Wilson 1 close to street, short right field (women’s leagues only); Wilson 2 is heavily used 12 Total Inventory 6 Restricted Inventory ( R ) 6 Unrestricted Inventory (UR) APPENDIX C Leisure Services Plan Update C-3 C.3 YOUTH BASEBALL/SOFTBALL FIELDS Table C-3 presents the inventory of youth baseball/softball fields in the Medford Planning Area: Table C-3 Youth Baseball/Softball Fields Medford Planning Area Number Location Comments 6 UR Bear Creek Park Averaged to reflect share with softball; 3 t-ball fields in surrounding turf areas 1R Hoover School Park Used for practices only; has a parking lot in left field 1R Kennedy School Park Grade school field; left field is short 1R Lone Pine School Park Inadequate size; running track around it limits play 1R Oak Grove Elementary School School District site 1R Roosevelt School Park Not in use; grade school field 10 R National League Fields Limited to club members, but used for games 1 R Babe Ruth (replace in 2006) Temp. 1 R Jackson Park Fagone Field 1 R Jackson School Park Jackson Field #2 1 R Jefferson School Park Field #3 26 Total Inventory 20 Restricted Inventory ( R) 6 Unrestricted Inventory (UR) APPENDIX C C-4 Leisure Services Plan Update C.4 SOCCER FIELDS Table C-4 presents the inventory of soccer fields in the Medford Planning Area: Table C-4 Soccer Fields Medford Planning Area Number Location Comments 1R Bear Creek Little League Fall practice field 1UR Delta Waters School Park Multi-use 3UR 1R Fichtner-Mainwaring Park Heavy use for 3 fields; 4th field is rotated in to allow one field to rest. The 4 th field is used for the Rogue Valley Cup. 1UR Hawthorne Park Heavy use 1R Hedrick Middle School School District site 1UR* Hoover School Park Multi-use 1R Howard School Park Rough grade (potential Multi- use if baseball field is brought back into use) 2UR 1R Jefferson School Park Jefferson 1 and 2 are heavily used; Jefferson 3 is used for tournaments only 1UR Kennedy School Park Frequent use 1UR Lone Pine School Park Frequent use 1UR* McLoughlin Middle School School District site 2UR 3R North Medford High School Park # 1 & # 2 limited use; #3 & #4 tournament use only. # 5 is scheduled by the School. 1UR* Oak Grove Elementary School School District site 1UR Orchard Hill School Park Frequent use 1UR* Roosevelt School Park Small field for practices only; overlays softball field 1R Saint Mary’s High School Private school 2R South Medford High School Park School District site 1R Washington School Park Practice field; inadequate size for league play 2UR* Wilson School Park Multi-use field 30 Total Inventory 12 Restricted Inventory ( R ) 18 Unrestricted Inventory (UR) APPENDIX C Leisure Services Plan Update C-5 C.5 Football Fields Table C-5 presents the inventory of football fields in the Medford Planning Area: Table C-5 Football Fields Medford Planning Area Number Location Comments 1 Hedrick Middle School School District site 1 McLoughlin Middle School School District site 2 North Medford High School Park 1 game; 1 practice 1 Saint Mary’s High School Private school 1 South Medford High School Park School District site 6 Total Inventory 5 Restricted Inventory 1 Unrestricted Inventory APPENDIX C C-6 Leisure Services Plan Update C.6 GYMNASIUMS Table C-6 presents the inventory of gymnasiums in the Medford Planning Area: Table C-6 Gymnasiums Medford Planning Area Number Location Comments 1 Abe Lincoln Elementary School School District site 1 Hedrick Middle School School District site 1 Hoover Elementary School School District site 1 Howard Elementary School School District site 1 Jackson Elementary School School District site 1 Jefferson Elementary School School District site 1 Kennedy Elementary School School District site 1 Lone Pine Elementary School School District site 1 McLoughlin Middle School School District site 2 North Medford High School School District site 1 Oak Grove Elementary School School District site 1 Orchard Hill Elementary School School District site 1 Roosevelt Elementary School School District site 1 Saint Mary’s High School Private school 3 South Medford High School School District site 1 Washington Elementary School School District site 1 Wilson Elementary School School District site 2 Santo Center (Budgeted) City of Medford 22 Total Inventory 20 Restricted Inventory 2 Unrestricted Inventory 1 AAU and YMCA seem to have priority in scheduling at School District facilities. APPENDIX C Leisure Services Plan Update C-7 C.7 INDOOR SWIMMING POOLS Table C-7 presents the inventory of indoor swimming pools in the Medford Planning Area: Table C-7 Swimming Pools Medford Planning Area Square Feet Location Comments America’s Best Kids Sports Center Under construction Hawthorne Park (6,000 SF) Outdoor; 40 yards, 6 lanes Jackson Park (4,350 SF) Outdoor; 25 yards, 6 lanes 4,200 YMCA Indoor; 25 yards, 8 lanes 4,200 Total Inventory 1 4,200 Restricted Inventory 2 0 Unrestricted Inventory 3 1 The total inventory includes only indoor pools that are open to the public. 2 The restricted inventory for pools includes all pools suitable for programming, classes, and perhaps competitive swimming. 3 The unrestricted inventory excludes pools not under City ownership/control for scheduling. 4 Note: Additional private swimming pools in the Medford Planning Area include the Rogue Valley County Club, the Rogue Valley Swim & Tennis Club, the Superior Athletic Club, 24-hour Fitness, and the Waterford Health and Fitness Club (at the Waterford Retirement Community). APPENDIX D Leisure Services Plan Update D-1 APPENDIX D: RECREATION DEMAND Appendix D summarizes the public involvement findings from the community workshop, sports group questionnaire, and the recreation survey. Each of these public input processes was part of an effort to involve Medford residents in updating the Leisure Service Plan. D.1 COMMUNITY WORKSHOP On September 14, 2004, the City of Medford Parks and Recreation Department held a community workshop. Sixteen people attended the meeting, which was held from 7:00 pm to 9:00 pm at the Santo Community Center. Residents were divided into four separate groups for small group discussions. Each group was responsible for selecting a recorder and a group spokesperson to share their results. Each group had approximately 90 minutes to discuss seven questions. After the discussion, the spokesperson of each group presented the group’s comments. Workshop Questions The following seven questions were discussed: 1. What are your favorite experiences and/or memories associated with a park or recreation program in Medford? 2. What park and recreation facilities are most needed in the community? 3. How should Prescott Park be used and/or developed? 4. Please rate the quality of Medford parks on a scale of 1-10 in the following categories (with 1 being poor and 10 being excellent). Please explain the rating. � Quality of Park Maintenance � Level/Quality of Park Development � Diversity of Park Facilities APPENDIX D D-2 Leisure Services Plan Update 5. Are park and recreation services adequately provided for each of the following groups? Service Yes/No Comments Youth (pre-teen) Teens Seniors Disabled General Recreation Interests 6. What do you think are the major park and recreation issues in Medford today? Potential solutions? Optional Question: 7. What improvements do you feel are needed in Medford parks? (List the name of the park and the improvement needed.) Interactive Display The workshop also contained an interactive display, where participants were asked to examine a list of facilities on a large chart and place red dots next to the recreation facility they felt the City should develop. Each participant had four red dots to use for voting. They could place all four dots in one category or space them however they wanted, even writing in their own category if desired. The interactive question and listed categories were as follows: What type of recreation area or facilities should the City develop? Please use your dot to vote for one of the following options: � City-wide trail system � Indoor recreation center (gymnasium, etc.) � Sport field complex (baseball, softball and soccer) � Additional local parks � Open Space � Other (please specify) APPENDIX D Leisure Services Plan Update D-3 Workshop Results Results are summarized for each of the workshop questions. Group responses are noted below the summary. 