City of Salem - Master Plan I Search: City A-Z City Council Departments Residents Business Visitors Jobs e-Services Parks Home Donation opportunities 2008 Parks and Recreation Master Plan Park volunteer stars Park tour Park and street tree information Volunteer here! Salem Park Improvement Fund What's New How Do I... Choose a street tree? Find a park? Frequently asked questions Report a problem in a park? Reserve a park? Master Plan I City of Salem COMPREHENSIVE PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN April 1999 Volume I Table of Contents l INTRODUCTION l EXISTING PARK SYSTEM l MASTER PLAN POLICIES l ACTION PROGRAMS m Recreation and Open Space Facilities m Capital Improvement Plan m Operation and Maintenance Plan m Financing Strategies TABLES l Table 1: Park and Recreation Facility Attributes l Table 2: Park and Recreation Facilities l Table 3: Park and Recreation Support Facilities l Table 4: Park and Recreation Support Services l Table 5: Total LOS Acreage for Neighborhood, Community and Large Urban Parks l Table 6: Parks Standards and Acres l Table 7: Park Operations and Maintenance Costs per Acre FIGURES l Figure 1: Master Planning Process l Figure 2: Existing Conditions Legend and Map l Figure 3: Salem Park System Master Plan Legend and Map l Figure 4: Proposed Trail System Map l Figure 5: Trail System Cross Sections Emergency Information Events All Parks Events Maps Map of Parks (pdf) Contact Us Parks Operations Division 1460 20th St SE Salem, OR 97301 503-588-6336 Fax: 503-588-6305 SalemParks@cityofsalem. net More Contacts http://www.cityofsalem.net/departments/parks/master_vol_1.html (1 of 33)2/14/2008 7:22:34 AM City of Salem - Master Plan I Quick Links Dogs in parks Park hours Park Lines newsletter Park tour Softball System Development Charges (SDC's) INTRODUCTION Great cities build and sustain public parks, protect open space, and offer recreational opportunities to their citizens to provide balance for their fast-paced, urban life-styles in close quarters. Successful cities are able to: l Contribute to fulfilling the leisure-time needs of their citizens; l Preserve and protect areas of unique natural and scenic importance for their original and intrinsic value; l Incorporate environmental stewardship of natural resources into facilities acquisition and development; and l Maintain a relationship to their past by retaining and caring for their historical sites and structures. Salem experienced significant growth over the past two decades. The 1978 Park and Recreation Technical Study served as the city's planning tool for parks during that time. Now, with more than 40,000 new residents and major shifts in city revenues, the 1978 study is obsolete. During these two decades, the city has not sufficiently invested in refurbishing existing facilities nor purchasing new ones, resulting in a park system unable to meet present community needs, much less satisfy future open space and recreation demands. This plan has been developed with awareness of the current and projected tightness of the budget of the City of Salem. Consequently, the Policy Advisory Committee, appointed by City Council, adopted a level of service 20 percent lower than the level of service established by the 1978 Park and Recreation Technical Study. For funding, the plan seeks a commitment to the same percentage of the general fund as has historically been allocated to parks, use of bonding authority consistent with the city bond management plan, and a system development charge attached to new construction. Full execution of this plan remedies the current deficit and avoids the creation of new deficits as our city grows. To achieve these goals, all three revenue sources: general funds, bonds and SDC's, must be operational. Future funding increases would be proportional to the growth of the system. To address current and future park and recreation needs for the community, the Salem Department of Community Services developed this Comprehensive Park System Master Plan in 1998 and 1999. The Master Plan contains four volumes: Volume I Salem Comprehensive Park System Master Plan provides a policy framework and an Action Program to implement the Master Plan policies. Volume II Planning Process describes the four-phase approach followed to create the Master Plan. Volume III Comprehensive Park System Master Plan Facilities Assessment is a detailed inventory and evaluation of the condition of all existing city park and recreation facilities. Volume IV Appendices provide background information and supporting documentation used during the planning phases. The 1999 Comprehensive Park System Master Plan incorporates the following current park system elements: http://www.cityofsalem.net/departments/parks/master_vol_1.html (2 of 33)2/14/2008 7:22:34 AM City of Salem - Master Plan I neighborhood, community, and large urban parks; school/parks; historical properties currently owned and operated, such as Pioneer Cemetery and Deepwood; natural resource areas, such as Minto-Brown Island Park; special use parks, such as Riverfront Park and The Sports Field Complex; and connector trails, such as the Edgewater Parkway. Additionally, a number of relevant planning documents have also been incorporated into this Master Plan which dramatically broadens its scope. Those documents can be found in Volume IV, Appendices, tab 10, Policy Integration Report. Another aspect of the city's overall landscape is its Street Tree Program. Long recognized as a Tree City USA, Salem provides for its street trees under Chapter 86 of the Salem Revised Code, "Municipal Shade Tree Ordinance." Other landscape issues are dealt with through the Chapter 132 Landscaping Zoning Ordinance. Currently, these ordinances pertain to public rights-of-way and required landscaping of private development, respectively. Since they only peripherally deal with parks and open space needs of our community, they are not included as part of this Comprehensive Park System Master Plan. This master plan recognizes the need to develop a comprehensive plan for aquatic programs and facilities in the Salem-Keizer area. The City intends to work closely with the Salem-Keizer School District within the current partnership to benefit users of Olinger and Walker pools as potential users of future facilities. This master plan provides the Salem Park and Recreation Advisory Board the opportunity to begin a process to again study and work toward a consensus plan for addressing aquatic programs and facility needs in the Salem area for recommendation to affected jurisdictions. The Master Plan serves as a planning and administrative guide for the community, City Council, commissions, advisory boards, and city staff. Once implemented, this plan will meet the recreation, parks, and open space needs of Salem residents as the city expands services to support development to Salem's Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). The Master Plan strengthens the Salem Area Comprehensive Plan (SACP) by providing additional detail and direction to it. The Master Planning process is summarized in Figure I-1 on page 4. Additional information about the creation of the Master Plan and supporting data is provided in the remaining three volumes. Figure I-1 - Master Planning Process BACK- GROUND PLAN POLICIES Phase I. What do we know? Inventory Demo- graphic Profile Facilities Assessment Phase III. What do we do? Where should parks be built? What do you want to do in the parks? How do you want to get to the parks? How do we pay for it? http://www.cityofsalem.net/departments/parks/master_vol_1.html (3 of 33)2/14/2008 7:22:34 AM City of Salem - Master Plan I Phase II. What do we want? Needs Assessment Surveys / Interviews Focus groups Public forums ACTION PROGRAM Part 1 Recreation and Open Space Facilities Part 2 Capital Improvements (CIP) Plan Part 3 Operations and Maint- enance (O&M) Plan Part 4 Financing Strategies Phase IV. How do we get there? Identify existing parks and areas served or not served by neighbor- hood, community, and large urban parks. Determine Level of Service (LOS) standards for service areas for new or expanded neighbor- hood, community, and large urban parks. Determine LOS standards for necessary park size and improvements for neighborhood, community, and large urban parks. Identify access barriers to be removed, Create a trail system to connect the parks. Phase capital expenditures with available funding. Determine capital costs for land; facility development, upgrade, and rehabilitation; and barrier removal to (1) fix the existing park facilities; (2) fund park land, acquisition and improvements to eliminate current deficit according to adopted LOS standards in Part 1; and (3) fund park land acquisition and improvements to accommodate future growth. Determine operation and maint- enance (O&M) costs for existing and future parks. Identify methods for financing the CIP and O&M Plan. http://www.cityofsalem.net/departments/parks/master_vol_1.html (4 of 33)2/14/2008 7:22:34 AM City of Salem - Master Plan I EXISTING PARK SYSTEM Facility Categories City park and recreation facilities are categorized into eight classifications according to the function they serve for the community. These are: l Neighborhood parks l Community parks l Large urban parks l School parks l Special use facilities l Historic areas l Natural resource areas l Connector trails Each type of facility fulfills a unique mission based upon community recreation, park, and open space needs. These needs are addressed in the Master Plan policies. The location and condition of neighborhood, community, and large urban parks are shown in Figure I-2. Additional detail regarding the inventory and evaluation is provided in Volume II - Planning Process and Volume III - Comprehensive Park System Master Plan Facilities Assessment. Existing Park System Characteristics In 1998, Salem's parks, open space, and recreation system contained the following elements: l 1,628 acres (more than half of which are in Minto-Brown Island Park) serving 126,673 people - a ratio of 5.66 acres/1,000 residents and far below the national standard of 10 to 20 acres/1,000 residents; l 29 neighborhood parks, of which over 60% do not meet the minimum 5-acre national standard; l Four community parks, the largest is only 60% of the maximum size recommended by national standards, and the smallest falls beneath that standard; l Four large urban parks, none of which are in good condition; l Ten special use facilities, with Riverfront Park and the Sports Field Complex accounting for 65% of the total area; l Four historic areas, with Pioneer Cemetery representing approximately 80% of the total acreage; l Three natural resource areas, of which two total less than four acres; and l Three connector trails totaling just over 14 acres for the entire city. Based on a 1998 facilities assessment, 98 percent, by acreage, of Salem's existing neighborhood parks are rated as being in less than good condition. None of the existing community parks, large urban parks, existing natural resource areas or existing connector trails are in good condition. When the newest member of the park system, Riverfront Park, is excluded from consideration, none of the special use facilities are in good condition. On the plus side, one of the four existing historic areas, Waldo Park sized at 0.01 acres, is rated in good condition. The location and condition of parks and open space in each of the eight classifications is shown in Figure I-2. Additional detail about the inventory and evaluation is located in Volume II, Planning Process and Volume III, Comprehensive Park System Master Plan Facilities Assessment. Definitions and examples, background information and supporting documentation are provided in Volume IV, Appendices. http://www.cityofsalem.net/departments/parks/master_vol_1.html (5 of 33)2/14/2008 7:22:34 AM City of Salem - Master Plan I While park and recreation facilities are generally well distributed throughout the city, many neighborhoods are not well served. For example, two neighborhood parks totaling less than six acres serve the entire city south of Kuebler Boulevard. No city parks serve the heavily settled area west of Liberty St. and north of Madrona Ave. to Candalaria Blvd. East of Commercial St., two parks which are too small to meet national standards serve the entire area south of Madrona Ave. out to the UGB. Just one neighborhood/school park of less than four acres serves the entire city northwest of Fairgrounds/Portland Road and east of River Road. Between 1985 and 1998, the city added 32,000 residents and is projected to add as many as 145,752 more people at total development of the present Salem Urban Growth Boundary. Between 1990 and 1998, the city added 71 acres of park land to its inventory and developed two parks. The only neighborhood park developed since 1985 was 1.25 acre Rees Park. Thus, Salem added more than 32,000 people to its population and just 1.25 acres in neighborhood parks since 1985. Figure I-2 Salem Park System Existing Facilities Inventory Legend NO. PARK NAME ACRES Neighborhood Parks E1 Aldrich Park 1.25 E2 Chapman Hill School/Park 6.00 E3 Brush College Park 8.84 E4 Clark Creek Park 6.83 E5 College Heights Park 3.45 E6 Eastgate Basin Park 8.22 E7 Englewood School/Park 6.99 E8 Fairmount Park 17.34 E9 Fircrest Park 4.91 E10 Fred Meyer East Park 1.30 E11 Grant School/Park 3.57 E12 HighlandPark 1.61 E13 Highland School/Park 3.27 E14 Hillview Park 3.64 E15 Hoover School/Park 14.00 E16 LeePark 2.10 E17 Livingston Park 2.84 E18 McRae Park 2.30 E19 McKinley School/Park 2.05 E20 Morningside Park 4.50 E21 Nelson Park 10.40 http://www.cityofsalem.net/departments/parks/master_vol_1.html (6 of 33)2/14/2008 7:22:34 AM City of Salem - Master Plan I E22 Northgate Park 7.43 E23 Rees Park 1.25 E24 Richmond School/Park 2.90 E25 Royal Oaks Park 5.60 E26 South Village Park 1.12 E27 Sunnyslope Park 5.52 E28 Sumpter School/Park 4.24 E29 West Salem Park 1 .60 Subtotal 145.07 Community Parks E30 McKay School/Park 24.80 E31 Orchard Heights Park 28.98 E32 River Road Park 16.10 E33 Woodmansee Park 26.13 Subtotal 96.01 Large Urban Parks E34 Bush's Pasture Park 90.50 E35 Cascades Gateway 101.20 E36 Sprague-Skyline School/Park 85.33 E37 Wallace Marine Park 114.45 Subtotal 391.48 Special Use Facilities E38 Civic Center Complex 7.30 E39 Cunningham Lane 1.85 E40 Eola Boaters Tract 1.93 E41 Glen Creek 1.00 E42 Gracemont Park 0.34 E43 Marion Square Park 3.20 http://www.cityofsalem.net/departments/parks/master_vol_1.html (7 of 33)2/14/2008 7:22:34 AM City of Salem - Master Plan I E44 Mill Race Park 0.16 E45 Pringle Creek Park 4.40 E46 Riverfront Park 23.00 E47 Sports Field Complex 14.50 Subtotal 57.68 Historical Areas E48 Deepwood Estate 4.03 E49 Jason Lee Historical Marker 0.20 E50 Pioneer Cemetery 16.40 E51 Waldo Park 0.01 Subtotal 20.64 Natural Areas E52 Carson Springs 3.19 E53 Minto-Brown Island 898.86 E54 Mouth of Mill Creek 0.65 Subtotal 902.70 Connector Trails E55 Edgewater Parkway 9.74 E56 Millrace Beautification Area 3.97 E57 Pringle Creek Trail 0.70 Subtotal 14.41 TOTAL EXISTING 1627.99 Note: Portions of Minto-Brown Island Park have been developed to fulfill neighborhood, community, and large urban park facility needs. http://www.cityofsalem.net/departments/parks/master_vol_1.html (8 of 33)2/14/2008 7:22:34 AM City of Salem - Master Plan I Figure I-2 Salem Park System Existing Conditions (Download the entire map as a single files: 1.6 MB) http://www.cityofsalem.net/departments/parks/master_vol_1.html (9 of 33)2/14/2008 7:22:34 AM City of Salem - Master Plan I KEY FINDINGS The following is a synopsis of salient key findings compiled from a system-wide facilities inventory, interviews, surveys, and a series of public forums. The results of these activities, conducted as part of the park system planning process, provide the basis for the policies developed by the Policy Advisory Committee and later resulted in the Action Program. More detailed explanations of these key findings are contained in Volume II. l Salem's goal of 10 acres of parks per 1,000 residents has seriously eroded to just 5.66 acres of parks per 1,000 residents today. l Most residents approved of the quality and variety of parks facilities in Salem, but they were dissatisfied with the age and condition of the city's parks. l Salem has made no substantial commitment of funds for the last 30 years to replace deteriorating or obsolete park facilities. l The deficit which exists between the total number of current park acres and the number of acres needed to meet the needs of Salem's current population is largely the result of a 15-year "moratorium" on building new parks, resulting in a parks system which serves Salem residents unequally. l Most individuals interviewed believed funds should be spent in the following order: (1) to improve existing facilities; (2) on operations and maintenance; and (3) to build new facilities. l Minimum, realistic, and obtainable levels of service must be set if the basic park and open space needs of the community are to be met. l Salem needs to upgrade 15 parks and purchase land for and develop 10 additional parks in order to provide equal access and minimum levels of service to current residents. l Salem needs to acquire and/or develop 1,066 acres for new parks in order to accommodate growth out to the Urban Growth Boundary and serve new residents at minimal levels. l Approximately 15 percent of Salem's current parks are difficult or impossible to get to from within their service area because of substantial physical barriers. l While park and recreation facilities are generally well-distributed throughout the city, there are neighborhoods without conveniently located park facilities. l Large urban parks are more popular than community and neighborhood parks because they offer more diversity of activity, attract more users and thus feel http://www.cityofsalem.net/departments/parks/master_vol_1.html (10 of 33)2/14/2008 7:22:34 AM City of Salem - Master Plan I safer. l Larger parks can serve the purposes of smaller parks, e.g., community parks can incorporate the functions of neighborhood parks. l Residents want a variety of transportation modes (driving, walking and bicycling) available to reach park facilities, and they want good off-street connections between parks. l Residents identified three characteristics as most important for good park facilities: personal safety; good, clean facilities; and greenspaces and natural outdoor areas. MASTER PLAN POLICIES The Master Plan contains 37 policies that focus on four key questions about Salem's park and recreation system: l Where should parks be built? l What do you want to do in the parks? l How do you want to get to the parks? l How do we pay for it? 1. Where should parks be built? 