1. What are your favorite experiences and/or memories associated with a park or recreation program in Medford? Although responses varied, nearly every group recalled favorite experiences associated with organized sports or sporting events. Specific programs, such as swimming, summer camps, outdoor concerts, were also noted by most groups. Bear Creek and Prescott Park seemed to stand out more than other parks, and natural qualities in parks (e.g., shade, open space, and greenery) were appreciated. Group 1 � Sporting events (at Fagone Field and others) � Quiet of Prescott Park � Greenery in parks (trees and grass) Group 2 � Art in Bloom � Swimming and baseball at Hawthorne/Jackson Park � Strong community baseball program (before Little League) � Summer camps and outdoor activities � Open space in city � Dog parks Group 3 � Bear Creek Park � Bear Creek Trails � Prescott Park/Roxy Ann hiking � Skate park � Soccer youth programs � Parks & Recreation language (Spanish) programs APPENDIX D D-4 Leisure Services Plan Update Group 4 � Bear Creek Park � Reminiscent about the early park � Outdoor concerts � Family parties/birthdays � Sports � RV Soccer League � Softball � Tournament play (without being in a league) � Basketball at Fichtner-Mainwaring (games and as gathering place for diverse cultures) � Bicycle riding with kids from park to park � Festivals (Cinco de Mayo, Christmas, Dia del Campesino) � Dance rehearsals (Ballet Folklorico) at the Shack � Shade at Hawthorne Park 2. What park and recreation facilities are most needed in the community? Sports fields were noted by all groups as a major need in the community. An indoor, multi-use recreation center also is desired. Parking was noted several times as being inadequate, and restrooms and pathways (access) were frequently mentioned as well. Group 1 � Sports fields � Hardball baseball fields � Full-size baseball fields for practice � Scheduled, regulated field use � Parking for sports field practice � Park development � Neighborhood parks in new subdivisions � Finished parks (develop what we already have) � More facilities (water, benches, restrooms, parking) � Community gardens � Improved access to neighborhood parks � Adequate parking � Sidewalk access � Bikeways/bike paths to parks � Open space Group 2 � Sports facilities � Sports fields of all types � Baseball field improvements � Tennis court improvements � Indoor, multi-purpose facilities (sports, etc.) � Park/facility concerns APPENDIX D Leisure Services Plan Update D-5 � See if interest in a proposed facility is supported by community overall or by a small, specific group � Adequate parking at all parks � More dog parks Group 3 � Sports facilities/fields � More fields needed to relieve stress on local school facilities and neighborhood parks � Tennis courts (re-surface) � Indoor recreation facility � Indoor pool � Indoor recreation center o Multi-use o YMCA ball o Indoor soccer o Active-use indoor facilities for rainy season � Park/facility concerns � Parking (major concern) � Restrooms (need upkeep/upgrades) Group 4 � Sports fields/outdoor facilities � Baseball/softball � Soccer—synthetic turf � Football (Pop Warner and flag football) � Sand volleyball � Indoor facilities � Gym (basketball) � Multi-purpose room for indoor recreation (especially for use in winter and evenings) � Party barn (to reserve for private parties) � Bike trails (urban and rural) � Water park (with slides, etc., would pay for itself) 3. How should Prescott Park be used and/or developed? Prescott Park is clearly valued as a natural open space area. Trail improvements and improved trail access are desired. While most participants agreed that the City should limit vehicle access to the park, improved access is still important. Ideas to improve access ranged from improving parking areas to offering tours or adding informational and interpretive trail signage and maps. APPENDIX D D-6 Leisure Services Plan Update Group 1 � Park preservation � Preserve park as it is � Preserve natural vegetation and wildlife � Prohibit motorized vehicle access to top � Limit vehicle access (trash dumping) � Mitigate impact to wildlife � Trails � Remove poison oak � Ensure future trails are dirt only Group 2 � Park wilderness/development in balance � Less development is better � “Remarkable asset” left as natural as possible � Vehicles allowed only to current parking area � Trails � Improved trail access (horses, hikers) � Good trails � Separate horse/hiking trails � Interpretative trails and programs Group 3 � Park development � Picnic area improvements � Parking improvements/disabled access � Limited development � Trails � Separate trail access (horses, hikers, mountain bikers) � Improved trail maintenance � Natural area/state � Caretaker area Group 4 � Marketing/signage � P.R. to entice people to go � Advertisements of recreation opportunities � Better/added park signage o Directional—to help people find it o Informational--to explain parking options, to indicate distances and how far to walk o Interpretative—to learn about what you may see o Maps � Vehicle access � Mixed feelings. Some want to drive to top. Others feel that cars would destroy park � Tours or opportunities to allow non-walkers to see park � Caretaker (live-in) APPENDIX D Leisure Services Plan Update D-7 4. Please rate the quality of Medford parks on a scale of 1-10 in the following categories (with 1 being poor and 10 being excellent). Please explain the rating. Park maintenance was rated 5 in general, with comments noting that maintenance is uneven and inconsistent in Medford parks. The level of park development was given a similar moderate rating, with new facilities (skate park, BMX track) balancing out inadequate facilities (sports fields, bathrooms). The diversity of facilities averaged a 6.4, although little explanation was provided. Group 1 � Quality of Park Maintenance � Parks 9+ � Greenway/pathway 4 (paths in bad condition) � Level/Quality of Park Development � Neighborhood parks 7 � Sports parks/facilities 2 (facilities lacking) � Natural areas (Prescott) 4 � Diversity of Park Facilities (not rated) Group 2 � Quality of Park Maintenance, average rating = 5 � (Scores= 4, 7, 4, 6) � Park safety is poor, especially dog parks � Heavy use and litter in parks � Need better upkeep, grounds keeping � Maintenance must keep up with development � Level/Quality of Park Development, average rating = 6.8 � (Scores= 7, 7.5, 7, 6) � New BMX facility and skate park is good � Diversity of Park Facilities, average rating = 6.25 � (Scores= 7, 7, 5, 6) Group 3 � Quality of Park Maintenance = 5 � Inconsistent maintenance � Some parks are great/some are poor � Level/Quality of Park Development = 4- � Bathrooms are inadequate. Need more � Diversity of Park Facilities = 7+ Group 4 � Quality of Park Maintenance = 4 � Sports facilities are overused and poorly maintained � Level/Quality of Park Development = 5 � Bathrooms are poor quality and often locked � Diversity of Park Facilities = 6 5. Are park and recreation services adequately provided for each of the following? APPENDIX D D-8 Leisure Services Plan Update While some mixed answers indicated that respondents were not familiar with the services, programs, and facilities available for each group, the general feeling was that not enough programs and services are provided in Medford. Youth (preteens) were the only group who were perceived to be somewhat adequately served, with two of the four discussion groups responding “yes.” Table D-1 Question 5 Results by Group Medford Community Workshop Service Yes/No Comments Group 1 Youth (pre- teen) Yes Need places/activities with parent supervision; need sports activities. Teens No Need more sports facilities (basketball, baseball) and arts/cultural activities to get teens beyond sports. Seniors No Medford has one of largest populations of elderly in State; need more group activity space. Disabled Yes/No Often underserved; need recreation programs (basketball league), education. General Recreation Interests No More sports facilities, community garden, cultural activities/arts, bicycle paths, pedestrian paths. Group 2 Youth (pre- teen) Yes Not really aware of youth/teen services, but assume they are adequately provided. Teens Yes Seniors No Disabled No General Recreation Interests ? APPENDIX D Leisure Services Plan Update D-9 Table D-1 (Continued) Question 5 Results by Group Medford Community Workshop Service Yes/No Comments Group 3 Youth (pre- teen) No/Yes Need school upgrades, after school programs, organized activities (like Boys & Girls Clubs) Teens No Need more facilities in more areas. The Shack functions as a local center, and does not draw teens from around Medford. Seniors No Senior Center is lacking. Need more activities and programs. Disabled No Need improvements in therapeutic activities and aquatics. General Recreation Interests No Need more outdoor (led) activities/classes (e.g., hikes). Group 4 Youth (pre- teen) No Need more neighborhood parks with fun activities, informal (non-organized) play. Teens No Need dance hall/hang out center (alcohol & drug free), sports complex, indoor recreation center, teen programs (leadership skills). Seniors No Growing senior population needs additional activity centers. Disabled No Need improvements in therapeutic activities and aquatics. General Recreation Interests No Need more facilities that are diverse to meet needs of growing population. Add facilities for newly popular activities. 6. What do you think are the major park and recreation issues in Medford today? Potential solutions? Although several park and recreation issues were identified by the discussion groups, three key issues emerged: funding, maintenance, and development/improvements to current parks and greenway paths. Group 1 � Development of the parks we already have � Development of current parks to full potential as “beautiful and attractive destinations” � Allocation and scheduling of sport facilities/fields � Working with key stakeholders and funders to get things done � Addressing “fear factor” in parks (lighting) APPENDIX D D-10 Leisure Services Plan Update � Greenway improvements � Roots in pathways/bumps � Homeless activity � Lighting � Access to greenway (is horrible) Group 2 � Maintenance funding is the overarching issue. If we build it, we have to maintain it. � Disability access � Park space/population (adding park in areas of growing development) Group 3 � More bathrooms � More playing fields � Improved maintenance/maintenance funding � More outdoor programs � More after school activities—to draw kids away from TV Group 4 � Funding � Commercial aspect of parks and recreation � Sponsors for sports � Revenue generation to pay for programs � Maintenance funding 7. Optional: What improvements do you feel are needed in Medford parks? (List the name of the park and the improvement needed.) Personal preferences strongly guided the list of suggested improvements. However, several suggestions were made regarding improving restrooms in parks. Group 1 � No response Group 2 � Dog park should be added south of sports park � More public art in parks Group 3 � Bear Creek Park: Restrooms are “disgusting” and not handicap accessible. Tennis courts need resurfacing � Orchard Hill School Park: Tree buffer on west side is needed to separate playing fields from houses � Holmes Park: Tennis courts need repair/resurfacing to fill cracks APPENDIX D Leisure Services Plan Update D-11 � Fitchner-Mainwaring Park: More bathrooms and parking are needed � Hawthorne Park: More bathrooms and parking are needed � All parks: Upgrade infrastructure Group 4 � Better bathrooms in all parks � More sand volleyball � More ball fields � A water park Interactive Display: What type of recreation area or facilities should the City develop? Please use your dot to vote for one of the following options: Participants at the workshop felt that the City should develop the following top three facilities, listed in priority order: sport field complex, indoor recreation center, trail system. Table D-2 Interactive Display Responses from All Groups Medford Community Workshop Facilities Number of dots Sport field complex (baseball, softball, and soccer) 23 Indoor recreation center (gymnasium, etc.) 16 City-wide trail system 14 Additional local parks 12 Disabled access 5 Open space 1 D.2 SPORTS GROUP SURVEY Various sports leagues in Medford provide a wide variety of organized sports. The City Parks and Recreation Department, along with a number of private providers, offer programs and leagues for youth and adults in baseball, softball, soccer, football, basketball, and volleyball. Table 4.3 lists significant organized sports providers/leagues in the Medford Planning Area by sport, including the number of players and teams in the league and the length of the playing season. APPENDIX D D-12 Leisure Services Plan Update Table D-3 Medford Sports Teams Medford Planning Area Organization/ Sports Programs Season Months Number of Players Number of Teams Geographic Boundary Adult Baseball Rogue Valley Spring/ Summer/ Fall Apr. - Nov. 150 Players 10 Teams Rogue Valley Youth Baseball Babe Ruth Spring/ Summer Mar - Aug. 180 Players 15 Teams City of Medford Youth Baseball Spring Mar - Aug. 72 Players 8 Teams City of Medford American Little League Spring Mar.- July 789 Players 71 Teams East Medford National Little League Spring Mar.- July 288 Players 24 Teams West Medford, Jacksonville Adult Softball City (Coed) Fall; Sept. - Oct 1050 Players 70 Teams Southern Oregon City (Men’s Women’s, Coed) Spring/ Summer May - Aug. 2,412 Players 166 Teams Southern Oregon Youth Softball American Little League Spring Mar.- July 144 Players 12 Teams East Medford National Little League Spring Mar.- July 144 Players 12 Teams West Medford, Jacksonville ASA Spring; Fall Mar. - Aug. Sept. - Oct. 120 Players 8 Teams Medford School District Adult Soccer Medford United Summer Jun. - Aug. 84 Players 7 Teams Rogue Valley Ligo Del Valle Spring/ Summer/ Fall Apr. - Nov. 324 Players 18 Teams City of Medford APPENDIX D Leisure Services Plan Update D-13 Table D-3 (continued) Medford Sports Teams Medford Planning Area Organization/ Sports Programs Season Months Number of Players Number of Teams Geographic Boundary Youth Soccer Rogue Valley Soccer Club – Rec. Fall Aug. – Jun. 1500 Players 125 Teams Rogue Valley and Southern Oregon Rogue Valley Soccer Club - Comp Fall Aug. – Jun. 600 Players 35 Teams Rogue Valley and Southern Oregon Phoenix- Talent Soccer Club Fall; Spring; Summer Aug. – Nov. 250 Players 15 Teams Phoenix; Talent; and to a lesser extent, Medford Adult Football Rogue Warriors Spring Apr. – June. 480 Players 10 Teams Medford and Rogue Valley School Districts Youth Football Pop Warner Fall Aug. – Nov. 216 Players 9 Teams City of Medford YMCA Flag Fall Sept. – Oct. 225 Players 15 Teams Medford School District 549C Adult Basketball City (Men’s) Spring Apr. to Jun. 312 Players 26 Teams Southern Oregon Manny Crump All Year Year Round 300 Players 30 Teams Southern Oregon YMCA Spring Jan. – Mar. 144 Players 12 Teams Medford School District Manny Crump All Year All 270 30 Southern Oregon Youth Basketball Manny Crump All Year Year Round 200 20 Southern Oregon YMCA Spring Jan. – Mar. 892 Players 77 Teams Medford School District APPENDIX D D-14 Leisure Services Plan Update Table D-3 (continued) Medford Sports Teams Medford Planning Area Organization/ Sports Programs Season Months Number of Players Number of Teams Geographic Boundary Adult Volleyball City (Coed, Women’s) Spring; Winter; Fall Apr. – May; Jan – Mar. Sept. – Nov. 460 Players per season 46 Teams per Season City of Medford, but allow outside teams City (Sand) Summer May – Aug. 211 Players 33 Teams City of Medford, but allow outside teams Youth Volleyball YMCA Fall Sept.. – Nov. 276 Players 23 Teams Medford School District Each of the providers listed above was asked to complete a one- page activity questionnaire to help assess their facility needs. Data were collected regarding team information and field usage. The findings will be incorporated into Discussion Paper #5: Needs Assessment. D.3 RECREATION SURVEY The Medford recreation survey was conducted in September and October 2004. Questionnaires were distributed by the Table Rock Kiwanis Club to selected households within the City limits. Each household member age 10 and over was asked to fill out a separate questionnaire, so that feedback would be provided by a broad spectrum of population, including youth, adults, and seniors. The survey was designed to achieve statistical reliability for the Medford planning area. For the total sample, the 438 responses exceeded the minimum needed to achieve a 95% confidence level with a margin of error no greater than 5%. The actual margin of error is 4.67%. This following section describes survey findings. For each question, n equals the total number of responses to the question. In cases where multiple responses were allowed, n is greater than the number of survey respondents (438). In cases where n is less than 438, not everyone responded to the question. APPENDIX D Leisure Services Plan Update D-15 Demographic Results 1. My age is: This question is used primarily as a means to cross-tab responses to other questions by age category or age group. Table D-4 Age Distribution City of Medford Age Group Percentage (n=437) 10-14 7.3% 15-17 2.5% 18-24 4.6% 25-34 10.0% 35-44 15.1% 45-54 22.6% 55-64 20.1% 65+ 17.8% Observations: � The highest percentage of responses was obtained from the 45-54 age group, closely followed by the 55-64 and 65+ age groups. Over 60% of respondents were age 45 or over. � Compared to the 2000 U.S. Census age distribution, the sampling achieved a low response rate in three age groups: (15-17), (18-24), and (25-34). APPENDIX D D-16 Leisure Services Plan Update 2. What is your gender? The intent of this question is to use it as a cross-tab to measure responses to other questions. Table D-5 Gender City of Medford Gender Percentage (n=424) Male 44.3% Female 55.7% Observations: � Roughly 56% of the respondents were female. � Compared to the 2000 U.S. Census age distribution, the sampling achieved a slightly higher response rate for female respondents (55.7%) than present in the population overall (52.1%). APPENDIX D Leisure Services Plan Update D-17 Park and Facility Results 3. On average, how often have you visited the following parks or recreation facilities during the last 12 months? (Please write in the number of times you visited the facilities in the space below.) Table D-6 Park and Facility Visitation City of Medford Area or Facility Average Annual Visitation Annual Per Capita Visitation A Park in Your Neighborhood (n=242) 22.6 12.5 A City Park Outside Your Neighborhood (n=233) 10.7 5.7 Swimming in a Nearby River or Lake (n=137) 7.2 2.1 Shack Activity Center (n=14) 17.6 0.6 Prescott Park (n=55) 3.9 0.5 Santo Community Center (n=29) 6.4 0.4 Observations: � The average annual visitation is based on the