1.1 The city shall provide equitable park and recreation services to all city residents. 1.2 Park locations shall be determined geographically and within the context of allowed development densities as described in Table 1 (pages 17-18). 1.3 Parks shall no longer be located as recommended by the 1978 Technical Study and the adopted 1986-87 Sector Plans because they are out of date, and park classifications may change. 1.4 Community and large urban parks shall be used to fulfill neighborhood park needs when service area requirements can be satisfied. 1.5 The city shall strive for an intergovernmental agreement which allows the city to incorporate the existing school district "park-type" properties into the Master Plan and embrace opportunities for their future expanded cooperation. 1.6 A site with unique features and/or natural assets shall have a preference for acquisition over other acceptable sites where those assets do not preclude other recreational uses within the classification type. 1.7 Site selection criteria shall be used to evaluate and select new park and recreation sites. These criteria should address the following issues: http://www.cityofsalem.net/departments/parks/master_vol_1.html (11 of 33)2/14/2008 7:22:34 AM City of Salem - Master Plan I l central location; l neighborhood access; l location of complimentary public facilities (e.g., schools); l population distribution within the service area; l available sites; l land acquisition costs; l location of other park and recreation facilities in adjoining service areas; and l unique features and/or natural assets. 1.8 In planning and growth management, parks and open space shall be recognized along with all other city infrastructure (e.g., streets, water, storm water and sewer service) for new development. 2. What do you want to do in the parks? 2.1 The following eight classifications shall be adopted for the types of park and recreation facilities to be managed by the city: l Neighborhood park l Community park l Large urban park l School/park l Special use facilities l Historic areas l Natural resource areas l Connector trail 2.2 New and expanded park and recreation facilities shall follow a designated list of attributes as described in Table I-1, Park and Recreation Facility Attributes (pages 17-18). 2.3 The types of recreation facilities may be provided within the eight park classifications according to the designation described in Table I-2, Park and Recreation Facilities (pages 19-20). 2.4. Support facilities shall be provided within the eight park classifications according to the designations described in Table I-3, Park and Recreation Support Facilities (page 21). 2.5 Support services that shall be provided within the eight park classifications according to the designations described in Table I-4, Park and Recreation Support Services (page 22). 2.6 City-wide priorities for implementation of improvements shall be identified in the Master Plan, and site-specific improvements for existing and new parks shall be made following a process established by the Park and Recreation Advisory Board, with input from the affected neighborhoods and/or larger community groups, as appropriate. 2.7 Greenway, stream, and pedestrian corridors, which are publicly-owned or encumbered with an easement, shall be considered components of the over-all park and recreation system. http://www.cityofsalem.net/departments/parks/master_vol_1.html (12 of 33)2/14/2008 7:22:34 AM City of Salem - Master Plan I 2.8 Acquisition and integration of natural areas, for both conservation and preservation, shall be promoted as part of the park system to the maximum extent possible. 2.9. Parks and pedestrian corridors shall be developed and maintained efficiently using best design practices and high quality materials by: a. Providing adequate lighting and/or vision clearance to deter vandalism and promote safety; and b. promoting neighborhood awareness of a facility's use and condition. 2.10 Parks and recreation facilities shall be developed and managed in a manner which is consistent with, but not driven by, the goals and objectives of the City's Public Facilities and Stormwater Master Plans. 2.11 The Parks Operations Division shall develop and implement a water conservation program for the park system by: a. Using a citywide, low-demand, efficient irrigation system; b. Reducing water demand for existing landscaped areas; and c. Designing new areas in a way that will minimize water consumption. Table I-1 Park and Recreation Facility Attributes Facility Type Mission Statement Facility Size and Service Area Level of Service - Acres per 1,000 Slope Vegetation & 0ther Natural Resources Preferred Surrounding Land Uses Other Features Neighborhood Park Serves as the recreational focus of the neighborhood, offers a balance of active and passive recreation activities to its residents. Emphasizes unscheduled and unorganized recreation for local residents. Safe and convenient access is provided for pedestrians and 5 to 10 acres 1/4 to 1/2 mile 2.5 (std.) Not more than 50% of site >4% * RS & RM Zones . http://www.cityofsalem.net/departments/parks/master_vol_1.html (13 of 33)2/14/2008 7:22:34 AM City of Salem - Master Plan I bicyclists. Community Park Provides for the active and passive recreational needs of several neighborhoods. This category allows for group activities and other recreational opportunities not feasible or desirable in neighborhood parks. Offers a combination of scheduled and unorganized recreation activities. Easy access is available by automobile or public transit in addition to pedestrians and bicyclists. 20 to 50 acres 1/2 to 3 miles 2.5 (std.) Not more than 25% of site >4% Primarily residential Adjacent to arterial or collector street Large Urban Park Provides for the active and passive parks and recreational needs of the entire community by preserving large open spaces, which can accommodate those recreational activities which are not feasible within smaller park classifications and are easily accessible by all transportation modes. > 50 acres Community- wide 3.0 (std.) Not more than 25% of site > 4% Primarily residential Adjacent to arterial or collector street School - Park Provides park and recreational facilities by combining the resources of the school district and the city for mutual benefit, Primary focus on both scheduled and unorganized active recreation. Used to supplement city park facilities or to help serve a neighborhood with 5 to 20 acres 1/4 to 3 miles 2.5 (when used to supplement neighbor- hood parks) Not more than 25% of site > 4% * RS & RM Zones . http://www.cityofsalem.net/departments/parks/master_vol_1.html (14 of 33)2/14/2008 7:22:34 AM City of Salem - Master Plan I deficient service. * - Existing natural features, that do not reduce a parks potential to meet minimum recreation active use facilities, could be enhanced. Table 1 The attributes listed above are considered guidelines to follow when property is acquired and donations are made to the city. A degree of flexibility must be maintained given the physical limitations which exist within a given service area, such as acceptance of "pocket parks" or other facilities not meeting the basic standard. Table I-1 Park and Recreation Facility Attributes (cont.) Facility Type Statement Facility Size and Service Area Level of Service - Acres per 1,000 Slope Vegetation & Other Natural Resources Preferred Surrounding Land Uses Other Features Special Use Facility Provides recreational, cultural, and/or educational activity single focused on a single purpose use and easily accessible by all transportation modes. These facilities include pocket parks, urban plazas, and sports complexes which include indoor/outdoor facilities. Variable Community- wide No std. NA . Variable . Historic Area Preserves or enhances historic sites by providing open space buffers and complementary facilities. Recreation activities are primarily passive. Easy access should be provided by all transportation modes to the extent the site location allows. Variable Community- wide No std. NA . Variable . Natural Resource Area Preserves and utilizes significant natural resources and/or land formations for trails and other passive recreational uses and educational benefit. Variable Community- wide No std. NA . Variable . http://www.cityofsalem.net/departments/parks/master_vol_1.html (15 of 33)2/14/2008 7:22:34 AM City of Salem - Master Plan I Connector Trail Provides for safe uninterrupted travel of pedestrians and / or bicyclists between parks and open spaces around the community on separate pathways where possible. Variable Community- wide No std. NA . Variable . * - Existing natural features, that do not reduce a park's potential to meet minimum recreation active use facilities, could be enhanced. Table I-2 Park and Recreation Facilities Facilities Picnic Facilities Play Ground Play Field Multi- Use Trails Shelter Structure Basketball Multi-Use Court Horse Shoes Boat Launch Wading Pool Volley Ball Running and Walking Exercise course Neighborhood Park X X X X O X O O O O O Community Park X X X X O X O O O O O Large Urban Park X X X X O X O O O O O School-Park NA X X X O X O O O O O Special Use Facility O O O O O O O O O O O Historic Area O O NA O O NA NA NA NA O NA Natural Resource Area O NA NA X O NA NA NA NA NA O Connector Trail NA NA NA X O NA NA NA NA NA O X - Basic Requirement 0- Optional Addition NA - Not Appropriate Note: This does not preclude the addition of other unlisted facilities as optional. http://www.cityofsalem.net/departments/parks/master_vol_1.html (16 of 33)2/14/2008 7:22:34 AM City of Salem - Master Plan I Table I-2 Park and Recreation Facilities (cont) Facilities Soccer Field Tennis Court Mtn. Bike Trail BMX Track Community Center Arboretum and Gardens Over- night Camping Boat Launch Swimming Pool Aquatic Center Neighborhood Park NA O NA O NA NA NA NA NA NA Community Park O O NA O O NA NA NA O NA Large Urban Park X O O O O O O O O O School-Park O O NA NA O NA NA NA O O Special Use Facility O O O O O O O O O O Historic Area NA NA NA NA O O NA NA NA NA Natural Resource Area NA NA O NA NA O O NA NA NA Connector Trail NA NA O O NA O NA NA NA NA X - Basic Requirement 0- Optional Addition NA - Not Appropriate Note: This does not preclude the addition of other unlisted facilities as optional. Table I-3 Park and Recreation Support Facilities Facilities Rest Rooms Security Lighting Activity Lighting Parking Bicycle Parking Neighborhood Park NA X NA NA X Community Park X X X X X Large Urban Park X X X X X School-Park 0 X 0 X 0 http://www.cityofsalem.net/departments/parks/master_vol_1.html (17 of 33)2/14/2008 7:22:34 AM City of Salem - Master Plan I Special Use Facility 0 X 0 X 0 Historic Area 0 0 NA 0 0 Natural Resource Area 0 0 0 0 0 Connector Trail NA 0 NA 0 0 X - Basic Requirement 0 - Optional Addition NA - Not Appropriate Note: ADA access is a design issue to be included as part of the intrinsic cost of any applicable basic facility such as a parking lot or playground. Table I-4 Park and Recreation Support Services Facilities Security* Reservations for Facility Use (e.g., group picnics) Organized Activities for Different Teams Clubs/ Programs Special Activities (e.g., concerts fairs) Minimum Maintenance Standard Neighborhood Park X NA NA 0 X Community Park X X X X X Large Urban Park X X X X X School-Park x NA 0 0 X Special Use Facility X X 0 X X Historic Area 0 X NA X X Natural Resource Area 0 0 NA NA X Connector Trail 0 0 0 NA X X - Basic Requirement o - Optional Addition NA - Not Appropriate * - Police and/or private security services. http://www.cityofsalem.net/departments/parks/master_vol_1.html (18 of 33)2/14/2008 7:22:34 AM City of Salem - Master Plan I 3. How do you want to get to the parks? 3.1 Access barriers to existing parks and open spaces shall be evaluated and prioritized for removal or mitigation to provide equitable service, after evaluating opportunity costs, to all residents of the community. 3.2 Greenways or similar uninterrupted linkages may be used to supplement park acreage and expand the service radius to provide a viable alternative to acquiring additional neighborhood park land. 3.3 Natural and greenway areas are community assets that should be utilized, when possible, to the highest and best use for the public's recreational and educational benefit. Public access should be developed, when possible, as part of a linear, natural, greenway system when the affected area is in public ownership or encumbered by an easement. Providing access would result in the connection of existing or proposed park facilities and also improve the safety and/or aesthetic quality of an existing trail. Trail improvement shall not endanger or jeopardize threatened or endangered plant or animal species. 3.4 The Master Plan shall provide and utilize on and off-street facilities in a manner that is consistent with the Salem Transportation System Plan. 3.5 Pedestrian, bicycle, and transit shall be encouraged as the primary transportation modes for all park and recreation facilities. For facilities with larger service areas, automobile access from collector or arterial streets and sufficient parking should be provided to mitigate potential adverse impacts under normal use to surrounding properties. New major facilities should be located, where possible, with transit access to minimize traffic impacts and to provide equal access to all city residents. 3.6 An off-street bicycle and pedestrian system of recreation routes between all parks shall be promoted. 4. How do we pay for it? 4.1 The city shall provide a system of improvements that respects the expanding needs of the current and future population with mandated park acreage standards of 2.5 for neighborhood, 2.5 for community, and 3 for large urban parks per 1,000 residents. The city's financial limitations are addressed by reducing the current standard of 5 acres per 1,000 residents for large urban parks to 3 acres and by not establishing mandated acreage standards for special use facilities, historic sites, natural resource areas, or connector trails. 4.2 The city shall fund all growth-related acquisition and development of park facilities in the Master Plan with System Development Charges (SDC's). Facility deficiencies, rehabilitation, and systems expansions beyond those identified as growth-related in the Master Plan, shall be the responsibility of city's residents and shall be funded through a variety of sources, traditionally allocated through the city's general fund or other tax sources, or fee generated sources. However, within the USA (Urban Service Area) (as defined in SRC Chapter 66) deficit and growth related park facilities may be funded from both SDC and non-SDC sources. The city shall adopt a policy which encourages solicitation of land donations along with public and private grants. 4.3 Because the city has the responsibility to meet the community's park and open space needs, http://www.cityofsalem.net/departments/parks/master_vol_1.html (19 of 33)2/14/2008 7:22:34 AM City of Salem - Master Plan I priorities will be determined to meet the greatest needs for the least public cost. Cost/benefit analysis techniques should be applied to help guide the city toward reasonable choices. 4.4 Potential park sites shall be acquired early when any of the following conditions exist: l The proposed site acquisition meets a specific Master Plan requirement. l An opportunity purchase arising out of a joint acquisition by two or more public departments or agencies will provide multiple community benefits and the city has sufficient cash reserves to acquire the land. l The purchase takes advantage of other economic and/or timing situations benefiting the public. The priorities for growth related facilities within the USA (Urban Service Area) are addressed within SRC Chapter 66. 