average number of times those people who responded had visited the specified site. The site most frequented by the majority of respondents is neighborhood parks. The second most-frequented site, but noted by the fewest number of respondents, is The Shack. � Neighborhood parks also received the highest number of annual per capita visits (12.5), clearly exceeding other City parks (5.7) and all other sites. � It is interesting to note that, while Santo Community Center maintains a fairly low per capita visitation rate, those who use the facility frequent the community center multiple times a year. APPENDIX D D-18 Leisure Services Plan Update 4. If you seldom use or do not use the parks in Medford, what are your main reasons? (Please select all that apply.) Table D-7 Reasons for Minimal Park Use City of Medford Response Percentage (n=281) Other (see list below) 35.5% Not interesting 14.6% Doesn’t have the desired activities or facilities 13.8% Feel unsafe 8.8% Not conveniently located 8.8% Don’t know where they are located 7.4% Poorly maintained 6.3% Too crowded 4.7% Observations: � Nearly 15% of respondents indicated that Medford parks are not interesting. Another 8.2% wrote in the “Other” response that they had no reason or no interest to visit parks. � Nearly 14% of respondents felt that the parks did not have the desired facilities or activities. In “other” responses, 5 people noted other parks/wilderness areas that had more desirable opportunities for recreation; 1 person wanted an amusement park; and 1 person used baseball fields only. � “Other” responses included the following: � No time/too busy (57 responses) � No interest/no reason (23 responses) � Respondent was too old (11 responses) � Respondent had no children (11 responses) � Parks not ADA/physically accessible (7 responses) � Visit other areas for recreation (6 responses) � Lack of transportation/parks too far (5 responses) � Safety concerns/lighting/homeless presence (4 responses) � New to area (4 responses) � Park costs/fees (3 responses) � Unfamiliar with park events (2 responses) � Maintenance issues (2 responses) � Miscellaneous (10 responses) APPENDIX D Leisure Services Plan Update D-19 5. What improvements are needed in Medford parks? (Please list the park and needed improvements.) This was an open-ended question where respondents were asked to form their own list of parks and needed improvements. Responses are sorted by the parks that were named (181 responses) and by the type of improvements that were noted (213 responses). Some respondents listed multiple improvements in one park. Table D-8 Needed Park Improvements: Parks Cited City of Medford Park Number of Responses All Parks 12 Bear Creek Park 43 Hawthorne Park 40 Donohue-Frohnmayer Park 15 Fichtner-Mainwaring Park 15 Kennedy School Park 9 Prescott Park 9 Holmes Park 7 Jackson School Park 3 Ruhl Park 3 Bear Creek Greenway 2 Washington School Park 2 Alba Park 1 Delta Waters School Park 1 Hoover School Park 1 Jefferson School Park 1 Lone Pine School Park 1 Medford Sports Park 1 Railroad Park 1 Union Park 1 Veterans Park 1 OTHER: Dog Parks 7 Cornerstone Park 1 Hillcrest Area 1 Mistal City 1 Prickner Park 1 TouVelle State Park 1 TOTAL RESPONSES 181 APPENDIX D D-20 Leisure Services Plan Update Observations: � Bear Creek Park and Hawthorne Park were cited the most times as parks in need of improvement, followed distantly by Donahue-Frohnmayer and Fichtner-Mainwaring Parks. Table D-9 Needed Park Improvements: Topics Cited City of Medford Park Number of Responses Restrooms 44 Safety/police/homeless issue 31 Lighting 19 Playgrounds 17 Paths/sidewalks 15 Landscaping/grass/vegetation 12 Water park/pool 10 Sports facilities 9 Dog parks 7 General upkeep/cleanliness 6 Picnic facilities 5 Activities/programs 4 ADA/handicap accessibility 4 Dogs in parks 4 Irrigation/sprinklers More parks 3 Transportation/Access Amphitheater 2 Benches Existing park development 2 Fees/discounts Memorial Grove 1 More sculpture/artwork 1 No smoking 1 Signage Skate Park 1 Too crowded 1 Visibility 1 Yellow jackets 1 TOTAL RESPONSES 213 APPENDIX D Leisure Services Plan Update D-21 Observations: � The top improvement needed in Medford parks deals with restrooms (44), followed by park security (31), lighting (19), playgrounds (17), and pathways (15). � Comments regarding park security included general safety (15), increased policing (7), concerns over transients/ homeless population (6), concerns over drug dealers (1), desired volunteer patrols (1), and desired camera checks (1). � Comments regarding lighting included adding lighting to parks (9), improving lighting on pathways (3), adding lights at playgrounds (2), adding lights at tennis courts (3), and keeping volleyball lights on past 10:00 in the summer (2). � Comments regarding sports facilities noted the following facilities: tennis courts (2), volleyball courts (2), basketball courts (2), softball fields (2), and track (1). There were an additional 5 responses regarding lighting at tennis courts (3) and volleyball courts (2) counted with lighting. 6. In your opinion, how would you rate security and your personal safety in City parks? (Please check one box.) Questions 6 provided respondents a 10-point scale on which to rate park safety, with 1 being very unsafe and 10 being very safe. Table D-10 Security and Personal Safety Rating City of Medford Rating Item Average Rating (n=376) Park Security 6.2 Observations: � Results indicated that they feel slightly more than moderately safe in City parks. APPENDIX D D-22 Leisure Services Plan Update 7. If you sometimes feel unsafe or insecure in City parks, what would be the most effective method to make them more enjoyable for you? (Please select your top two choices.) Table D-11 Methods for Improving Park Safety City of Medford Response Percentage (n=328) Provide more lighting 22.0% Work with police to increase patrols in the parks 18.6% Have volunteers in the parks 15.5% Increase activities so that more people are I the parks 11.6% Modify the landscaping to improve visibility 11.6% Hire park rangers to visit the parks on a scheduled basis 10.7% Hire security personnel for nighttime patrols 10.0% Observations: � Providing lighting (22%) is the most desired method for improving park safety, followed by increasing police patrols in parks (18.6%). � This question was worded to solicit a response from those people who “sometimes feel unsafe or insecure in City parks.” Seventy-five percent of people who completed a survey responded to this question. APPENDIX D Leisure Services Plan Update D-23 8. Would you favor the City initiating a major City beautification program to improve the appearance of the community? Table D-12 Support for City-wide Beautification Program City of Medford Response Percentage (n=388) No, I do not favor a beautification program 29.6% Yes, I favor a beautification program 70.4% Observations: � Over 70% of respondents desired a beautification program for the City. If you answered yes, please select your top two choices for improvements: Table D-13 City Beautification Improvements City of Medford Response Percentage (n=282) Landscaping medians and major streets 26.3% Planting more street trees 20.7% Providing sculpture and artwork in public places 12.4% Developing city entrance features with plantings 11.0% Building plazas 9.2% Providing murals 7.5% Providing hanging baskets 6.8% Other (see list below) 6.1% Observations: � Forty-seven percent of respondents would like to see more beautification efforts along city streets, including landscaping medians and planting street trees. APPENDIX D D-24 Leisure Services Plan Update � “Other” responses included a wide range of comments. Most frequent responses included providing more parks and natural areas (6), cleaning up the community (5), making sidewalk improvements (4), providing plazas, gazebos, or meeting places (4), removing garbage/junk (3), and eliminating junky businesses, such as strip joints and car lots (2). 9. Using a grading scale of 1-5 (with 1 being poor and 5 being excellent), how do you rate the following park maintenance services? (Please rate each category.) Table D-14 Park Maintenance Services Ratings City of Medford Rating Item Average Rating General maintenance and care of parks (n=332) 3.8 Condition of park grass and plantings (n=330) 3.8 Keeping parks clean of paper and trash (n-331) 3.8 Removal of graffiti (n=309) 3.8 Maintaining play equipment and picnic areas (n=325) 3.7 Maintenance of sport fields (n=298) 3.7 Cleanliness of restrooms (n=295) 3.0 Observations: � Results indicate that maintenance service is rated moderately high in all areas, with restroom maintenance scoring the lowest (3.0). APPENDIX D Leisure Services Plan Update D-25 10. What improvements should be made to Prescott (Roxy Ann) Park? (Please select all that apply.) Table D-15 Prescott Park Improvements City of Medford Response Percentage (n=207) Develop an overlook/viewpoint 30.8% Develop several trailhead areas 29.9% Develop several group picnic areas 20.7% No improvements. I like it the way it is 18.6% Observations: � Nearly one-third (30.8%) of respondents would like to see an overlook/viewpoint developed at Prescott Park, followed closely by respondents who would like to see more developed trailheads (29.9%). 11. Which of the following major projects are most needed in Medford today? (Please prioritize the entire list by writing a #1 next to your first choice, a #2 next to your second choice, a #3 next to your third choice, etc.) Respondents were asked to prioritize an entire list of six facilities. Results are tabulated by first place responses (facilities ranked number one) and by weighted responses. For weighted responses, more value is given to #1 response than subsequent responses. In the Table 4.19, responses are weighted in terms of priority, with a first choice response given a score of 6, a second choice assigned a score of 5, and so on. Observations are noted at the end of the second table. APPENDIX D D-26 Leisure Services Plan Update Table D-16 Priority Parks and Recreation Improvements: First Place Responses City of Medford Response 1 st Place Responses Sports complex for soccer, baseball and softball (n=277) 88 Upgrades to existing parks (n=273) 73 City-wide trail system (n=271) 56 Multi-use recreation center with a gymnasium and exercise equipment (n=250) 41 Performing arts center for music, drama and other cultural events (n=250) 39 Outdoor pool (n=248) 27 Table D-17 Priority Parks and Recreation Improvements: Weighted Responses City of Medford Response Weighted Average Upgrades to existing parks (n=273) 1194 Sports complex for soccer, baseball and softball (n=277) 1130 City-wide trail system (n=271) 1041 Performing arts center for music, drama and other cultural events (n=250) 837 Multi-use recreation center with a gymnasium and exercise equipment (n=250) 825 Outdoor pool (n=248) 749 Observations: � As illustrated in Table 4.18, a sports complex received the most first choice responses as the priority park and recreation improvement needed in Medford (88). Upgrades to existing parks received the second most first-choice responses (73), followed by a City-wide trail system (56). � According to the weighted responses illustrated in Table 4.19, upgrades to existing parks are the highest priority improvement desired by respondents, followed by a sports complex and trails. APPENDIX D Leisure Services Plan Update D-27 � An outdoor pool is the least needed improvement of the six listed, according to both tables of tabulated results. 12. If a multi-purpose indoor recreation center were to be built in Medford, what facilities would you like to see? (Please select all that apply.) Table D-18 Indoor Recreation Center Facilities City of Medford Response Percentages (n=353) Indoor pool/wave pool 14.7% Multi-use gymnasium 14.2% Space for teen activities 14.0% Space for senior activities 13.8% Weight room/fitness room 11.0% Room for aerobics and exercise 10.7% Climbing wall 10.4% Large multi-purpose/reception room 8.3% Other 2.8% Observations: � The following facilities are most desired in an indoor recreation facility: indoor pool, gymnasiums, space for teen activities, and space for senior activities. � Currently, existing gymnasiums in Medford are provided by school districts or private providers. � “Other” responses for desired indoor recreation facilities included an indoor water park (4), dance floor/dance classroom (4), play areas/fitness centers for toddlers and children (4), daycare (2), tennis courts (2), arcade (2), and the following single suggestions: sports club, restaurant, computer room, basketball court, track, specialized recreation facilities, events room, and pool table. � In other communities, indoor pools average around 19.7% of the responses and a multi-use gymnasium averages about 21.9% of the responses. Compared to other communities, the response rates in this question were lumped fairly close together with a lower rate for the first two responses. APPENDIX D D-28 Leisure Services Plan Update 13. How should Medford meet future swimming needs? (Please mark your top choice only.) Table D-19 Desired Swimming Facilities City of Medford Response Percentages (n=366) Develop a multi-use indoor aquatic complex 37.7% Construct an indoor swimming pool 18.9% No opinion 14.4% Develop a large Olympic-sized swimming pool primarily for competitive swimming 10.2% No additional swimming facilities are needed 8.4% Construct a new outdoor swimming pool 8.2% Other 2.0% Observations: � Respondents clearly prefer an indoor pool/aquatic center to meet swimming needs. More than half (56.6%) chose an indoor facility. � Over 22% had no opinion on aquatic facilities (14.4%) or felt a pool is not needed at this time (8.4%). � “Other” responses included developing a water park (4), constructing an indoor Olympic-sized pool (2), fixing Jackson/Hawthorne pools (1), making a new pool deep enough for water polo (1), and expanding the YMCA (1). APPENDIX D Leisure Services Plan Update D-29 Program Results: Part 2 The following questions on services and programs were answered by all respondents. Survey respondents ages 10-17 were asked to skip questions in Part 2 and proceed to the final two questions on recreation participation. 14. Have you participated in a recreation program sponsored by the City of Medford in the last year? Table D-20 Participation in a City Recreation Program City of Medford Response Percentage (n=398) Yes 20.6% No 79.4% Observations: � Only 20% or respondents had participated in a City recreation program in the last year. � In other communities throughout the Northwest, participation levels in City sponsored recreation programs are typically higher. The level of participation for communities throughout the west coast typically ranges from 25-30%. In communities with well-developed recreation programs, about 30% or more of their residents participate. Locally, participation rates in Eugene were 57.2% and in the Willamalane Park & Recreation District 25.9%. APPENDIX D D-30 Leisure Services Plan Update If you did participate, how did you primarily learn about it? (Please select the one best answer.) Table D-21 Source of Recreation Program Information City of Medford Response Percentages (n=100) City’s activity guide 27.0% Friends or word of mouth 25.2% The City’s newsletter 16.5% Information distributed at schools 13.0% Local newspaper advertisements 11.3% Special flyers 7.0% TV 0.0% Observations: � The Medford Parks & Recreation Activity and Services Guide is currently the most effective means of publicizing recreation programs and events. � In other communities MIG has surveyed, an average of 28.9% of the respondents consulted the City’s recreation guide. 15. If you do not participate in recreation programs offered by the City, what are you reasons? (Please select all that apply.) Table D-22 Reasons for Not Participating in a City Recreation Program City of Medford Response Percentages (n=306) Not aware of the programs offered by the City 26.7% Other 20.0% Don’t have the activities I’m interested in 14.2% Held at inconvenient times 13.7% Can’t afford the cost of the programs 11.3% Participate in programs at private clubs or nearby cities 8.9% Need child care in order to participate 3.6% Facilities are inadequate 1.7% APPENDIX D Leisure Services Plan Update D-31 Observations: � Over 26% of respondents felt that are unaware of the programs offered by the City. � For “other” responses, comments included being too busy (32), not interested (9), disabled/physically limited (6), too old (3), and new to the city (3). Moreover, program hours were inadequate (2), programs were cancelled (1), programs did not serve toddlers or young children (2), and people found other fitness opportunities (3). � In other communities surveyed by MIG, the responses regarding inconvenient program times and unaffordable program costs were significantly higher. 