4.5 The city should accept land donations when the parcel being donated: l Meets the park needs of the service area as shown in the Master Plan. l Can be converted and the proceeds retained for other park purposes which include: park land acquisition, development, rehabilitation, and/or maintenance, if it is not identified in the Master Plan. 4.6 The city shall deliver efficient park services by acquiring, developing, and maintaining a system that fairly serves the park needs of all its residents. Reductions in operations and maintenance funding shall be executed on a system-wide basis, where possible, and not as a result of a site or region specific impact. 4.7 Costs for improvements shall be apportioned by special agreement and by determining primary and secondary benefits where multiple public benefits have been identified. 4.8 Sites that serve multiple purposes, such as parks and storm water detention areas shall be managed through good comprehensive design to maximize the total value of both uses. 4.9 The city shall work with the school district to open school property to park users. Many school district properties are under-utilized and shall be expanded and improved to increase public access. 4.10 The Master Plan defines the public's role in providing park and open space facilities, which ensures full and unrestricted access to all residents. Private and public sectors should look for opportunities to meet unmet needs through cooperative agreements. 4.11 The city shall promote opportunities for private programs or facilities, volunteers, and other appropriate methods to supplement and extend the city's resources in developing and maintaining the park system. 4.12 The city shall provide adequate operation and maintenance of the city's park system. To accomplish this the city shall: a. Consistently look for methods to use available funds as efficiently as possible; and b. Develop additional revenue sources to finance operations and maintenance. http://www.cityofsalem.net/departments/parks/master_vol_1.html (20 of 33)2/14/2008 7:22:34 AM City of Salem - Master Plan I ACTION PROGRAMS They are designed to provide equitable service across the city, recognizing geographic as well as population density needs. To do that, Salem needs to: l Insure the acquisition and/or development of open space and special use facilities, normally not included under levels of service, that are responsive to the community's needs and are obtainable. l Renovate, upgrade and remove barriers to existing neighborhood, community, and large urban parks and acquire and develop new parks to reach equity and eliminate the deficit. l Acquire and/or develop an additional 1,066 acres of neighborhood community and large urban park land to serve new homes out to the urban growth boundary. l Provide financial strategies to address capital and stable operations and maintenance funding requirements. The Action Program is a four-part implementation strategy for the Master Plan. It is built upon background information gathered during planning phases I and II and guided by the Master Plan policies. Part 1 Recreation and Open Space Facilities Existing facilities, present and future recreation and open space needs, and access requirements were evaluated to address the first three policy questions: Where should parks be built? What do you want to do in the parks? How do you want to get to the parks? Key Elements Park Facility Categories The city should provide equitable park, open space and recreation services to all residents. Eight park and open space classifications are established for the comprehensive park system. l Neighborhood parks l Community parks l Large urban parks l School parks l Special use facilities l Historic areas l Natural resource areas l Connector trails Level of Service Standards Specific minimum Levels of Service (LOS) should be established for the three types of parks which form the backbone of the city park system: standards were created for neighborhood, community, and large urban parks. Minimum levels of service are 8 acres/1,000 residents with 2.5 acres/1,000 http://www.cityofsalem.net/departments/parks/master_vol_1.html (21 of 33)2/14/2008 7:22:34 AM City of Salem - Master Plan I residents each for neighborhood and community parks, and 3 acres/1,000 residents for large urban parks. The key element for determining the location, type, and amount of park facilities described in the Action Program are the Level of Service (LOS) standards in Table 1 (pages 10-11). Specific LOS standards were created for neighborhood, community, and large urban parks which form the backbone of the city park system. They were developed after considering planned LOS in the 1985 Technical Study, current LOS in the city, recommended national standards, and LOS provided by other cities in the Pacific Northwest. A brief summary of the LOS findings is available in Volume II - Planning Process and Volume IV - Appendices. Table I-5 Total LOS Acreage for Neighborhood, Community, and Large Urban Parks Information Source LOS Salem Park System Technical Study (planned) 10 acres/1,000 pop. Salem - Existing developed park acreage 5.66 acres/1,000 pop. National Park and Recreation Assoc. Guidelines 10-20 acres/1,000 pop. Pacific Northwest cities 8.1 acres/1,000 pop. average These minimum standards for neighborhood, community, and large urban parks were used to determine current park deficits and future park needs. They specify a minimum level of basic recreation options to all residents and neighborhoods in the city. Specific LOS standards were not developed for the remaining five classifications because of their unique individual character and the significant additional financial obligation they would represent. These LOS standards are a key element of this Master Plan because they were used to evaluate the adequacy of the present park system and to plan for future park system needs. The city has committed to a LOS for neighborhood, community, and large urban parks only. Without LOS standards, the city would be unable to plan rationally for or finance future improvements to the city park system. Park Size and Improvement Standards The Master Plan includes guidelines for park size and improvements so the eight park classifications can provide suitable recreational opportunities to Salem residents. Size standards apply only to neighborhood parks (5-10 acres), community parks (20-50 acres), and large urban parks (over 50 acres.). Any given park site may serve multiple park classification roles, i.e., both a neighborhood and a community park by virtue of having sufficient total size and the variety of improvements to fulfill both functions. Size standards were not developed for school/parks, special use facilities, historic areas, natural resource areas, and connector trails because of their unique character. Intergovernmental Coordination The city should seek intergovernmental agreements, such as one with the Salem-Keizer School District, to incorporate existing school district "park type" properties into the Master Plan and embrace http://www.cityofsalem.net/departments/parks/master_vol_1.html (22 of 33)2/14/2008 7:22:34 AM City of Salem - Master Plan I opportunities to expand future cooperation for mutual benefit. Salem Park and Recreation Advisory Board Role The Salem Park and Recreation Advisory Board will continue to be responsible for making recommendations to the City Council regarding the city's park system. The committee is comprised of nine citizens who are appointed by the City Council. The primary role of the board will be to: l Guide new park development as contemplated in the Master Plan. l Provide recommendations to the City Council regarding provision of special use facilities, historic areas, natural resource areas, and connector trails which are components of the Master Plan that do not have LOS requirements. Research and provide recommendations to City Council regarding an aquatics program. l Provide input to the Budget Committee and City Council regarding alternative sources of revenue to finance park facilities and O & M. l Provide an annual review of the park programs and the City's progress in implementing the Master Plan to City Council. l Provide five year updates of the Master Plan to account for progress made and to amend the plan in response to changing circumstances, to City Council The remaining three parts of the Action Program address the fourth policy question: 4. How do we pay for it? Part 2 Capital Improvement Plan Capital expenditures for land acquisition and facility improvements will be necessary to implement the Master Plan policies and provide the parks and recreation system outlined in Part 1 of the Action Plan. The Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) has set three priorities to improve parks and acquire land necessary to implement the Master Plan policies and LOS standards. l Existing parks will often require facility upgrades and rehabilitation to be consistent with the Master Plan. In addition, removing access barriers (i.e., no crosswalk or sidewalk) between residents and existing parks are included to provide suitable service. l Deficit refers to the improvements (acreage associated with park facilities) needed to serve the community based on the proposed Level of Service (LOS) for the 1997 city population of 126,673. The 1997 population in the Salem Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) is presently 170,097 (excluding Keizer). Existing undeveloped parks, proposed school/parks, and other proposed facilities are used to fulfill this need. In addition to land acquisition, elimination of existing park system deficit will be accomplished by rehabilitation and upgrading existing facilities and removing access barriers. l Growth refers to the park facility acreage which will be needed to respond to growth through build out to the UGB based on the proposed LOS. The population within the present Salem UGB is expected to grow to 218,860 by the year 2020. When this same area is fully developed beyond 2020, a total population of 272,425 is possible based on existing and planned residential densities. Existing county parks and proposed school/parks outside the current city limits and within the UGB, as well as other proposed new sites can fulfill this need. In sections of the UGB that are partially developed, new park facilities may be needed to correct present deficiencies as well as accommodate future growth. For additional detail regarding the improvements and land acquisition assumptions, see Volume II - Planning Process. http://www.cityofsalem.net/departments/parks/master_vol_1.html (23 of 33)2/14/2008 7:22:34 AM City of Salem - Master Plan I Priority 1 - Improve Existing Parks The existing park system needs substantial rehabilitation and upgrading to comply with the Master Plan. In addition, access barriers (e.g., no crosswalk or sidewalk) must be removed between residents and existing parks to provide better access and utilization of these facilities. l Land acquisition: None l Cost: $27.2 million (1998 dollars) Priority 2 - Deficit Improvements The LOS standard in the Master Plan is a total of 8.0 acres of neighborhood, community, and large urban park per 1,000 residents. In 1998 the existing system provided 5.66 acres per 1,000 residents. This part of the CIP includes provisions for improvement of existing undeveloped parks, utilization of school sites in cooperation with the Salem/ Keizer School District, acquisition of new park sites, and additional barrier removal to provide better park access. l Land acquisition and development: 314.16 acres to provide a total of 1,031,46 acres of neighborhood, community, and large urban park land. l Cost: $30 million (1998 dollars) Priority 3 - Growth Improvements Completing the first two Parks CIP priorities will provide a park and open space system for the current city population which meets the Master Plan LOS standards. The third priority projects will provide parks facilities according to the LOS standards for future residents. The 1997 city population was 126,673, and the Salem UGB is expected to grow to 218,860 by 2020. When this same area is fully developed beyond 2020, a total population of 272,425 is possible based on existing and planned residential densities. Existing county parks and proposed school parks outside the current city limits and within the UGB, plus proposed new park sites can fulfill this need. Acquisition of new park sites will be coordinated with the urban growth management program (SRC Chapter 66). l Land acquisition and development: 1,066.02 acres of neighborhood, community, and large urban park land to maintain the 8.0 acres/1,000 residents LOS standard for new residents. l Cost: $127.5 million (1998 dollars) The location of these three types of improvements for neighborhood, community, and large urban parks is shown in Figure I-3 - Master Plan Map (page 41). In addition, a connector trail system is envisioned to link the proposed park sites. http://www.cityofsalem.net/departments/parks/master_vol_1.html (24 of 33)2/14/2008 7:22:34 AM City of Salem - Master Plan I Table I-6 Park Standards and Acres Standards (ac/1,000 pop) Acres Currently Needed Acres Needed for Growth Park Type ''78 Tech St Existing Proposed Existing Deficit Total Growth Total Neighborhood 2.50 1.57 2.50 199.81 134.95 334.76 364.38 699.14 Community 2.50 1.39 2.50 176.01 140.67 316.68 264.38 581.06 Large Urban 5.00 2.70 3.00 341.48 38.54 380.02 437.26 817.28 Total 10.00 5.66 8.00 717.30 314.16 1,031.46 1,066.02 2,097.48 % Increase 40% Note: Other parks totaling 910.69 acres are excluded from this and all other tables in this chapter because LOS standards have not been established for them. These parks are natural resource parks or special use facilities. The location of neighborhood, community, and large urban parks is in Figure I-3 - Master Plan Map. In addition, the connector trail system is identified in Figure I-4 - Connector Trails Map (page 42). The city intends to provide these trail connections incrementally as opportunities arise. Although city funding will be necessary for the trails, it is not included in the parks CIP. Part 3 Operation and Maintenance Plan Past average expenditures for park operations and maintenance (O&M), per acre by type of park, are shown in Table I-7. Table I-7 Park Operations and Maintenance Costs per Acre Park Type $/Acre/Year Neighborhood $3,330 Community $1,470 Large Urban $2,590 The average annual O&M cost for each new 20-acre community park is expected to be $29,400 annually. Each new five acre neighborhood park will cost an average of $16,650 per year for O&M. The cost per acre decreases as the park size increases when neighborhood parks are compared to community parks. Conversely, the cost per acre for large urban parks is higher than it is for community parks. This higher cost is due to special features not found in community parks, such as historic buildings and grounds, lighted ball fields, and boat launches such as those at http://www.cityofsalem.net/departments/parks/master_vol_1.html (25 of 33)2/14/2008 7:22:34 AM City of Salem - Master Plan I Wallace Marine Park. The first priority projects will upgrade and rehabilitate existing parks. Upgrading parks will increase O&M costs because new facilities (e.g., picnic shelters) will be added to the existing parks. By rehabilitating existing park facilities, annual O&M costs will decrease because the facilities will be new and not require significant repair each year. The additional annual O&M cost of upgrading existing parks is assumed to be offset by the savings in annual O&M costs from rehabilitating existing park facilities. Older facilities such as restrooms, play equipment, fences, lighting, signs, irrigation systems, and landscaping will be easier and less expensive to maintain after rehabilitation. Therefore, it is assumed that these projects will not increase O&M. The city will increase park services without having to purchase more land. The second priority projects will add new parks to the system, and they will increase annual O&M. The third priority projects will also increase acres of park land and O&M costs. While building parks for growth is the third priority, many of these parks may be built before, or along with, parks listed as priorities One and Two. The city already collects a systems development charge (SDC) for each new house that is built, and according to the city's growth management ordinances (SRC Chapter 66), developers and the city must provide new parks or be fully committed before the city can approve plans and issue building permits for new housing developments. Part 4 Financing Strategies The plan to finance these new parks rests on four assumptions. l First, voters will need to approve a general obligation bond of $57.2 million (in 1998 dollars) in November of 2002 to finance the capital costs of Priority One and Two parks. While the vote would authorize issuing the full amount of the bond, the city would issue the bond in three separate parts over a nine-year period: $21.82 million in 2003, $21.58 million in 2006, and $13.77 million in 2009. The exact size of each issue and the timing will depend on the city's current debt management plan. The city currently caps bond issues so that the annual debt service on all general obligation bonds (including those for parks) does not cost the tax payers more than $2.42 per $1,000 of assessed value. The actual bond issues may not exactly match the forecast, but over the next ten years the full amount of the bonds would be issued. The first bond amount and part of the second will go to Priority One projects that have no additional O&M costs. Part of the second bond amount and all of the third bond amount will be used for Priority Two projects where new parks will be built and O&M costs will increase. l The second financing assumption is that the current parks system development charge (SDC), for neighborhood and community parks only, will be increased from the current $952 per single-family house (2.6 persons/house), $622 per multi-family housing unit (1.7 persons), and $696 per mobile home unit (1.9 persons), to a level based on the capital costs of Priority Three projects, which also include large urban parks. The SDC would increase to a range of $1,487 to $2,275, depending upon housing type. The city would have to increase the SDC annually to match inflation for land and capital improvements. The SDC is the sole funding source for Priority Three projects. Rather than issue general obligation bonds to build these projects, the city will accumulate SDC revenues until it can afford to acquire and develop new parks. Park land and/or improvements provided by a developer shall be credited against park SDC's at a rate comparable to city land and improvements costs incurred by the city. No utility SDC's are to be charged against this improvement. l Thirdly, the city has to be able to increase funding for parks operations and maintenance (O&M) as it acquires new parks. At the very least the city must retain the present funding level of approximately five percent of the unrestricted general fund (with adjustments for inflation) to maintain existing parks. To meet the growing need as new parks are added to the system and to address current LOS deficits and/or growth, the percentage of the general fund budget devoted to O&M must increase at a corresponding rate. This assumption will likely result in the city enhancing or obtaining new source(s) of revenue for the general fund. The city is evaluating the following possible revenue sources: http://www.cityofsalem.net/departments/parks/master_vol_1.html (26 of 33)2/14/2008 7:22:34 AM City of Salem - Master Plan I l Increase the transient occupancy tax l Expand the current business license fee l Create a business gross receipts tax l Create a current employee tax l Create a restaurant/meal tax l Create an amusement/admission tax l Donations l Cost savings through inter-agency cooperation l Other resources l Finally, the city must look for additional funding for special use facilities, historic areas, natural resource areas, and connector trails which is in addition to the CIP and O&M budgets noted earlier. Donations, cooperation with other agencies, and potential supplemental funding methods will be pursued. MASTER PLAN MAPS The Master Plan Map and parks legend (Figure 3, pages 25 to 27) illustrates the location of existing parks which may be upgraded as part of the Priority 1 projects described previously. It also shows the ideal locations for new neighborhood, community, and large urban park facilities that are proposed as Priority 2, to eliminate the current park deficit, and as Priority 3, to accommodate future growth. The Proposed Trail System Map (Figure 4, page 28) illustrates the recommended trail corridors to connect the park system and to improve park access for all city residents. As indicated earlier, these trails are not included in the CIP. Figure 5 (page 29) shows the proposed standard to be used for these trails. Figure I-3 DEFICIT-RELATED PARK ADDITIONS NO. NAME ACRES Neighborhood Parks D1 Bill Reigel Park 3.50 D2 Brown Road Area Park 4.01 D3 Candalaria School/Park 2.39 D4 Cannery Park 7.00 D5 Leslie School/Park 7.0 (of a 21.18 acre site) D6 Meyers School/Park 3.46 D7 Pringle School/Park 7.25 D8 Salem Heights School/Park 1.01 D9 Secor Park 8.73 D10 Sunnyside/Mildred 3.94 D11 Swegle School/Park 1.83 http://www.cityofsalem.net/departments/parks/master_vol_1.html (27 of 33)2/14/2008 7:22:34 AM City of Salem - Master Plan I D12 Waldo School/Park 7.63 D13 Walker School/Park 6.08 D14 Weathers Street Area Park 4.19 D15-20 Additional Needed: Deficit 6 Parks @ 7.31 Acres 43.85 D21 State Land Park 5.00 (of a 46.00 acre site) D26 Barrick Field 5.82 D27 Gilmore Field 12.26 Subtotal 134.95 Figure 1-3 GROWTH-RELATED PARK ADDITIONS Legend con't NO. NAME ACRES Neighborhood Parks G1 Auburn School/Park 7.27 G2 Denny Park 1.60 G3 Fisher Road Park 4.86 G4 Four Corners School/Park 7.50 G5 Harry Scott School/Park 2.60 G6 Hayesville School/Park 9.60 G7 Houck School/Park 10.60 G8 Mary Eyre School/Park 9.30 G9 Middle Grove School/Park 3.20 G10 ParkdalePark 6.19 G11 Santana Village Park 4.11 G12-46 G46 Additional Needed: Growth Parks @ 7.64 Acres 267.55 G47 *Stephens-Yoshikai School/Park 5.00 (of a 26.45 acre site) http://www.cityofsalem.net/departments/parks/master_vol_1.html (28 of 33)2/14/2008 7:22:34 AM City of Salem - Master Plan I G55 *Hazel Green Site 5.00 G56 *Langley Site 5.00 G57 *Mushroom Plant Site 5.00 G58 *Orchard Heights/27th Place 5.00 G59 *State Pen./Farm Site 5.00 Subtotal 364.38 Community Parks G47 *Stephens-Yoshikai School/Park 21.45 (of a 26.45 acre site) G48-G54 Additional Needed: Growth 142.93 G55 *Hazel Green Site 20.00 G56 *Langley Site 20.00 G57 *Mushroom Plant Site 20.00 G58 *Orchard Heights/27th Place 20.00 G59 *State Pen./Farm Site 20.00 Subtotal 264.38 Large Urban Parks G55 Hazel Green Site 75.00 G56 Langley Site 50.00 G57 Mushroom Plant Site 75.00 G58 Orchard Heights/27th Place 24.17 G59 State Pen./Farm Site 75.00 G60-G61 Additional Needed: Growth 138.09 Subtotal 437.26 TOTAL GROWTH 1066.02 http://www.cityofsalem.net/departments/parks/master_vol_1.html (29 of 33)2/14/2008 7:22:34 AM City of Salem - Master Plan I *Park serves multiple park classification requirements. Plan map Fig. 3 (Download the entire map as a single files: 1.7 MB) http://www.cityofsalem.net/departments/parks/master_vol_1.html (30 of 33)2/14/2008 7:22:34 AM City of Salem - Master Plan I Trail map Fig. 4 (Download the entire map as a single files: 1.8 MB) Figure 5 Trail System Cross Section Not to Scale http://www.cityofsalem.net/departments/parks/master_vol_1.html (31 of 33)2/14/2008 7:22:34 AM City of Salem - Master Plan I http://www.cityofsalem.net/departments/parks/master_vol_1.html (32 of 33)2/14/2008 7:22:34 AM City of Salem - Master Plan I Page Last Modified: July 21, 2006 Top of Page Comment PrintVersion City Contacts Website Help Home | Services | About | Calendar Fire | Legal | Library | Police | Municipal Court Public Works | Parking Services | Transportation Senior Center | Neighborhood Associations Copyright © 2007 City of Salem, Oregon All Rights Reserved All City pages are maintained by City of Salem employees. Email comments or suggestions to webmaster@cityofsalem.net Website Disclaimer http://www.cityofsalem.net/departments/parks/master_vol_1.html (33 of 33)2/14/2008 7:22:34 AM City of Salem - Master Plan Volume II Search: City A-Z City Council Departments Residents Business Visitors Jobs e-Services Parks Home Donation opportunities 2008 Parks and Recreation Master Plan Park volunteer stars Park tour Park and street tree information Volunteer here! Salem Park Improvement Fund What's New How Do I... Choose a street tree? Find a park? Frequently asked questions Report a problem in a park? Reserve a park? Quick Links Dogs in parks Park hours Park Lines newsletter Park tour Softball Master Plan Volume II City of Salem COMPREHENSIVE PARK SYSTEM MASTER PLAN Volume II - Planning Process Table of Contents April 1999 INTRODUCTION PHASE I. INVENTORY l Overview l Demographic Profile l Facilities Inventory and Assessment l Inventory and Assessment Results PHASE II. NEEDS ASSESSMENT l Overview l Public Attitude Research l Interactive Public Forums PHASE III. POLICY DEVELOPMENT l Overview l Steering Committee l Policy Advisory Committee l Review of Existing Planning Policies and Programs l Planning Process PHASE IV. ACTION PROGRAMS l Role of Park and Recreation Advisory Board l Policy Implementation m Part 1 Recreation and Open Space Facilities m Part 2 Capital Improvement Plan m Part 3 Operation and Maintenance Plan m Part 4 Financing Strategies HISTORICAL FINANCIAL ANALYSIS TABLES l Table II-1: Existing Neighborhood Parks l Table II-2: Existing Community Parks l Table II-3: Existing Large Urban Parks l Table II-4: Existing Special Use Facilities l Table II-5: Existing Historic Areas l Table II-6: Existing Natural Resource Areas Emergency Information Events All Parks Events Maps Map of Parks (pdf) Contact Us Parks Operations Division 1460 20th St SE Salem, OR 97301 503-588-6336 Fax: 503-588-6305 SalemParks@cityofsalem. net More Contacts http://www.cityofsalem.net/departments/parks/master_vol_2.html (1 of 30)2/14/2008 7:23:47 AM City of Salem - Master Plan Volume II System Development Charges (SDC's) l Table II-7: Existing Connector Trails l Table II-8: Policy Advisory Committee l Table II-9: Deficit-Related Parks l Table II-10: Growth-Related Parks l Table II-11: Park Standards and Acres l Table II-12: Acquisition and Development Costs l Table II-13: Park Acquisition and Development Costs l Table II-14: Park Operations and Maintenance Costs per Acre l Table II-15: Growth of Population and Park Acres l Table II-16: SDC Options l Table II-17: Systems Development Charge Fund l Table II-18: General Fund and Parks Operations Revenues l Table II-19: Forecast Cash Flow l Table II-20: Comparison of Property Tax Receipts per Capital l Table II-21: Assessed Values by Jurisdiction in the Salem Vicinity FIGURES l Figure II-1: Existing Conditions Legend and Map l Figure II-2: General Fund and Park Revenue l Figure II-3: General Fund and Short Fall Revenues l Figure II-4: Assessed Values of Jurisdictions in Salem and Vicinity INTRODUCTION This second volume of the Salem Comprehensive Park System Master Plan provides a detailed description of the planning tasks and processes leading to the Master Plan in Volume I. The planning work was conducted in four phases with each phase addressing a basic question about the Salem park system. The response to these questions by citizens, interest groups, and city staff lead to the Master Plan policies and Action Program described in Volume I. Phase I. What do we know? An Inventory of background information was conducted including community demographics and existing community recreation facilities. Phase II. What do we want? A Needs Assessment was performed giving an up-to-date picture of community attitudes and desires for recreational facilities and programs. Phase III. What do we do? A Policy Development process was conducted with a Policy Advisory Committee establishing clear direction for the city's future park system and programs. Phase IV. How do we get there? An Action Plan describes the types, locations, and number of parks, methods for improving, operating, and maintaining parks, and techniques for financing the system. PHASE I. INVENTORY What do we know? Overview This planning phase was conducted to better understand the demographic characteristics of the existing and future Salem residents and to understand the current parks system - the location and size of facilities and the condition of park improvements. A summary of the information gathered and evaluated is presented in this section. Additional detailed information is available in Volume III - Facility Assessment and Volume IV - Appendices. Demographic Profile A demographic profile was completed to identify and understand the "customer base" that is using the City of Salem park system. Available data sources were used to update the 1990 census data to reflect current conditions and future trends for the area within the present city limits and the Salem Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). The UGB is the unincorporated land surrounding the city (except for Keizer and its UGB) which is planned for future urban development in the City of Salem. The data in the profile included information about age, ethnicity, family size and income, growth rate, and population projections. The supporting data and background information are presented in Volume IV - Appendices http://www.cityofsalem.net/departments/parks/master_vol_2.html (2 of 30)2/14/2008 7:23:47 AM City of Salem - Master Plan Volume II Key Findings An evaluation of the demographic profile data identified four key findings to be considered when developing the Master Plan: l Diversity. The age of the city's residents has, and will continue to become more diverse with a rise in the population under 19 years old and the aging of the "baby boomer" generation. In addition, the proportion of minority groups and cultures is rising. This diversity indicates that a high priority should be given to providing a wide range of recreational opportunities that will accommodate all Salem residents. l Population Growth. The population of Salem will continue to increase by about 2% annually as future development occurs. The Master Plan is based on a population figure of 218,860 by 2020 in the Salem UGB (excluding Keizer) - an increase of 92,187 over the present population in this area. Full development of this same area as currently planned could eventually accommodate a population of approximately 272,400 after 2020. l Park System Growth. The park system should also grow to keep pace with the recreational demands of population growth. l Income. Wages have increased in Salem faster than the rate of inflation and the state average, giving residents more disposable income today than they had in 1990. This will enhance residents' ability to pay for the future park system improvements if they choose to do so. Facilities and Inventory Assessment An assessment of the existing park and recreation facilities was conducted in May and June 1998, resulting in a report titled "City of Salem Comprehensive Park System Master Plan Facilities Assessment" (Volume III). The report includes the size of each site and a detailed quality assessment of the improvements (e.g., sport fields, sport courts, play equipment) by rating the overall physical condition and capacity of each park as good, fair, or poor Inventory and Assessment Results City park and recreation facilities are categorized into eight classifications according to the function they serve for the community. Each facility type has a purpose or mission to fulfill identified community recreation needs. These classifications were used throughout the planning process. All eight facility types are designed to serve distinct purposes. The results of the existing facilities assessment are summarized in the following pages. Other open space and recreation areas operated by other government agencies, such as Chemeketa Community College and the State Capital Mall, were not included because the city does not have any direct control over how these facilities may be used. The location of all existing facilities is shown in Figure II-1 (pages 11, 12, 13). Key Findings The key findings from the inventory and assessment work highlight five primary issues regarding the size, condition, and location of facilities. l Park Acreage. There are 5.66 acres of park land/1,000 residents - far below the 10 acres/1,000 residents cited in the Park System Technical Study. l Impact of Past City Growth. As the city has grown over the past 15 years, the city has not provided additional and improved facilities, causing a current shortage or deficit in the park system. l Condition of Facilities. Available funding and other resources, such as volunteer help and grants, have not kept up with maintenance and rehabilitation needs. A thorough assessment of the condition of all park and other facilities indicates that much of the park and recreation infrastructure, such as buildings and play equipment, is in need of major repair or replacement. l Site Sizes. The size of park system properties varies widely, and a significant number of existing sites is too small to fulfill the purpose of the facility. These size deficiencies are addressed in the action plan. l Location. Park and recreation facilities are generally well distributed throughout the city, but there are neighborhoods which do not have conveniently located park facilities. These location deficiencies are addressed in the action plan. The size and overall condition of each of the eight city park facility types are summarized in the following pages. For Tables II - 1-7, the condition ratings mean the following: G = Good. The majority of the park improvements are in good repair, requiring little replacement or maintenance work. F = Fair. The condition of park facilities range between good and fair or the majority of the facilities require some repair or minor maintenance work. P = Poor. The majority of the park improvements are in need of repair, replacement, or significant maintenance work. NA = Not applicable. Neighborhood Parks These small parks serve as the recreational focus of local neighborhoods, offering a balance of active