16. If the City were to expand its recreation programs, what additional activities should be offered? (Please select your top 2 choices.) Table D-23 Desired Additional Recreation Activities City of Medford Response Percentages (n=355) After school activities for the youth 18.6% Summer youth activities 15.5% Outdoor education and nature programs 11.6% Youth organized sports 11.2% Education and special interest classes 8.7% Outdoor adventure/extreme sports programs 8.4% Performing and cultural arts 8.3% Adult organized sports 7.1% Recreational & instructional swimming 5.9% Specialized recreation and disability services 4.7% Observations: � Three of the top four desired recreational activities were programs specifically for youth. After school activities (18.6%), summer youth activities (15.5%), and youth organized sports (11.2%) account for over 45% of all responses. � Outdoor education and nature programs were the third most desired type of recreation activity, selected by 11.6% of respondents. APPENDIX D D-32 Leisure Services Plan Update 17. In your opinion, are programs and services for the youth adequately provided in Medford? (Please answer for the following three age groups.) Table D-24 Adequacy of Youth Programs and Services City of Medford Response 6-9 Age Group (n=251) 10-12 Age Group (n=248) 13-17 Age Group (n=238) Adequately Served 53.8% 56.5% 35.9% Not Adequately Served 46.2% 43.5% 64.1% Observations: � Of the three age groups listed, teens (ages 13-17) are perceived to be inadequately served. APPENDIX D Leisure Services Plan Update D-33 18. If not, what types of youth programs or facilities are most needed? (Please mark all that apply for each age group.) Table D-25 Needed Youth Programs and Services City of Medford Response 6-9 Age Group (n=140) 10-12 Age Group (n=159) 13-17 Age Group (n=188) Organized sports and leagues 18.1% 16.0% 43.1% Drop-in sports activities 17.0% 15.0% 18.6% Special interest classes 22.4% 17.1% 10.1% Job training/career placement 3.0% 4.6% 15.4% Outdoor education 16.2% 15.0% 3.7% Dance/social activities 5.1% 7.3% 1.6% Health education 7.5% 11.7% 1.1% A place to hang out 10.8% 13.3% 6.4% Observations: � For the 6-9 age group, results suggest that the following activities are most needed: special interest classes (22.4%), organized sports (18.1%), drop-in sports (17.0%), and outdoor recreation (16.2%). � For the 10-12 age group, results suggest that the same activities are most needed: special interest classes (17.1%), organized sports (16.0%), drop-in sports (15.0%), and outdoor education (15.0%). � For the 13-17 age group, results indicate that organized sports are clearly desired (43.1%). The following activities followed distantly in priority: drop-in sports (18.6%) and job training/career placement (15.4%). Program Results: Part 2 The following questions on services and programs were answered by respondents ages 18 and over. Survey respondents ages 10- 17 were asked to skip questions 19-28 and proceed to the final two questions on recreation participation. APPENDIX D D-34 Leisure Services Plan Update 19. In your opinion, are the seniors in Medford adequately served? Table D-26 Adequacy of Senior Services City of Medford Response Percentage (n=346) Yes 20.5% No 24.6% Don’t know 54.9% Observations: � Most respondents (54.9%) did not know if adequate service is provided for seniors. Of the remaining respondents, more (24.6%) felt that seniors are underserved. 20. If you answered “no” to the above question, what role should the City assume in senior services? Table D-27 City’s Role in Senior Services City of Medford Response Percentage (n=109) Offer limited special interest classes to seniors 18.9% Offer health and wellness classes, such as diabetes education 17.3% Provide social daycare for frail elderly 16.9% Promote programs offered by the County and other service providers 16.9% Provide operating money to the Medford Senior Center 15.2% Develop and manage a new Senior Center 14.8% APPENDIX D Leisure Services Plan Update D-35 Observations: � The City has lots of options in improving senior services, and each of the options listed above received relatively strong support. The top ranking response was offering special interest classes (18.9%), followed by offering health and wellness classes (17.3%). � The least support (14.8%) was offered for developing and managing a new City senior center. However, the desired senior classes and programs could be incorporated into a new indoor, multi-purpose recreation center. (See Question 12). 21. How satisfied are you with organized sports (soccer, softball, etc.) in Medford for youth ages 17 and under, in terms of quality and range of offerings? Table D-28 Satisfaction with Provision of Organized Sports City of Medford Response Percentage (n=320) Very satisfied 12.9% Somewhat satisfied 18.8% Neutral 24.1% Somewhat unsatisfied 9.1% Unsatisfied 3.1% Don’t know 32.0% Observations: � Question 21 targets a specific type of recreation participation for a specific age group. Most respondents (32.0%) were not familiar enough with the situation to respond. � Of those who did respond, results were mixed. Respondents were mostly neutral (24.1%) or somewhat satisfied (18.8%). In general, roughly 56% were either neutral or satisfied to some degree. � In comparison, the results from question 18 suggest that organized sports and leagues were a significant need for three age groups of youth in Medford. APPENDIX D D-36 Leisure Services Plan Update The following questions were answered by respondents ages 18 and over. Survey respondents ages 10-17 were asked to skip these questions and proceed to the final two questions on recreation participation. 22. Where should the City place its priority in park and recreation services? (Please prioritize the following answers by writing a #1 next to your first choice, a #2 next to your second choice, a #3 next to your third choice, etc.) Respondents were asked to prioritize an entire list of eight park and recreation services. Results are tabulated by first place responses (improvements ranked number one) and by weighted responses. For weighted responses, more value is given to a #1 response than subsequent responses. In the Table 4.32, responses are weighted in terms of priority, with a first choice improvement given a score of 8, a second choice assigned a score of 7, and so on. Observations are noted at the end of the second table. Table D-29 Priority of Park and Recreation Services: First Place Responses City of Medford Response 1 st Place Responses Upgrade of existing park facilities (n-229) 78 Development of sports fields (n=210) 53 Acquisition and development of new park sites (n=212) 34 Development of aquatic facilities (n=196) 31 Development of trails (n=207) 31 Acquisition and development natural open space areas (n=205) 26 Development of indoor recreation facilities (n=206) 26 Offering of recreation programs (n=194) 15 APPENDIX D Leisure Services Plan Update D-37 Table D-30 Priority of Park and Recreation Services: Weighted Responses City of Medford Response Weighted Responses Upgrade of existing park facilities (n=229) 947 Development of sports fields (n=210) 656 Development of trails (n=207) 654 Development of indoor recreation facilities (n=206) 606 Acquisition and development of new park sites (n=212) 603 Development of aquatic facilities (n=196) 595 Acquisition and development natural open space areas (n=205) 572 Offering of recreation programs (n=194) 498 Observations: � As illustrated in Table 4.31, an upgrade of existing park facilities received the most first choice responses as the priority park and recreation service needed in Medford (78). Development of sports fields received 53 first-choice responses, followed by acquisition of new park sites with 34. � According to the weighted responses illustrated in Table 4.32, upgrades to existing parks are again the highest priority improvement desired by respondents, followed again by the development of sports fields. The development of trails was the third highest priority for weighted responses. � In comparison, respondents in survey question #11, for both the first place and weighted responses, ranked upgrades to existing parks as the highest priority improvement, followed by a sports complex and trails. APPENDIX D D-38 Leisure Services Plan Update 23. In addition to the Bear Creek Greenway, what type of pathway or trail is most needed in Medford? (Please prioritize the entire list by writing a #1 next to your first choice, a #2 next to your second choice, a #3 next to your third choice, etc.) Respondents were asked to prioritize an entire list of six most needed types of pathways and trails. Results are tabulated by first place responses (improvements ranked number one) and by weighted responses. For weighted responses, more value is given to a #1 response than subsequent responses. In the Table 4.34, responses are weighted in terms of priority, with a first choice response given a score of 6, a second choice assigned a score of 5, and so on. Observations are noted at the end of the second table. Table D-31 Needed Pathways/Trails: First Place Responses City of Medford Response 1 st Place Responses Off-street paved trails for walking, bicycling, etc. (n=209) 98 On-street commuter bike lanes (n=200) 82 Don not believe more trails are needed (n=102) 52 Unpaved trails for walking and hiking (n=187) 45 Unpaved mountain bike trails (n=138) 9 Equestrian trails (n=116) 6 Table D-32 Needed Pathways/Trails: Weighted Responses City of Medford Response Weighted Responses Off-street, paved trails for walking, bicycling, etc. (n=209) 1089 On street commuter bike lanes (n=199) 922 Unpaved trails for walking and hiking (n=187) 877 Unpaved mountain bike trails (n=138) 508 Do not believe more trails are needed (n=103) 388 Equestrian trails (n=116) 314 APPENDIX D Leisure Services Plan Update D-39 Observations: � As illustrated in Table 4.33, multi-purpose trails (off-street, paved trails for walking, bicycling, etc.) received the most first choice responses as the priority pathway/trail improvement most needed in Medford (98). Development of on-street, commuter bike lanes followed with 82 first-choice responses. � According to the weighted responses illustrated in Table 4.32, the same two priority improvements were noted. � Equestrian trails were ranked last in terms of priority, according to both first-place and weighted responses. 