and passive recreation activities. Unscheduled and unorganized recreation for local residents is a primary purpose of these parks. Table II-1: Existing Neighborhood Parks No. Park Name Area (acres) Condition E1 Aldrich Park 1.25 P E2 Chapman Hill School/Park 6.00 P http://www.cityofsalem.net/departments/parks/master_vol_2.html (3 of 30)2/14/2008 7:23:47 AM City of Salem - Master Plan Volume II E3 Brush College Park 8.84 F E4 Clark Creek Park 6.83 P E5 College Heights Park 3.45 P E6 Eastgate Basin Park 8.22 P E7 Englewood School/Park 6.99 P E8 Fairmount Park 17.34 P E9 Fircrest Park 4.91 P E10 Fred Meyer East Park 1.30 G E11 Grant School/Park 3.57 P E12 Highland Park 1.61 P E13 Highland School/Park 3.27 F E14 Hillview Park 3.64 P E15 Hoover School/Park 14.00 P E16 Lee Park 2.10 F E17 Livingston Park 2.84 P E18 McRae Park 2.30 F E19 McKinley School/Park 2.05 F E20 Morningside Park 4.50 F E21 Nelson Park 10.40 F E22 Northgate Park 7.43 P E23 Rees Park 1.25 G E24 Richmond School/Park 2.90 F E25 Royal Oaks Park 5.60 P E26 South Village Park 1.12 P E27 Sunnyslope Park 5.52 F E28 Sumpter School/Park 4.24 F E29 West Salem Park 1.60 P Subtotal 145.07 Overall Condition by Acreage Good 2.55 1.7% Fair 46.12 31.8% Poor 96.4 66.5% Community Parks These are medium sized parks that serve the active and passive recreational needs of several neighborhoods. This category allows for group activities and other recreational opportunities which are not feasible or desirable in neighborhood parks. Table II-2: Existing Community Parks No. Park Name Area (acres) Condition E30 McKay School/Park 24.80 P E31 Orchard Heights Park 28.98 F E32 River Road Park 16.10 P E33 Woodmansee Park 26.13 F http://www.cityofsalem.net/departments/parks/master_vol_2.html (4 of 30)2/14/2008 7:23:47 AM City of Salem - Master Plan Volume II Subtotal 96.01 Overall Condition by Acreage Good 0 0% Fair 55.11 57.4% Poor 40.90 42.6% Large Urban Parks These are large park facilities serving the active and passive parks and recreational needs of the entire community by supporting multiple activities and preserving large open spaces. They accommodate those recreational activities which are not feasible within smaller park classifications and often support special uses. Because they serve the entire city, easy accessibility by all transportation modes is important. Table II-3: Existing Large Urban Parks No. Park Name Area (acres) No. E34 Bush's Pasture Park 90.50 P E35 Cascades Gateway 101.20 P E36 Sprague-Skyline School/Park 85.33 P E37 Wallace Marine Park 114.45 F Subtotal 391.48 Overall Condition by Acreage Good 0 0% Fair 114.45 29.2% Poor 391.48 70.8% School Parks These are school sites that provide park and recreational facilities by combining the resources of the school district and the city for mutual benefit. Primary focus is on both scheduled and unorganized active recreation intended for neighborhood, community, or large urban parks. They are used primarily to supplement city park facilities. The existing school parks have been accounted for above as a neighborhood, community, or large urban park. Special Use Facilities These provide recreational, cultural, and/or educational activity focused on a single purpose use with easy access by all transportation modes. These facilities include small pocket parks, urban plazas, and large sports complexes which include indoor facilities, such as basketball courts and swimming pools. Table II-4: Existing Special Use Facilities No. Park Name Area (acres) Condition E38 Civic Center Complex 7.30 F E39 Cunningham Lane 1.85 NA E40 Eola Boaters Tract 1.93 NA E41 Glen Creek 1.00 NA E42 Gracemont Park 0.34 P http://www.cityofsalem.net/departments/parks/master_vol_2.html (5 of 30)2/14/2008 7:23:48 AM City of Salem - Master Plan Volume II E43 Marion Square Park 3.20 F E44 Mill Race Park 0.16 F E45 Pringle Creek Park 4.40 F E46 Riverfront Park 23.00 G E47 Sports Field Complex 14.50 F Subtotal 57.68 Overall Condition by Acreage (excluding E39-41) Good 23.0 43.5% Fair 29.56 55.9% Poor 0.34 0.6% Historic Areas Historic sites are preserved or enhanced by providing open space buffers and complimentary facilities. Recreation activities are primarily passive. Easy access should be provided by all transportation modes to the extent the site location allows. Table II- 5: Existing Historic Areas No. Area Name Area (acres) Condition E48 Deepwood Estate 4.03 F E49 Jason Lee Historical Marker 0.20 F E50 Pioneer Cemetery 16.40 F E51 Waldo Park 0.01 G Subtotal 20.64 Overall Condition by Acreage Good 0.01 0% Fair 20.63 100% Poor 0 0% Natural Resource Areas Significant natural resources, wildlife habitat, and/or land formations can be preserved and utilized for trails and other passive recreational uses and educational benefit. The ownership and management of these areas can help protect their environmental and passive open space values. Table II-6: Existing Natural Resource Areas No. Area Name Area (acres) Condition E52 Carson Springs 3.19 P E53 Minto-Brown Island 898.86 F E54 Mouth of Mill Creek 0.65 P Subtotal 902.7 Overall Condition by Acreage Good 0 0% Fair 898.86 99.6% Poor 3.84 0.4% Connector Trails http://www.cityofsalem.net/departments/parks/master_vol_2.html (6 of 30)2/14/2008 7:23:48 AM City of Salem - Master Plan Volume II These provide for safe uninterrupted pedestrian and/or bicyclist travel between parks and open spaces around the community on separate pathways where possible. Table II-7: Existing Connector Trails No. Trail Name Area (acres) Condition E55 Edgewater Parkway 9.74 F E56 Millrace Beautification Area 3.97 F E57 Pringle Creek Trail 0.70 P Subtotal 14.41 Overall Condition by Acreage Good 0 0% Fair 13.71 95.1% Poor 0.7 4.9% Fig. II-1 Table - Existing Parks Salem Park System Existing Facilities Inventory Legend NO. PARK NAME ACRES Neighborhood Parks E1 Aldrich Park 1.25 E2 Chapman Hill School/Park 6.00 E3 Brush College Park 8.84 E4 Clark Creek Park 6.83 E5 College Heights Park 3.45 E6 Eastgate Basin Park 8.22 E7 Englewood School/Park 6.99 E8 Fairmount Park 17.34 E9 Fircrest Park 4.91 E10 Fred Meyer East Park 1.30 E11 Grant School/Park 3.57 E12 Highland Park 1.61 E13 Highland School/Park 3.27 E14 Hillview Park 3.64 E15 Hoover School/Park 14.00 E16 Lee Park 2.10 E17 Livingston Park 2.84 E18 McRae Park 2.30 E19 McKinley School/Park 2.05 E20 Morningside Park 4.50 E21 Nelson Park 10.40 E22 Northgate Park 7.43 E23 Rees Park 1.25 E24 Richmond School/Park 2.90 E25 Royal Oaks Park 5.60 E26 South Village Park 1.12 http://www.cityofsalem.net/departments/parks/master_vol_2.html (7 of 30)2/14/2008 7:23:48 AM City of Salem - Master Plan Volume II E27 Sunnyslope Park 5.52 E28 Sumpter School/Park 4.24 E29 West Salem Park 1.60 Subtotal 145.07 Community Parks E30 McKay School/Park 24.80 E31 Orchard Heights Park 28.98 E32 River Road Park 16.10 E33 Woodmansee Park 26.13 Subtotal 96.01 Large Urban Parks E34 Bush's Pasture Park 90.50 E35 Cascades Gateway 101.20 E36 Sprague-Skyline School/Park 85.33 E37 Wallace Marine Park 114.45 Subtotal 391.48 Special Use Facilities E38 Civic Center Complex 7.30 E39 Cunningham Lane 1.85 E40 Eola Boaters Tract 1.93 E41 Glen Creek 1.00 E42 Gracemont Park 0.34 E43 Marion Square Park 3.20 E44 Mill Race Park 0.16 E45 Pringle Creek Park 4.40 E46 Riverfront Park 23.00 E47 Sports Field Complex 14.50 Subtotal 57.68 Historical Areas E48 Deepwood Estate 4.03 E49 Jason Lee Historical Marker 0.20 E50 Pioneer Cemetery 16.40 E1 Waldo Park 0.01 Subtotal 20.64 Natural Areas E52 Carson Springs 3.19 E53 Minto-Brown Island 898.86 E54 Mouth of Mill Creek 0.65 Subtotal 902.70 Connector Trails E55 Edgewater Parkway 9.74 E56 Millrace Beautification Area 3.97 http://www.cityofsalem.net/departments/parks/master_vol_2.html (8 of 30)2/14/2008 7:23:48 AM City of Salem - Master Plan Volume II E57 Pringle Creek Trail 0.70 Subtotal 14.41 TOTAL EXISTING 1627.99 Note: Portions of Minto-Brown Island Park have been developed to fulfill neighborhood, community, and large urban park facility needs. Figure II-1 - Existing Conditions Map Click on a map area to get an enlarged view of the area. Click here to Download the entire map as a single file (1.6 MB) http://www.cityofsalem.net/departments/parks/master_vol_2.html (9 of 30)2/14/2008 7:23:48 AM City of Salem - Master Plan Volume II PHASE II. NEEDS ASSESSMENT What do we want? Overview For the Master Plan to respond to community needs, it is essential to involve Salem residents. To best evaluate diverse community park and recreation needs, public input from Salem's park users and citizens was gathered in two primary ways: (1) public attitude research and (2) interactive public forums. Different approaches were employed to ensure an accurate picture of public attitudes about the city's park system from users, stakeholders, such as organized sports activity groups, and citizens who may not use park facilities very often. In addition, a Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) was appointed by the City Council to develop the overall direction of the Master Plan. The role and recommendations of the PAC is discussed under Phase III. Public Attitude Research The public attitude research for the project contained three sub-elements. First, a scientifically valid telephone survey about the current park system was conducted with 225 randomly selected Salem residents. Second, a park users survey was conducted with personal interviews with 75 people at various park locations. User surveys tapped only park users by going to sites or facilities and talking with people as they arrived or departed. These two techniques were used to identify any differences in opinion between frequent users of the system and those who may not use it as much. Thirdly, identified park user groups were asked to participate in focus group discussions which provided an opportunity for citizens to have detailed discussions about park-related issues. Maintenance staff, Neighborhood Park Partnership Program participants, seniors, and two youth groups participated in the focus groups. Interactive Public Forums The interactive public forums were conducted in four different ways: a stakeholder forum, five regional forums, two city-wide forums, and three multi-media presentations. The stakeholders forum was a focused presentation for specific user groups, (e.g., soccer and softball leagues, rowing clubs, Special Olympics). Regional forums used the same format as the stakeholders' forums, but were open to the general public and set in five different geographic locations around the city. Participants developed "dream schemes" to identify potential improvements and additions for the future park system. The city-wide forums were conducted for the general public in a town hall format in which summary findings of the five regional forums and PAC recommendations were presented. The multi-media presentations invited direct participation by the Park and Recreation Advisory Board, the Planning Commission, and the City Council. Throughout the forum process, public involvement was encouraged. More than 200 people participated directly and gave thoughtful comments and recommendations about the role and value of parks. People were genuinely enthusiastic in looking for ways to improve Salem's quality of life through the development of parks. Key Findings The key findings identified from all of the needs assessment methodologies were used to create Master Plan policies that are responsive to the public comments and recommendations. l Overall Parks System. Most residents who responded to the random telephone survey were satisfied with the quality and variety of parks facilities. However, the results of the public forums, which tended to attract a larger proportion of actual park users, indicated a general satisfaction with maintenance but dissatisfaction with the current age and condition of the city's parks. They would like to see existing facilities upgraded and more emphasis on rehabilitation. l Desired Characteristics. All groups noted that the three most important factors in making a parks facility desirable are: the degree of personal safety one feels; the adequacy and cleanliness of the type of parks facility being used (e.g., picnic tables, rest rooms, ballfields, etc.); and the amount of greenspaces and natural outdoor areas. l Desired Facilities. Youth and the parents of youth wish to see more playing fields and playground equipment (particularly swing sets). They also want these areas to be safe from "gang and delinquent" activities. l Preference for Large Urban and Neighborhood Parks. The large urban parks (Wallace, Bush's Pasture, etc.) are far more popular than community or neighborhood parks because they offer more diversity of activity and attract more users and therefore they feel safer. However, people also like the http://www.cityofsalem.net/departments/parks/master_vol_2.html (10 of 30)2/14/2008 7:23:48 AM City of Salem - Master Plan Volume II convenience, proximity, and tranquility of smaller community and neighborhood parks. l Accessibility. People want a variety of modes (driving, walking, and bicycling) available to reach park facilities. Good off-street connections between parks were often mentioned as being important. l Funding Priorities. When asked about what the city's priorities should be regarding how to use park funds, their comments were remarkably consistent with the results of the public attitude survey. They believe funds should be spent in this order: (1) improve existing facilities; (2) operations and maintenance; and (3) new facilities. l Balancing Funding vs. Desired Park System. When asked how to balance desires versus funding limitations, some of the frequently heard responses were: go to the voters for an operations and maintenance bond levy; charge fees for highly demanded services (e.g., picnic reservations, RV hook-ups); cut funding in other general fund areas; provide better scrutiny of maintenance costs; and reduce the level of service if Salem residents do not want to pay for these changes. Many acknowledged the Park Operations Division is doing everything it can within the realities of limited funding. Surveys also indicate the majority of Salem residents are willing to pay more for better park facilities. During a telephone survey, 51 percent said they would pay more than the current annual $42 tax for an average household for the existing parks and recreation system. A complete documentation of all of the Needs Assessment research and findings can be found in Volume IV - Appendices. PHASE III. POLICY DEVELOPMENT What do we do? Overview The information and insight gained from the first two project phases were used to develop Master Plan policies which will guide the future of Salem's park system. To continue active community involvement, two committees were created to provide proper representation of community interests during the last two project phases. Steering Committee A Steering Committee was formed to work with the project staff to help develop and implement the planning process. The Steering Committee members Sharyn Brunkal, Chane Griggs, Wendy Kroger, and David Glennie also served on the Policy Advisory Committee (PAC). The role of the Steering Committee was to refine the project schedule and PAC activities Policy Advisory Committee In order to evaluate existing city parks and recreation policies and to recommend amended or new policies, the City Council appointed an 11 member PAC. The committee members were selected because of their familiarity with a variety of community interests and past community service experience. Additional information regarding the PAC meetings is provided in Volume IV - Appendices. The committee members were: Table II-8 Policy Advisory Committee Members Affiliation David Glennie City Council Member Sharyn Brunkal Salem Planning Commission Chane Griggs Salem Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Wendy Kroger Member-at-Large Chuck Bennett Salem Budget Committee Bryan Johnston Dean, Atkinson School of Management, Willamette University Michael McLaran Executive Director, Salem area Chamber of Commerce Tom McMullin Director, Facilities Services, Salem/Keizer School District Robert Moore Former Salem City Manager and Public Finance Consultant Mary Pearmine Chair, Marion County Board of Commissioners George Puentes Former City Council Member Review of Existing Planning Policies and Programs A successful plan must fit well in the context of other planning programs in the Salem area. A Background Summary (Volume IV - Appendices) of relevant plan policies and programs summarized the relevant portions of 27 planning documents. The Salem Comprehensive Park System Master Plan policies were created to be consistent with and complementary to these existing plan policies and programs. National park and recreation standards were also considered for comparison with existing Salem standards. http://www.cityofsalem.net/departments/parks/master_vol_2.html (11 of 30)2/14/2008 7:23:48 AM City of Salem - Master Plan Volume II Park and recreation deficiencies were identified in a number of the planning documents reviewed. The most significant was the 1978 Park and Recreation Technical Study, which called for a park acreage/population ratio of 10 acres/1,000 residents. In addition, the sector plans identified park needs in all of the city's neighborhoods, and the Ballfield 2020/Master Ballfield Development Plan, 1996 called for significant expansion of baseball facilities in the city. Planning Process The PAC held five advertised public meetings during the summer and fall of 1998 to review and discuss background information and develop policies to guide the direction and focus of the Comprehensive Park System Master Plan. The key background information (see Volume IV - Appendices for more information) considered by the committee included: l Inventory information l Needs Assessment l Related planning activities and policies Each of the PAC meetings focused on addressing specific planning policy issues which were organized according to four basic categories: 1. Where should parks be built? 