24. What share of the cost should each group pay for recreation programs offered by the City such as sport leagues, classes, special programs, etc.? Table D-33 Percentage of Costs Paid by Age Group City of Medford Response None Half (50%) All (100%) 50% More (150%) Age 17 and under (n=264) 55.3% 37.5% 6.1% 1.1% Age 18-64 (n- 268) 6.7% 59.7% 32.5% 1.1% Age 65 and over (n=264) 42.0% 47.3% 9.5% 1.1% Non-residents (n=257) 7.8% 21.4% 46.3% 24.5% Observations: � The results of question #24 indicate that respondents think that recreation programs offered by the City should be subsidized. � According to the largest percentage of respondents for each age group, youth programs should be heavily subsidized so that they are free (55.3%) or half price (37.5%). Adult programs should be half price (59.7%) or full price (32.5%). Senior programs should be half price (47.3%) or free (42.0%). And non-residents should pay full price (46.3%). APPENDIX D D-40 Leisure Services Plan Update 25. Leasing out space in parks to commercial vendors is one way to provide additional services to park users and help offset park maintenance costs. How do you feel about commercial concessions in City parks? Table D-34 Support for Concessions in Parks City of Medford Response Percentage (n=339) I would not like to see concessions in parks 23.6% I would favor it, depending upon the types of concession 76.4% Observations: � Over three-fourths of respondents (76.4) favor concessions. 26. If you were to favor concessions in parks, what types of commercial services would you like to see provided? (Please select all that apply.) Table D-35 Desired Concessions in Parks City of Medford Response Percentage (n=293) Convenient food items in mobile vendors 30.0% Sale of hobby items, such as kites, etc. 18.3% Food for birds and animals 18.0% Rides for children 13.0% Quality sit-down restaurants 11.2% Fast food items in permanent buildings 9.5% Observations: � Results indicate that mobile vendors selling food would be most popular. Thirty percent of respondents selected this response. � Mobile food vendors would likely be very successful at Movies in the Park, Concerts in the Park, special events, and organized sports events/tournaments. APPENDIX D Leisure Services Plan Update D-41 � Sale of hobby items (18.3), bird/animal food (18.0), and children’s rides (13.0) also received support as concessions in parks. 27. If the City were to provide concessions in parks, who should operate them? Table D-36 Preferred Concession Operators City of Medford Response Percentage (n=293) The City of Medford 23.9% Commercial vendors 45.4% Private, non-profit organizations 30.7% Observations: � Over 45% of respondents prefer that commercial vendors provide concessions in parks, although there was significant support for private, non-profit organizations (30.7%) as well. 28. Would you be willing to volunteer your time to assist the City in providing better park and recreation services? If so, please check those areas in which you would be interested. Table D-37 Volunteer Opportunities City of Medford Response Percentage (n=105) City-wide special events 39.9% Park maintenance 16.7% Youth sports 14.5% Department administration 13.8% Other 11.6% Program instruction 3.6% Observations: � Nearly 24% of the respondents indicated that they would be willing to participate in volunteer projects. APPENDIX D D-42 Leisure Services Plan Update � Respondents indicated that they could assist the City with special events (39.9%), park maintenance (16.7%), and youth sports (14.5%). � “Other” responses included volunteer patrol (2), outdoor education (2), youth crafts (1), West African drum/cultural programs (1), sports tournament organization (1), and flower planting (1). Current Recreation Participation Recreation demand is difficult to quantify because of the many factors that influence recreation participation and interests. There have been many approaches tried for identifying this demand ranging from the use of national surveys and standards to measuring actual participant hours. Recognizing this problem, MIG began accumulating recreation participation information on communities throughout the Northwest. By making comparison to other similar communities or with the NORTHWEST AVERAGE (the average of the last 15 communities surveyed) one can determine where specific activities are above or below the norm. Keep in mind that many factors influence participation levels. These include: � Population profile � Lack or condition of facilities � Climate � Current recreation trends � Cost of using facilities and programs � Present economic conditions � Level of recreation programs and services offered Table 4.40 shows participation rates for both indoor and outdoor recreation activities in Medford. The per capita occasions for a 30 day period refers to the average number of times each person participated in the activity when the activity is in season in a 30- day period. These activities are ranked so that the most popular activities in Medford appear first. APPENDIX D Leisure Services Plan Update D-43 Table D-38 Recreation Participation City of Medford Per Capita Occasions per 30 Days (n=248) Rank Activity City of Medford (2004) City of Medford (1995) NW AVERAGE 1 Computers (Personal) 9.32 4.75 6.17 2 Walking for Pleasure 8.00 4.82 4.55 3 Family Activities 6.54 3.65 3.26 4 Exercising/Aerobics 5.83 3.40 3.39 5 Gardening 5.52 NA 2.29 6 Playground (visit/play) 3.77 2.74 2.40 7 Nature Walks 3.65 1.89 2.10 8 Bird Watching/Feeding 3.61 2.07 1.80 9 Wildlife Watching 3.46 2.34 1.99 10 Fairs/Festivals 3.09 2.32 2.05 11 Sports Events (attend) 2.98 2.37 2.42 12 Bicycling for pleasure 2.97 3.29 2.49 13 Photography 2.89 1.10 2.17 14 Picnicking 2.87 2.14 1.84 15 Swimming (outdoors) 2.82 1.63 2.43 16 Swimming (indoors) 2.59 1.41 1.88 17 Baseball 2.51 1.36 1.73 18 Concerts (Attend) 2.48 1.96 1.83 19 Football 2.40 1.31 1.48 20 Softball 1.98 1.19 1.34 21 Tours and Travel 1.82 NA 2.49 22 Jogging/Running 1.80 1.72 2.25 23 Golf (play) 1.77 2.22 1.56 24 Other 1.77 0.53 NA 25 Cultural Arts (attend) 1.69 1.42 1.46 26 Museums/Galleries 1.42 NA 2.17 27 Arts and crafts 1.34 1.35 1.92 28 Basketball 1.27 1.71 1.92 29 Painting/ Sketching 1.27 NA 0.93 30 Crafts (Pottery, Ceramics) 1.16 NA 1.16 31 Instructional Classes 1.12 0.82 0.83 32 Soccer 1.08 1.35 1.56 33 Golf (driving range) 0.99 1.48 1.56 34 Bicycling (commute) 0.95 0.82 1.38 35 Volleyball (indoor) 0.87 0.64 0.90 APPENDIX D D-44 Leisure Services Plan Update Table D-38 (continued) Recreation Participation City of Medford Per Capita Occasions per 30 Days Rank Activity City of Medford (2004) City of Medford (1995) NW AVERAGE 36 Horseback Riding 0.86 0.47 0.85 37 Ice Skating (Indoor) 0.86 NA 0.85 38 Tennis 0.84 1.53 1.11 39 Roller Skating/In-Line Skate 0.72 1.22 1.04 40 Dancing (Social) 0.71 NA 0.99 41 Kite Flying 0.71 NA 1.04 42 Rock Climbing 0.71 NA 1.05 43 Volleyball (outdoor/sand) 0.71 0.82 0.88 44 Judo-Karate 0.69 NA 2.62 45 Horseshoes 0.68 0.32 0.61 46 Skateboarding 0.63 0.71 0.96 47 Drama (Participate) 0.53 NA 0.88 48 Bicycling (BMX) 0.52 1.25 1.08 49 Handball/Racquetball 0.46 0.38 0.47 50 Lacrosse 0.03 NA 0.51 Observations: � Four of the top ten activities are typical for greenways/natural open space areas: walking for pleasure, nature walks, bird watching/feeding, and wildlife watching. � Respondents have higher participation levels than the NW Average in their top 20 ranked activities. This indicates a strong participation in leisure activities. However, few of those activities include participation in programs provided by the City. � Baseball is the first organized sports activity to appear at 17, followed closely by football (19) and softball (20). These results are similar for most communities, where organized sports appear in the 15-20 ranking range. APPENDIX D Leisure Services Plan Update D-45 � Comparisons for organized sports to the NORTHWEST AVERAGE were as follows: � Baseball +0.78 occasions +45.1% � Basketball -0.65 occasions -33.9% � Football +0.92 occasions +62.2% � Soccer -0.48 occasions -30.8% � Softball +0.64 occasions +47.8% � Tennis -0.27 occasions -24.3% � Volleyball, Indoor -0.03 occasions -3.3% � Volleyball, Outdoor -0.17 occasions -19.3% Preferred Recreation Activities Respondents were also asked to rank their top ten preferred activities, if facilities were available. The activity rankings were then scored with a weighted value by giving a first choice a value of ten, a second choice a value of nine, etc. The total weighted score was then calculated for each activity. Table 4.41 illustrates the 20 highest-ranking activities. The weighted score is shown only for ranking purposes. In the table below, the first column lists the activity the respondent would most like to do if facilities were available, in their ranked order. The last column lists the current participation ranking from Table 4.40. The difference between what residents are currently doing (column 4) and what they would like to be doing (column 1) is called the latent demand. The greater the two numbers vary from each other, the greater the latent demand. Activities with a latent demand value of 10 or greater are screened. Table D-39 Preferred Activities and Latent Demand City of Medford Preferred Ranking Activity Weighted Score Participatio n Ranking 1 Walking for Pleasure 1000 2 2 Concerts (Attend) 839 18 3 Fairs/Festivals 783 10 4 Family Activities 709 3 5 Swimming (indoors) 606 16 6 Nature Walks 585 7 7 Gardening 500 5 8 Bicycling for pleasure 499 12 9 Exercising/Aerobics 443 4 10 Golf (play) 437 23 APPENDIX D D-46 Leisure Services Plan Update Table D-39 (continued) Preferred Activities and Latent Demand City of Medford Preferred Ranking Activity Weighted Score Participatio n Ranking 11 Wildlife Watching 419 9 12 Arts and crafts 397 27 13 Picnicking 375 14 14 Cultural Arts (attend) 349 25 15 Playground (visit/play) 338 6 16 Tours and Travel 328 21 17 Crafts (Pottery, Ceramics, etc.) 319 30 18 Computers (Personal) 310 1 19 Photography 291 13 20 Museums/Galleries 284 26 Observations: � Six of the top ten activities in terms of participation remained in the preferred top 10, although the order of preference changed. � Three of the top 10 preferred activities are trail-related: walking for pleasure, nature walks, and bicycling for pleasure. � No organized sports league activities appear in the top 20 preferred activities, although golf now appears number 10. � The following activities, ranked in order of preference, have significant latent demand: attending concerts, swimming indoors, playing golf, making arts and crafts, attending cultural arts, making pottery and ceramics. � Results for questions 12 and 13 corroborate the findings here that respondents would like to spend more time swimming indoors, if facilities were available. � Arts, crafts, cultural arts, and concerts are areas where programs could be expanded to increase participation. Programming could also target special events such as fairs and festivals, along with family activities APPENDIX F Leisure Services Plan Update F-1 APPENDIX F: PRIORITY MAINTENANCE PROJECTS The following projects have been identified by the Medford Parks staff as priority maintenance projects that have been deferred over the past three to four years. Both parks and the projects designated for each park are listed in priority order. Priority Parks 1. Hawthorne 7. Holmes 2. Bear Creek 8. Veterans 3. Donahue-Frohnmayer 9. Vogel 4. Fichtner-Mainwaring 10. Lone Pine 5. Jackson 11. Ruhl 6. Alba/ Carnegie Building 12. Santo Center F.1 HAWTHORNE PARK 1. Repair bathroom roof 2. Add new Stof-Fall (bark) under play equipment 3. Add new sign at NW corner of Park 4. Upgrade sprinkler system by old backstop 5. Repair flag post sign/flag holder 6. Redo or paint old wading pad area at pool 7. Re-stripe parking lot F.2 BEAR CREEK PARK 1. Place signs (new) in parks (4) 2. Replace roof on shelter 3. Add pea rock under Leathers playground area 4. Raise irrigation heads 5. Repair asphalt walkways 6. Repair drainage in grass area 7. Add more drainage at low spot on bike path 8. Repair fence at skate park 9. Repair bridge area on bike path 10. Re-stripe parking lot 11. Plant perennials APPENDIX F F-2 Leisure Services Plan Update F.3 DONAHUE-FROHMAYER PARK 1. Prune Oak Trees 2. Upgrade irrigation at north end of park and add topsoil to turf 3. Add small shelters (2) for picnics 4. Add three (3) BBQ s to park 5. Plant 10 trees 6. Add new signs (2) F.4 FICHTNER- MAINWARING PARK 1. Add boarder around sand volleyball court 2. Repair and reopen 4th bathroom stall 3. Add 3 new signs 4. Add new seating benches (4) 5. Re-stripe parking lot F.5 JACKSON PARK 1. Repair potholes by restroom 2. Prune and trim trees 3. Add new signs for park (3) 4. Change tennis courts into shelter area 5. Resurface basketball court by school 6. Repair fencing around Fagone Field 7. Re-stripe parking lot F.6 ALBA PARK/OLD LIBRARY PARK 1. Prune and trim trees in both areas 2. Repair sewer line when replacing pathways 3. Repair/replace gazebo 4. Add new sign for park 5. Add new benches (4) in old library area 6. Re-stripe parking lot at old library 7. Plant perennials F.7 HOLMES PARK APPENDIX F Leisure Services Plan Update F-3 1. Repair fence around tennis court 2. Repaint restrooms (inside and out) 3. Plant perennials for color F.8 VETERANS PARK 1. Trim trees 2. Repair curb on eastside of park 3. Plant more perennials for color 4. Paint restrooms (if not replacing) 5. Add new sign F.9 VOGEL PARK 1. Re-install chess player and table 2. Replace trees and prune/shape trees 3. Place skate guards on planters 4. Remove algae on bricks 5. Plant more perennials 6. Add new sign F.10 LONE PINE SCHOOL PARK 1. Shape trees 2. Plant 10 trees 3. Set Porta Potty (until restroom is built) F.11 RUHL PARK 1. Repair pathway 2. Trim trees 3. Install ADH chemical toilet 4. Replace sign APPENDIX F F-4 Leisure Services Plan Update F.12 SANTO CENTER 1. Plant perennials 2. Prune trees 3. Place new trash cans at entrance APPENDIX G: OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COSTS- GENRAL MASTER PROJECT LIST Site UNIT TOTAL PROJECT Contingency Management Architectural & TOTAL DEV. Land Planning Development Major Minor Other # DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY COST COST Fee Engineering Fees COST Acquisition Rehabilitation Improvements SU-2 Table Rock Park 7.49 Explore trade for land in a residential neighborhood LS 1.0 $5,000.00 $5,000 $0 $250 $0 $5,250 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,250 Master Plan LS 1.0 $30,000.00 $30,000 $0 $1,500 $0 $31,500 $0 $31,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $36,750 NP-5 Howard School Park 8.55 Replace failing irrigation mainline pipe LS 1.0 $5,000.00 $5,000 $750 $250 $0 $6,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,000 $0 Convert tennis courts to a new use (skate facility) LS 1.0 $50,000.00 $50,000 $7,500 $2,500 $6,000 $66,000 $0 $0 $0 $66,000 $0 $0 $72,000 SU-9 Santo Community Center 3.90 Develop gymnasium LS 1.0 $142,500.00 $142,500 $21,375 $7,125 $17,100 $188,100 $0 $0 $188,100 $0 $0 $0 $188,100 NP-11 Jackson School Park 9.44 Pool repairs LS 1.0 $25,000.00 $25,000 $3,750 $1,250 $3,000 $33,000 $0 $0 $0 $33,000 $0 $0 Replace concession/bleachers at Fagone Field LS 1.0 $250,000.00 $250,000 $37,500 $12,500 $30,000 $330,000 $0 $0 $0 $330,000 $0 $0 Demolish/relocate the Youth Activity Center LS 1.0 $10,000.00 $10,000 $1,500 $500 $1,200 $13,200 $0 $0 $0 $0 $13,200 $0 $376,200 SU-12 Liberty Park Implement the proposed preliminary master plan LS 1.0 $30,000.00 $30,000 $0 $1,500 $0 $31,500 $0 $31,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 Acquisition AC 1.0 $750,000.00 $750,000 $112,500 $37,500 $0 $900,000 $900,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Develop this NW site as an urban plaza AC 1.0 $230,000.00 $230,000 $34,500 $11,500 $27,600 $303,600 $0 $0 $303,600 $0 $0 $0 $1,235,100 SU-14 Carnegie Building 1.75 Turn the block into plaza LS 1.0 $250,000.00 $250,000 $37,500 $12,500 $30,000 $330,000 $0 $0 $330,000 $0 $0 $0 $330,000 SU-16 Alba Park 1.52 Master Plan LS 1.0 $20,000.00 $20,000 $0 $1,000 $0 $21,000 $0 $21,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 Join with Carnegie Building site (close Ivy Street) LS 1.0 $5,000.00 $5,000 $0 $250 $0 $5,250 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,250 Replace sidewalks on all sides LS 1.0 $7,500.00 $7,500 $1,125 $375 $900 $9,900 $0 $0 $0 $0 $9,900 $0 Add public art LS 1.0 $10,000.00 $10,000 $1,500 $500 $0 $12,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $12,000 $0 Continue to remove and replace hazardous trees LS 1.0 $2,500.00 $2,500 $375 $125 $300 $3,300 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,300 $0 Rebuild gazebo and make larger LS 1.0 $30,000.00 $30,000 $4,500 $1,500 $3,600 $39,600 $0 $0 $0 $39,600 $0 $0 $91,050 NP-17 Lewis Street Park 8.56 Master Plan LS 1.0 $35,000.00 $35,000 $0 $1,750 $0 $36,750 $0 $36,750 $0 $0 $0 $0 Development AC 8.6 $160,000.00 $1,369,600 $205,440 $68,480 $164,352 $1,807,872 $0 $0 $1,807,872 $0 $0 $0 $1,844,622 MP-18 Union Park 2.16 Master Plan LS 1.0 $20,000.00 $20,000 $0 $1,000 $0 $21,000 $0 $21,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 Remove tennis courts LS 1.0 $5,000.00 $5,000 $750 $250 $600 $6,600 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,600 $0 Remove aging restrooms LS 1.0 $10,000.00 $10,000 $1,500 $500 $1,200 $13,200 $0 $0 $0 $0 $13,200 $0 Improve irrigation head spacing LS 1.0 $2,500.00 $2,500 $375 $125 $300 $3,300 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,300 $0 Address soil and drainage problems LS 1.0 $5,000.00 $5,000 $750 $250 $600 $6,600 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,600 $0 $50,700 CP-20 Sunset Park Master Plan (includes assessment for sports fields) LS 1.0 $50,000.00 $50,000 $0 $2,500 $0 $52,500 $0 $52,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 Acquisition AC 20.0 $200,000.00 $4,000,000 $600,000 $200,000 $0 $4,800,000 $4,800,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Development AC 20.0 $200,000.00 $4,000,000 $600,000 $200,000 $480,000 $5,280,000 $0 $0 $5,280,000 $0 $0 $0 $10,132,500 Page 1 of 1