2. What do you want to do in the parks? 3. How do you want to get to the parks? 4. How do we pay for it? Prior to the PAC meetings, the project staff prepared policy questions under each of the four categories. The policy questions included a discussion about key considerations related to the policy question and a recommended policy to be included in the Master Plan. The Policy Advisory Committee discussed each of the policy questions and decided whether to concur with the staff/consultant recommendation or to amend the recommended policy statement. The policies are presented in Volume I. Meeting minutes and materials may be found in Volume IV - Appendices. IV ACTION PROGRAMS Salem Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Role The Salem Park and Recreation Advisory Board will continue to be responsible for making recommendations to the City Council regarding the city's park system. The committee is comprised of nine citizens who are appointed by the City Council. The primary role of the board will be to: l Guide new park development as contemplated in the Master Plan. l Provide recommendations to the City Council regarding provision of special use facilities, historic areas, natural resource areas, and connector trails which are components of the Master Plan that do not have LOS requirements. l Research and provide recommendations to City Council regarding an aquatics program. l Provide input to the Budget Committee and City Council regarding alternative sources of revenue to finance park facilities and O & M. l Provide an annual review of the park programs and the City's progress in implementing the Master Plan to City Council. l Provide five year updates of the Master Plan to account for progress made and to amend the plan in response to changing circumstances, to City Council Policy Implementation The results of work activities conducted as part of the park system planning process described in the preceding sections of this report and Volume I provide the basis for the recommended Action Program. The background information provides the foundation for the plan policies, which in turn set the direction for the Action Program. The Action Program provides a schedule and estimated budget for land acquisition and capital improvements to create the park and recreation system that implement the Master Plan policies. It also addresses the critical issue of operations and maintenance (O&M) funding. The Action Program contains four parts: Part 1 Recreation and Open Space Facilities evaluates existing facilities, present and future recreation needs, and access requirements to address the first three policy groups: 1. Where should parks be built? 2. What do you want to do in the parks? 3. How do you want to get to the parks? The remaining three parts address the fourth policy group: http://www.cityofsalem.net/departments/parks/master_vol_2.html (12 of 30)2/14/2008 7:23:48 AM City of Salem - Master Plan Volume II 4. How do we pay for it? Part 2 Capital Improvement Plan which identifies the capital expenditures (land acquisition and facility improvements) needed to implement the plan policies and provide the parks and recreation system defined in Part 1. Part 3 Operation and Maintenance Plan which outlines the activities and related expenses necessary to operate and maintain the existing and future park and recreation system. Part 4 Financing Strategies which provide a historical context regarding park system finance followed by recommended future methods for funding capital improvements as well as operations and maintenance costs. Part 1 Recreation and Open Space Facilities Level of Service (LOS) Standards The key element for determining the location, type, and amount of park facilities described in the Action Program are the LOS standards. Specific LOS standards were created for neighborhood, community, and large urban parks which form the backbone of the city park system. These standards were used to determine current park deficits and future park needs. They also represent a firm commitment by the city to provide a specified level of basic recreation opportunities to all residents and neighborhoods in the city. LOS standards were not developed for the remaining parks facilities: special use facilities (such as pools and sports complexes); historic parks; natural areas; and connector trails for three reasons. l Their unique nature and special locational requirements make it very difficult to develop rational standards. l Setting LOS standards would commit the city to significant additional funding needs if these facilities were required along with neighborhood, community, and large urban parks. l These special facility needs are best addressed on a case by case basis and funded by special funding measures. Specific, focused studies and planning assessments have been conducted in the past on issues related to special use facilities such as the Ballfield 2020/Master Ballfield Development Plan, the Pool Committee Report and Senior Center Location Study. Park Facility Needs and Locations The city's park and recreation system is made up of a series of facilities that have been grouped into eight classifications (see Table I-1., p. 17-18). The primary components of the system are the neighborhood, community, and large urban parks which together satisfy the majority of community recreational needs. The on and off-site needs identified for these three park classifications are based upon the adopted Master Plan policies (see Tables I-1. through I- 4., pp. 19-22). The needs include land acquisition and improvements to meet present deficit and future growth of the community. l Existing parks will often require facility upgrades and rehabilitation to be consistent with the Master Plan. In addition, removing access barriers (e.g., no crosswalk or sidewalk) between residents and existing parks are included to provide suitable service. l Deficit refers to the improvements (acreage associated with park facilities) needed to serve the community based on the proposed Level of Service (LOS) for the 1997 city population of 126,673. The 1997 population in the Salem urban growth boundary (UGB) is presently 170,097 (excluding Keizer). Existing undeveloped parks, proposed school/parks, and other proposed facilities are used to fulfill this need. In addition to land acquisition, elimination of the existing park system deficit can be accomplished by rehabilitating and upgrading existing facilities and removing access barriers to them. l Growth refers to the park facility acreage which will be needed to respond to growth through buildout to the urban growth boundary (UGB) based on the proposed LOS. The population within the present Salem UGB is expected to grow to 218,860 by 2020. When this same area is fully developed beyond 2020, a total population of 272,400 is possible based on existing and planned residential densities. Existing county parks and proposed school/parks outside the current city limits and within the UGB, as well as other identified new sites are proposed to fulfill this need. In sections of the UGB that are partially developed, new park facilities may be needed to correct present deficiencies as well as accommodate future growth. The Master Plan map in Figure I-3 ( p. 41), shows existing parks, undeveloped park properties, and "ideal" locations of new neighborhood, community, and large urban park sites that are needed, in addition to existing parks and undeveloped sites, to eliminate the current deficit and accommodate future growth. The "ideal" locations for new parks were chosen based on the policies in Volume I. In particular, the proposed new park locations are intended to satisfy policies 1.1 through 1.8 as well as the Level of Service (LOS) standards in Table I-1. Deficit-related park (to meet current needs) and growth-related park (to meet future needs) sites are listed in Figure I-3 (pp. 39-40) and shown in Figure I-3 map. These "ideal" park locations may or may not have feasible park sites where they are shown. They merely indicate where the city should begin its search for a new site, and if nothing is available, the search should expand from the ideal location until one is found. The locations for neighborhood parks outside the present city limits were determined in concert with the Salem Urban Growth Management Ordinance (SRC Chapter 66), which include neighborhood parks as a necessary city service that must be provided for new development in these areas. Cooperative use of school sites (school-parks) as neighborhood or community parks should be emphasized. Neighborhood park locations are based on average service areas having a radius of 1/3 mile, a middle distance used to implement the 1/4- to ½ mile service area http://www.cityofsalem.net/departments/parks/master_vol_2.html (13 of 30)2/14/2008 7:23:48 AM City of Salem - Master Plan Volume II radius required in Table I-1 in Volume I. If a site is not available within 1/3 mile of the "ideal" location for a neighborhood park, the city should pursue expanding a nearby park to be larger than the minimum area to help meet the acreage per 1,000 population LOS guideline for the park needed (see Table I-1). Because this will create park service areas which are larger than desired, efforts should be made to enhance accessibility for all neighborhoods to be served by the park. For future neighborhood parks subject to the Urban Growth Management Ordinances, neighborhood park locations should be close to the center of the 1/3-mile radius service area, so that residents within that area will be no more than ½ mile from the park. According to the Urban Growth Management Policies, the park sites should be acquired prior to any significant development in the area. The priority for developing an unimproved neighborhood park site in an urban growth management area should be based on population density of the service area in which the park is located. Development of park improvements for growth areas should proceed once the number of dwelling units reaches fifty percent of build- out of the park's 1/3-mile service area. The deficit and growth related neighborhood, community, and large urban park locations are listed in Tables II-9 and 10 and shown on the Master Plan Map (Figure I-3). Table II-9 Deficit-Related Parks No. Name Acres Neighborhood Parks D1 Bill Reigel Park 3.50 D2 Brown Road Area Park 4.01 D3 Candalaria School/Park 2.39 D4 Cannery Park 7.00 D5 Leslie School/Park 7.00 D6 Meyers School/Park 3.46 D7 Pringle School/Park 7.25 D8 Salem Heights School/Park 1.01 D9 Secor Park 8.73 D10 Sunnyside/Mildred 3.94 D11 Swegle School/Park 1.83 D12 Waldo School/Park 7.63 D13 Walker School/Park 6.08 D14 Weathers Street Area Park 4.19 D15 Additional Needed: Deficit 43.86 D20 6 Parks @ 7.31 Acres D21 State Land Park 5.00 D26 Barrick Field 5.82 D27 Gilmore Field 12.26 Subtotal 134.95 Community Parks D21 State Land Community Park 41.00 D22-D24 Additional Needed: Deficit 3 Parks @33.22 Acres 99.67 Subtotal 140.67 Large Urban Parks D16 Additional Needed: Deficit 1 Park @ 38.54 38.54 Subtotal 38.54 TOTAL DEFICIT 296.08 http://www.cityofsalem.net/departments/parks/master_vol_2.html (14 of 30)2/14/2008 7:23:48 AM City of Salem - Master Plan Volume II Table II-10 Growth-Related Parks No. Name Acres Neighborhood Parks G1 Auburn School/Park 7.27 G2 Denny Park 1.60 G3 Fisher Road Park 4.86 G4 Four Corners School/Park 7.50 G5 Harry Scott School/Park 2.60 G6 Hayesville School/Park 9.60 G7 Houck School/Park 10.60 G8 Mary Eyre School/Park 9.30 G9 Middle Grove School/Park 3.20 G10 Parkdale Park 6.19 G11 Santana Village Park 4.11 G12-G46 Additional Needed: Growth 267.55 G-47 *Stephens-Yoshikai School/Park 5.00 G55 *Hazel Green Site 5.00 G56 *Langley Site 5.00 G57 *Mushroom Plant Site 5.00 G58 *Orchard Heights/27th Place 5.00 G59 *State Pen./Farm Site 5.00 Subtotal 364.38 Community Parks G47 Stephens-Yoshikai School/Park 21.45 G48-G54 Additional Needed: Growth 142.93 G55 *Hazel Green Site 20.00 G56 *Langley Site 20.00 G57 *Mushroom Plant Site 20.00 G58 *Orchard Heights/27th Place 20.00 G59 *State Pen./Farm Site 20.00 Subtotal 264.38 Large Urban Parks G55 Hazel Green Site 75.00 http://www.cityofsalem.net/departments/parks/master_vol_2.html (15 of 30)2/14/2008 7:23:48 AM City of Salem - Master Plan Volume II G56 Langley Site 50.00 G57 Mushroom Plant Site 75.00 G58 Orchard Heights/27th Place 24.17 G59 State Pen./Farm Site 75.00 G60-61 Additional Needed: Growth2 Parks @ 69.05 Acres 138.09 Subtotal 437.26 TOTAL GROWTH 1066.02 *Park serves multiple park classification requirements Other Recreation and Open Space Facilities Special Use Facilities, Historic Parks, and Natural Resource Areas. In addition to neighborhood, community, and large urban parks, there are other recreation facilities that are, and should continue to be provided to accommodate the needs of city residents. These are special use facilities, historic parks, and natural resource areas. They are complementary to the successful functioning of the city's neighborhood, community, and large urban parks. Setting guidelines or standards for the location or size of these other facilities is not appropriate because of their unique character and location requirements. As a result, the policy section of the Master Plan and Table I-1 do not have LOS standards for the number, size, or location of these facilities in the city. The existing facilities and sites were evaluated regarding the condition of existing improvements to determine capital improvement costs. Connector Trails. Connector trails can serve transportation and recreation functions. While specific standards are not identified, a system of connector trail corridors is shown in Figure I-4 (Volume I) and the trail system cross sections are shown in Figure I-5 (Volume I). This connector trail system follows the guidance of policies 3.1 through 3.6 (Volume I). The system provides connections between the major existing and proposed parks shown in Figure I-4 (Volume I). It is conceptual, and the city should look for opportunities to make these connections with greenway trails as well as on-street sidewalks and bicycle lanes. Part 2 Capital Improvement Plan Parts 2, 3, and 4 compose the financing plan for the Master Plan. It includes a financing structure for the primary components of the system: neighborhood, community, and large urban parks for which Levels Of Service (LOS) have been established. The financial plan does not address any of the five other park classifications (special use facilities, historical areas, natural areas, school parks, and connector trails) in the deficit or growth components of the plan. Because of their unique characteristics, no (LOS) standard has been set for these park classifications. Although a minimum Level of Service has not been established, it does not preclude, and in fact the plan encourages development of these types of park facilities, as funding becomes available. It is assumed that when the city acquires new special parks and open space areas outside of the three classifications with LOS standards, it will simultaneously dedicate new revenue from some other source to fund the related park O&M. This portion of the Action Program addresses funding for the neighborhood, community, and large urban parks. To meet current and future park needs for neighborhood, community, and large urban parks, the city developed a three-priority capital improvements plan (CIP). Priority one calls for renovating and upgrading existing parks and removing access barriers. As described earlier, several existing parks are underutilized because they are cutoff from nearby neighborhoods by such things as major roadways. Also, some parks are dilapidated due to age and extensive use and, consequently, do not provide sufficient recreational services. Other parks are underdeveloped, providing substandard services. They consist of large open areas without any developed play areas or equipment. Some school grounds are appropriately sized and located to fill neighborhood park needs, and they can be converted quickly to neighborhood parks without the expense of buying the land. These improvements will cost about $27.2 million in 1998 dollars. The Priority two of the CIP eliminates the deficit. As discussed earlier, Salem plans to increase its park level of service (LOS) from the existing 5.66 acres per 1,000 population to 8.0 ac/1,000 population with the combination of neighborhood, community, and large urban parks. The current level of service is far below the 10 ac/1,000 population established in its Park & Recreation Technical Study 1978. Getting from the existing ratio of 5.66 ac/1,000 population to 8.0 ac/1,000 population for the current population of 126,673, means the current parks system has an acreage deficit of about 40 percent, or 314.16 acres. The city needs to acquire and/or develop 314.16 acres of additional parks. That would meet the 8 ac./1,000 standard by increasing total acres of parks from the current 717.30 acres to 1,031.46 acres at a cost of about $29.99 million in 1998 dollars. Priority three of the CIP meets the needs of a growing population. The city must build 8 acres of park for every 1,000 new residents. To secure the buildout population in the Salem UGB, the city will have to add 1,066.02 acres to the park system at a cost of about $127.5 million in 1998 dollars. Table II-11 summarizes the park standards and acreage requirements. Table II-11 Park Standards and Acres Standards (ac/1,000 pop) Acres Currently Needed Acres Needed for Growth http://www.cityofsalem.net/departments/parks/master_vol_2.html (16 of 30)2/14/2008 7:23:48 AM City of Salem - Master Plan Volume II Park Type '78 Tech St Existing Proposed Existing Deficit Total Growth Total Neighborhood 2.50 1.57 2.50 199.81 134.95 334.76 364.38 699.14 Community 2.50 1.39 2.50 176.01 140.67 316.68 264.38 581.06 Large Urban 5.00 2.70 3.00 341.48 38.54 380.02 437.26 817.28 Other* 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 10.00 5.66 8.00 717.30 314.16 1,031.46 1,066.02 2,097.48 % Increase 40% Note: Other parks, 910.69 acres are excluded from this and all other tables in this chapter because LOS standards have not been established. In total, the three CIP priorities will cost about $197 million in 1998 dollars. Table II-12 shows the assumptions used to determine the total cost of acquiring and developing new parks. Table II-12 Acquisition and Development Costs by Type of Park Cost Neighborhood Park Community & Large Urban Parks Acquisition ($/acre) $70,000 $60,000 Development ($/acre) $67,000 $63,000 Barrier Removal ($/acre) $1,000 $1,000 Rehabilitation ($/acre) $28,500 $28,500 The acquisition cost per acre is based on average current market values. The city will acquire and develop neighborhood parks in areas that are in the process of development and may include land zoned for single-family, multi-family, and commercial use. Appraisers who are active and informed about vacant land in the Salem-Keizer urban area were surveyed. According to them, the going price for a parcel of land that is greater than 1-acre in size ranges from $60,000/acre to $90,000/acre. The range accounts for different parcel locations, physical features of the land, zoning, and availability of utilities to the parcel. To purchase more land for parks, Salem would have to pay these prices for land. A cost of $70,000/acre was chosen assuming about 70 percent of the land purchased is $60,000/ acre and the remainder is $90,000/acre. For community and large urban parks, all of this land was assumed to be purchased as single-family zoned land that is more distant from the current urban core, at a cost of $60,000/acre. The estimated average cost to remove access barriers is estimated to be $1,000 per acre of park. The estimate is based on specific cost studies of removing barriers (e.g., building crosswalks and trails) at an existing representative park, and then averaging the cost over the number of acres in the park. Rehabilitation and upgrade costs are based on a similar detailed analysis of some existing representative parks. These costs include refurbishing or replacing landscaping, play equipment, fences, signs, restrooms, and parking. Table II-13 is a summary of the acquisition and development costs. Table II-13 Park Acquisition and Development Costs Existing Deficit Growth Total Barrier removal $815,500 $296,077 $1,066,020 $2,177,597 Rehabilitation 19,504,905 1,393,500 1,427,850 22,326,255 Upgrade 6,851,405 6,851,405 Acquisition 11,362,100 59,889,700 77,251,800 Development 16,941,579 65,140,080 82,081,659 Total $27,171,810 $29,993,256 $127,523,650 $184,688,716 Capital costs are only part of the costs associated with the park system. The cost of park operations and maintenance over several years will amount to more than the initial costs shown in Table II-13. Part 3 Operations and Maintenance Plan http://www.cityofsalem.net/departments/parks/master_vol_2.html (17 of 30)2/14/2008 7:23:48 AM City of Salem - Master Plan Volume II Based on historical data, and the city's current experiences with park operations and maintenance (O&M), staff developed an incremental or marginal cost per acre by type of park, as shown in Table II-14. While the ratio of park acres to 1,000 population decreased from 5.86 to 5.66, the city's expenditures on parks O&M increased from $1,927/acre/year in 1990 to $3,025/acre/year in 1998. In constant 1990 dollars, this trend is also evident; expenditures per acre increased from $1,927/acre/year to $2,440/acre/year. This cost increase is due to more use by a larger population, and aging park facilities (e.g., fences, sprinkler systems, play equipment) that require more frequent and more extensive repairs. Table II-14 Park Operations and Maintenance Costs per Acre $/Acre/Year Neighborhood $3,330 Community $1,470 Large Urban $2,590 O&M for each new 20-acre community park is expected to cost $29,400 per year. Each new 5-acre neighborhood park is expected to cost $16,650 per year for O&M. The cost per acre decreases as the park size increases from neighborhood to community parks. Conversely, the cost per acre for large urban parks is higher than for community parks. The cost per acre for large urban parks are higher because they contain special features not found in community parks, such as historic buildings and grounds, lighted ball fields, and boat launches at Wallace Marine Park. Past city policy was to acquire and develop new parks only as it thought it could afford the additional O&M. As a result and since 1990, Table II-15 shows the number of acres in neighborhood, community, and large urban parks increased slightly while population grew nearly 18 percent. In the future, the city will have to coordinate its acquisition of new parks closely with its ability to pay for the additional annual O&M. Also, it will need to replace or significantly rehabilitate existing park facilities to keep the cost per acre per year from increasing beyond the cost of replacing the facilities. In the following section, the above assumptions were used to develop a recommended financing plan and cash flow forecast for capital and O&M costs and revenues. Table II-15 Growth of Population and Park Acres Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 Population 107,793 110,360 111,575 113,325 116,950 118,355 120,835 124,190 126,673 % Change 2.4% 1.1% 1.6% 3.2% 1.2% 2.1% 2.8% 2.0% Cum. % Change 2.4% 3.5% 5.1% 8.5% 9.8% 12.1% 15.2% 17.5% Park Acres 645.93 647.07 679.88 679.88 680.81 680.81 699.46 717.30 717.30 % Change 0.2% 5.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 2.7% 2.6% 0.0% Cum. % Change 0.2% 5.3% 5.3% 5.4% 5.4% 8.3% 11.1% 11.1% Acres/1,000 Population 5.86 6.09 6.00 5.82 5.75 5.79 5.78 5.66 $/Acre/Year $1,927 $2,195 $2,362 $2,050 $2,416 $2,610 $2,827 $3,133 $3,025 $/Acre/Year (1989 $) $1,927 $2,164 $2,261 $1,914 $2,193 $2,252 $2,368 $2,588 $2,440 Note: Costs per acre are actual based on unrestricted general fund revenue to Park Operations. Part 4 Financing Strategies Priorities Based on the trends and assumptions in Parts 2 and 3, a financial plan was developed with the following CIP priorities. l Priority One: Renovate, upgrade, and remove barriers to existing parks http://www.cityofsalem.net/departments/parks/master_vol_2.html (18 of 30)2/14/2008 7:23:48 AM City of Salem - Master Plan Volume II l Priority Two: Acquire and develop new parks to eliminate service inequities and the deficit so that the park acreage will increase from 5.66 acres/1,000 population to 8.0 acres/1,000 population l Priority Three: Acquire and develop new parks for population growth at the rate of 8 acres per 1,000 population Priority one projects will upgrade and renovate existing parks. Upgrading parks will increase O&M costs because new facilities (e.g., picnic shelters) will be added to the parks. Renovating existing park facilities is expected to reduce annual O&M costs because the facilities will be new and not require significant repair each year. The additional annual O&M cost of upgrading existing parks is assumed to be offset by the savings in annual O&M costs of renovating existing park facilities. Established facilities such as restrooms, play equipment, fences, lighting, signs, irrigation systems, and landscape should be easier and cheaper to maintain after rehabilitation, therefore, it is assumed these projects will not increase O&M. The city will increase park services without having to purchase more land. Priority two, deficit-reduction projects, will add new parks to the system and consequently increase annual O&M. The Priority three, new growth projects, will increase acres of park land and O&M costs. While building parks for growth is the third priority, many of these parks may be built before or along with parks in Priority one and two. To finance Priority one and two projects, it is assumed voters will approve a general obligation bond measure. To finance Priority three projects, the parks Systems Development Charge (SDC) is assumed to be set at a level to recover the full cost. Until 1998, the parks SDC was based on a limited number of parks to be built and estimated costs, particularly for land acquisition, that were far below market prices. A more detailed systems development charge methodology is being produced for the city as a separate document for City Council consideration. Generally, the park SDC should be equal to the total land acquisition and development costs for 8.0 acres of park land (2.5 of neighborhood, 2.5 of community, and 3 of large urban park land) for every 1,000 additional residents. The cost of this package of parks is about $127.5 million for future population growth of 145,750, or about $875 per capita. Since the SDC is applied to private residential housing units, this per capita charge has to be converted to a charge by type of housing: single family, multifamily, and manufactured housing. The city has estimated the average household size for each type of housing and, using those estimates, estimated the SDC amounts by type of housing and by type of park to develop the SDC options shown in Table II-16. Table II-16 SDC Options Type of housing SDC Options Single Multi Manuf. Option 1: Neighborhood only (2.5 acres/1,000 residents) $705 $461 $515 Option 2: Neighborhood & Community (5.0 acres/1,000 residents) $1,052 $688 $769 Option 3: Neighborhood, Community & Large Urban (8.0 acres/1,000 residents) $2,275 $1,487 $1,662 Single 2.6 persons/household X $875 per capita = $2,275 Multi 1.7 persons/household X $875 per capita = $1,487 Mobile 1.9 persons/household X $875 per capita = $1,662 If the SDC is set at Option 3, 100 percent of the land acquisition and development cost of all growth-related parks will be recovered from the parks SDC. If Option 2 is selected, then the SDC will fund all growth-related neighborhood and community parks, but not large urban parks. The city would have to find another source of revenue (e.g., GO bonds) to raise $69.2 million in 1998 dollars to pay for growth-related large urban parks. Option 1 would produce only enough revenue to build growth-related neighborhood parks. The city would then have to find another $101 million in 1998 dollars for community and large urban parks. All of these options assume the city will annually adjust the parks SDC for inflation. The city already collects a systems development charge (SDC) for each new house that is built, and the city's growth management policy requires that developers and the city must provide new parks or be fully committed before the city can approve plans and building permits for new housing developments. Financing Assumptions The plan to finance these new parks rests on three assumptions. l First, voters will have to approve a general obligation bond to finance the capital costs of Priority one and two parks. The forecast assumes that the city passes a $57.17 million general obligation bond in November 2002. While the vote would authorize issuing the full amount of the bond, $57.17 million, the city would issue the bond in three separate parts over a nine-year period: $21.82 million in 2003, $21.58 million in 2006, and $13.77 million in 2009. This phasing will keep the city's tax rate to retire bonds within the $2.42/$1,000 assessed valuation (AV) established by the city to control total debt. The first bond issue and part of the second will go to Priority one projects with no additional O&M costs. Part of the second bond issue and all of the third bond issue will be used for Priority two projects. New parks will be built and O&M costs will increase. l The second financing assumption is that the SDC will be increased from the current $952 per single-family house (2.6 persons/house), $622 per multi-family housing unit (1.7 persons), and $696 per mobile home unit (1.9 persons), to a level based on the capital costs of Priority three projects. The SDC would increase to a range of $1,487 to 2,275, depending upon housing type. The city would have to adjust the SDC annually to match inflation for land and capital improvements. Using these financing assumptions, the parks SDC is the sole funding source for Priority three projects. Rather than issue general obligation bonds to build these projects, the city will have to accumulate parks SDC revenues until it can afford to acquire and develop new parks and to pay for http://www.cityofsalem.net/departments/parks/master_vol_2.html (19 of 30)2/14/2008 7:23:48 AM City of Salem - Master Plan Volume II operations. l Finally, the city has to be able to increase funding for parks operations as it acquires new parks. This assumption may result in the city enhancing or obtaining new source(s) of revenue for the general fund. Possible appropriate revenue sources include: m Increase the transient occupancy tax m Expand the current business license fee m Create a business gross receipts tax m Create a current employee tax m Create a restaurant/meal tax m Create an amusement/admission tax m Cost savings through inter-agency cooperation m Donations m Other resources The evaluation of these possible increases or new taxes will determine which taxes the city can proceed with and how much revenue each one is capable of producing. Until it finishes evaluating these and other possible sources, it cannot choose a final set for implementation. The new sources must be legal, administratively sound, economically efficient, and sufficient to meet the intended uses. Sufficiency for parks means that the revenue from the source must increase with economic growth and must increase with inflation. Over time, the population will grow and the city will build new parks as required by its urban growth management policy. To afford the planned park system, Salem must find new revenue sources which automatically produce more revenue along with the growth in park acres and park O&M costs. Historical Financial Analysis Capital Improvements (Park Acquisition and Development) To understand how the city can secure the revenue needed to build the improvements and pay for O&M, we first evaluated the financial history. For capital costs, acquisition, and development of parks, the city has used general obligation bonds and systems development charge (SDC) revenues. Also, the city has acquired some parks as gifts in the form of federal and state grants, as well as donations by private parties. The availability of grants has decreased significantly over the years. Private donations, though greatly appreciated and valuable to the parks system, were usually for special parks, not for the neighborhood, community, and large urban parks proposed in this plan. The last park general obligation bond was issued in 1978 and the small remaining balance will be spent by mid-1999. The city collects a parks SDC from each new residential development in the city. Until mid-Fiscal Year 1997-98, the charge was $400 per single-family house. In 1997-98 the city increased the parks SDC to $952 per single-family house . These revenues can be spent only on land acquisition and capital improvements to parks, and then only on those parks that benefit new housing. This revenue cannot be spent for O&M, and it cannot be used to replace worn-out park facilities (unless it will benefit new housing). Table II-17 summarizes the recent history of the fund and its ending cash balances. Table II-17 Systems Development Charge Fund 1997 1998B 1999B Revenues Charges 470,053 455,217 720,187 Interest Earnings 24,068 31,988 28,005 Interfund Transfers 136,885 Total Revenues $631,006 $487,205 $748,192 SDC Expenditures Woodmansee park development 125,563 125,207 Weathers St. park acquisition 401,312 Miscellaneous billings 4 Total Expenditures $526,879 $125,207 $0 Net Income (Loss) $104,127 $361,998 $748,192 Beginning Cash 403,946 508,073 870,071 Ending Cash $508,073 $870,071 $1,618,263 http://www.cityofsalem.net/departments/parks/master_vol_2.html (20 of 30)2/14/2008 7:23:48 AM City of Salem - Master Plan Volume II Source: City of Salem budget documents (unaudited, budget basis). Note: the 1999 budget projects an ending cash balance of $1.68 million, but the mid-year revised estimate is more likely to be $1.5 million. Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Table II-18 (p. 42) shows the budgeted revenue to the General Fund and the portion of the General Fund allocated to park operations for the period from 1989 through 1999. General Fund revenue and the revenue allocated to parks is divided into two categories: restricted and unrestricted. The restricted sources of revenue to the General Fund are by law or by city policy restricted to fund a specified purpose and cannot be used for any other purpose. Some of these restricted funds are allocated to parks (e.g., park reservation fees are restricted to parks programs). The restricted park revenues currently pay for O&M only at special use parks. These two categories of revenue for the General Fund and parks were traced to see the relationship between total General Fund revenue and revenue allocated to parks. Figure II-2 and Table II-18 show the trends. The proportion of unrestricted General Fund revenues allocated to parks has remained at approximately five percent per year, a relatively constant share considering how much total General Fund revenue fluctuated over the period. These fluctuations were due in part to Ballot Measures 5 (1992)(1)(2) and 50 (1997)(3) that amended the State's Constitution to limit local property taxes. To eliminate the effects of inflation, the revenue was deflated to constant 1989 dollars. These deflated revenue flows illustrate that the purchasing power of the General Fund increased about 4 percent per year, and its allocation to parks increased about 3.8 percent per year. Both revenues are increasing at rates that are slightly faster than the rate of population growth, 2 percent per year. This gain in revenue relative to population growth is offset by a 2.08 percent per year increase in the cost of O&M in 1989 dollars. Figure II-2 General Fund and Park Revenue Table II-18 General Fund and Parks Operations Revenues Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 http://www.cityofsalem.net/departments/parks/master_vol_2.html (21 of 30)2/14/2008 7:23:48 AM City of Salem - Master Plan Volume II General Fund Restricted 16,158,240 14,961,615 16,890,505 17,702,975 19,389,385 21,802,625 10,520,335 11,027,035 11,861,040 12,603,215 10,336,000 % Change -7.41% 12.89% 4.81% 9.53% 12.45% -51.75% 4.82% 7.56% 6.26% -17.99% Unrestricted 24,272,890 27,433,995 30,534,585 29,984,160 35,758,170 36,007,395 39,393,785 42,593,130 43,845,795 40,400,350 46,123,570 % Change 13.02% 11.30% -1.80% 19.26% 0.70% 9.40% 8.12% 2.94% -7.86% 14.17% Total Annual 40,431,130 42,395,610 47,425,090 47,687,135 55,147,555 57,810,020 49,914,119 53,620,165 55,706,835 53,003,565 56,459,570 % Change 4.86% 11.86% 0.55% 15.64% 4.83% -13.66% 7.42% 3.89% -4.85% 6.52% Cash Balance 2,124,875 1,987,305 2,436,880 4,229,460 5,159,335 6,573,800 7,226,755 8,294,465 6,559,080 5,842,910 6,336,100 % Change -6.47% 22.62% 73.56% 21.99% 27.42% 9.93% 14.77% -20.92% -10.92% 8.44% Total 42,556,005 44,382,915 49,861,970 51,916,595 60,306,890 64,383,820 57,140,875 61,914,630 62,265,915 58,846,475 62,795,670 % Change 4.29% 12.34% 4.12% 16.16% 6.76% -11.25% 8.35% 0.57% -5.49% 6.71% Allocation to Parks Restricted 857,615 849,635 822,730 849,960 871,230 855,385 990,280 1,135,345 1,369,610 1,677,380 1,236,285 % Change -0.93% -3.17% 3.31% 2.50% -1.82% 15.77% 14.65% 20.63% 22.47% -26.30% Unrestricted 1,244,945 1,420,405 1,605,750 1,393,800 1,644,755 1,776,875 1,977,220 2,247,030 2,170,005 1,770,305 2,162,560 % Change 14.09% 13.05% -13.20% 18.01% 8.03% 11.28% 13.65% -3.43% -18.42% 22.16% Total 2,102,560 2,270,040 2,428,480 2,243,760 2,515,985 2,632,260 2,967,500 3,382,375 3,539,615 3,447,685 3,398,845 % Change 7.97% 6.98% -7.61% 12.13% 4.62% 12.74% 13.98% 4.65% -2.60% -1.42% Park Unrestricted as a % of General Fund Unrestricted 5.13% 5.18% 5.26% 4.65% 4.60% 4.93% 5.02% 5.28% 4.95% 4.38% 4.69% Average Annual from '89 5.15% 5.19% 5.05% 4.96% 4.96% 4.97% 5.01% 5.00% 4.94% 4.91% Source: City of Salem, Annual Budget, General Fund, Sources of Funds (to Departments), Manager Recommend. Notes: In 1993, the city's tax rate fell below $10/$1,000 AV and out of compression. In 1995 the state-shared motor fuel tax revenues were transferred from the General Fund to the Public Works Streets Division. Table II-18-Continued General Fund and Parks Operations Revenues in Constant 1989 Dollars Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 CCI (1967=1.00) 4.2187 4.2801 4.4072 4.5188 4.6472 4.8893 5.0359 5.1058 5.2295 5.4581 5.5122 General Fund (1989 $'s) Unrestricted 24,272,890 27,040,442 29,228,593 27,992,869 32,461,050 31,068,741 33,001,164 35,192,847 35,370,926 31,226,426 35,300,153 % Change 11.40% 8.09% -4.23% 15.96% -4.29% 6.22% 6.64% 0.51% -11.72% 13.05% Allocation to Parks, 1989 $'s Restricted 857,615 837,447 787,541 793,513 790,897 738,063 829,582 938,086 1,104,881 1,296,488 946,177 http://www.cityofsalem.net/departments/parks/master_vol_2.html (22 of 30)2/14/2008 7:23:48 AM City of Salem - Master Plan Volume II % Change -2.35% -5.96% 0.76% -0.33% -6.68% 12.40% 13.08% 17.78% 17.34% -27.02% Unrestricted 1,244,945 1,400,029 1,537,071 1,301,236 1,493,099 1,533,165 1,656,367 1,856,623 1,750,569 1,368,312 1,655,091 % Change 12.46% 9.79% -15.34% 14.74% 2.68% 8.04% 12.09% -5.71% -21.84% 20.96% Total 2,102,560 2,237,475 2,324,612 2,094,749 2,283,996 2,271,228 2,485,949 2,794,709 2,855,450 2,664,801 2,601,267 Park Unrestricted as a % of General Fund Unrestricted 5.13% 5.18% 5.26% 4.65% 4.60% 4.93% 5.02% 5.28% 4.95% 4.38% 4.69% Average Annual from '89 5.15% 5.19% 5.05% 4.96% 4.96% 4.97% 5.01% 5.00% 4.94% 4.91% Note: CCI is the Construction Cost Index for major construction markets in the US. Cash Flows for Parks Operations and Capital Improvements Figure II-3 and Table II-19 show forecast cash flows for park operations and for capital improvements, including land acquisition. They show annual revenues and expenditures through FY 2020 and are based on the previous assumptions and trends, as well as on some assumptions necessary about issuing general obligation bonds, the parks systems development charge, and the sources of revenue for O&M expenses. It is assumed that the city obtains voter approval for the city to issue up to $57.2 million in general obligation park bonds. The city would issue the bonds in the following sequence: FY 2003 $21,819,060 FY 2006 $21,575,570 FY 2009 $13,770,526 Total $57,165,156 Each bond is issued for a 20-year term at 5.5 percent interest and bond closing costs are equal to two percent of the bond amount. Bond proceeds are spent over a three-year period. After issuing the bond, it is assumed that the money is spent 25 percent the first year, followed by 40 percent the second year, and the balance in the third year. SDC REVENUE: It is assumed that the city adopts Option 3 for the systems development charge, or about $2,275 for a single-family residence. In the forecast, SDC revenues are spent in concert with the bond proceeds. The SDC spending assumptions are as follows: FY 2000 $350,000 FY 2001 $871,500 FY 2002 $886,500 FY 2003 $7,057,765 FY 2004 $9,818,577 FY 2005 $10,847,868 FY 2006 $6,907,093 FY 2007 $9,709,007 FY 2008 $7,421,326 FY 2009 $4,471,587 FY 2010 $6,196,737 FY 2011 $12,065,579 FY 2012 $6,032,789 FY 2013 $6,032,789 FY 2015 $10,000,000 FY 2016 $5,000,000 FY 2017 $5,000,000 http://www.cityofsalem.net/departments/parks/master_vol_2.html (23 of 30)2/14/2008 7:23:48 AM City of Salem - Master Plan Volume II FY 2019 $10,000,000 FY 2020 $5,000,000 SDC expenditures through FY 2009 are in concert with spending bond proceeds. Some of the parks to be built to make up the deficit will be sized to accommodate future growth. The growth-related elements of these parks are to be funded with SDC revenues, and the deficit portions financed with bond proceeds. After FY 2009, the scheduling of park SDC expenditures is determined by available cash reserves, which is assumed to equal $20 million every fourth year. Also, at the time these investments are made, the city will have to determine that it has the cash resources to pay the additional annual O&M costs. For O&M purposes, it is assumed the park SDC expenditures extend over a three-year period and the additional parks built will not incur O&M costs until two years after the acquisition and development process begins. The city's strategy is to purchase at least land for parks as soon as possible to avoid escalating land costs, and to develop the park land when cash is available and when it can fund future O&M of the parks. Figure II-3 General Fund and Short Fall Revenues Table II-19 Forecast Cash Flow - Fiscal Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 CASH FLOW FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES CASH FLOW FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES General Fund, unrestricted 2,000,000 2,098,296 2,201,422 2,309,617 2,423,129 2,542,221 2,667,165 2,798,251 2,935,778 3,080,065 3,231,443 Short-fall, New Revenue 20,805 43,690 68,809 74,218 79,994 86,160 92,741 99,763 688,089 1,102,151 Total Operating Revenues 2,000,000 2,119,101 2,245,112 2,378,426 2,497,347 2,622,215 2,753,325 2,890,992 3,035,541 3,768,155 4,333,594 http://www.cityofsalem.net/departments/parks/master_vol_2.html (24 of 30)2/14/2008 7:23:48 AM City of Salem - Master Plan Volume II % Growth 5.96% 5.95% 5.94% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 24.13% 15.01% Operating Costs Personal Services 1,231,500 1,304,836 1,382,428 1,464,516 1,537,742 1,614,629 1,695,360 1,780,128 1,869,134 2,320,241 2,668,411 Materials & Services 755,800 800,808 848,428 898,807 943,748 990,935 1,040,482 1,092,506 1,147,131 1,423,986 1,637,665 Capital Outlays, Operations 12,700 13,456 14,256 15,103 15,858 16,651 17,484 18,358 19,276 23,928 27,518 Total 2,000,000 2,119,101 2,245,112 2,378,426 2,497,347 2,622,215 2,753,325 2,890,992 3,035,541 3,768,155 4,333,594 % Growth 5.96% 5.95% 5.94% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 24.13% 15.01% CASH FLOW FROM CAPITAL ACTIVITIES Capital Expenditures (350,000) (871,500) (886,500) (7,057,765) (9,818,577) (10,847,868) (6,907,093) (9,709,007) (7,421,326) (4,471,587) (6,196,737) SDC Revenues 1,391,200 3,014,400 3,263,400 3,530,000 3,814,800 4,118,400 4,452,000 4,806,000 5,192,000 5,600,000 6,095,000 Interest Earnings 93,020 170,590 282,480 761,180 1,069,010 825,130 1,138,400 1,508,130 1,413,390 1,763,740 2,179,200 Property Taxes, Bond 600,024 1,825,804 1,825,804 2,419,132 3,631,234 3,631,234 3,631,234 4,783,542 General Obligation Bond 21,819,060 21,575,570 13,770,526 Bond Costs (436,381) (431,511) (275,411) Bond Interest (600,024) (1,200,048) (1,165,632) (1,722,650) (2,277,672) (2,203,226) (2,124,686) (2,799,205) Bond Principal (625,756) (660,173) (696,482) (1,353,562) (1,428,007) (1,506,548) (1,984,337) Net Cash Flow from Capital 1,134,220 2,313,490 2,659,380 18,616,094 (4,934,767) (5,904,338) 19,827,366 (3,394,876) (815,936) 16,387,269 2,077,464 CASH & INVESTMENTS, JULY 1 1,500,000 2,634,220 4,947,710 7,607,090 26,223,184 21,288,417 15,384,079 35,211,446 31,816,570 31,000,634 47,387,904 CASH & INVESTMENTS, JUNE 30 2,634,220 4,947,710 7,607,090 26,223,184 21,288,417 15,384,079 35,211,446 31,816,570 31,000,634 47,387,904 49,465,367 *FY Table II-19 Forecast Cash Flow - Fiscal Year (continued) 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 CASH FLOW FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES Operating Revenues General Fund, unrestricted 3,390,262 3,556,885 3,731,698 3,915,103 4,107,522 4,309,397 4,521,194 4,743,401 4,976,528 5,221,114 Short-fall, New Revenue 1,536,458 1,616,170 1,857,801 2,027,674 2,292,675 2,410,809 2,535,022 2,665,627 2,802,951 2,947,339 Total Operating Revenues 4,926,720 5,173,056 5,589,499 5,942,777 6,400,197 6,720,206 7,056,217 7,409,028 7,779,479 8,168,453 % Growth 13.69% 5.00% 8.05% 6.32% 7.70% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% Operating Costs Personal Services 3,033,628 3,185,309 3,441,734 3,659,265 3,940,921 4,137,967 4,344,865 4,562,109 4,790,214 5,029,725 Materials & Services 1,861,807 1,954,898 2,112,272 2,245,775 2,418,634 2,539,566 2,666,544 2,799,872 2,939,865 3,086,858 Capital Outlays, Operations 31,285 32,849 35,493 37,737 40,641 42,673 44,807 47,047 49,400 51,870 http://www.cityofsalem.net/departments/parks/master_vol_2.html (25 of 30)2/14/2008 7:23:48 AM City of Salem - Master Plan Volume II Total 4,926,720 5,173,056 5,589,499 5,942,777 6,400,197 6,720,206 7,056,217 7,409,028 7,779,479 8,168,453 % Growth 13.69% 5.00% 8.05% 6.32% 7.70% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% CASH FLOW FROM CAPITAL ACTIVITIES Capital Expenditures (12,065,579) (6,032,789) (6,032,789) (10,000,000) (5,000,000) (5,000,000) (10,000,000) (5,000,000) SDC Revenues 6,575,400 7,080,500 7,686,000 8,283,200 8,991,600 9,675,000 10,494,000 11,282,800 12,220,400 13,230,000 Interest Earnings 2,150,810 2,147,560 2,308,600 2,643,590 2,932,740 3,152,150 3,531,330 4,080,070 4,578,710 5,030,040 Property Taxes, Bond 4,783,542 4,783,542 4,783,542 4,783,542 4,783,542 4,783,542 4,783,542 4,783,542 4,783,542 4,783,542 General Obligation Bond Bond Costs Bond Interest (2,690,066) (2,574,925) (2,453,451) (2,325,296) (2,190,092) (2,047,453) (1,896,968) (1,738,206) (1,570,713) (1,394,007) Bond Principal (2,093,476) (2,208,617) (2,330,091) (2,458,246) (2,593,450) (2,736,089) (2,886,574) (3,045,336) (3,212,829) (3,389,535) Net Cash Flow from Capital (3,339,368) 3,195,271 3,961,811 10,926,790 1,924,340 7,827,150 9,025,330 15,362,870 6,799,110 13,260,040 CASH & INVESTMENTS, JULY 1 49,465,367 46,125,999 49,321,270 53,283,081 64,209,872 66,134,212 73,961,362 82,986,693 98,349,563 105,148,673 CASH & INVESTMENTS, JUNE 30 46,125,999 49,321,270 53,283,081 64,209,872 66,134,212 73,961,362 82,986,693 98,349,563 105,148,673 118,408,714 Additional Sources of O&M Funding Over the very long run, the city has to be concerned with establishing reserve funds to operations and maintenance (O&M) and for capital replacement. O&M contingency: Over the very long run, the City is likely to encounter economic recessions or more tax limitation measures such as Measures 5 and 50. These events may reduce general fund revenue and its allocation to parks O&M. Ideally, the city will have set aside a reserve or sinking fund that can be drawn from to make up the difference between normal O&M costs and diminished general fund revenue. The amount to hold in reserve depends on the expected period of economic recession. Most recessions last for less than two years, and on average occur less than once a decade. Assuming general fund allocations to the parks system is reduced by 50 percent for two years, it would be wise to have an O&M reserve equal to one year's worth of O&M costs. Currently, annual O&M costs about $2.1 million. This cost will increase as park acreage is increased and as inflation increases labor and materials costs. Presently, the city maintains a contingency in the general fund for all general fund purposes: parks, police, planning, administration, etc. The contingency is held in part as a hedge against economic recession and in part for periodic extraordinary costs. The city's policy is not to segment and dedicate the contingency in specific dollar amounts to any general fund purpose. To determine if the contingency is adequate to protect all general fund purposes including parks is beyond the scope of this project; however, the Parks Operations Division can at least identify annually to the City Council what its financial risks are in a recession and ask them to make provisions for it and for all other general fund purposes. The contingency is assumed to handle extraordinary emergencies, not the usual annual maintenance of park facilities. To avoid letting facilities depreciate from lack of maintenance, the annual O&M budget should be of sufficient size to keep all facilities in use as intended, and to maximize the full expected life of each facility. Capital replacement: Over time all capital improvements will physically or functionally depreciate, and at some time in the future all of the swing sets, tennis courts and restrooms will have to be replaced. The capital replacement does not include land or the initial investment in land improvements to clear, grade, and install utilities to it. Capital replacement concerns only those physical assets put on the land for recreational uses, including light fixtures, play equipment, restrooms. Repair of these facilities such as replacing light bulbs, the seats on swings, table tops, and even trash containers is paid for and budgeted as annual O&M costs. When the basic structures wear out, such as the whole swing set, or the entire restroom building, then the city would normally pay for it by issuing a general obligation bond. Some have suggested that the city establish a sinking fund for capital replacement. It could. The sinking fund is more appropriately a special revenue fund. To implement it, the city would calculate a replacement cost and year to replace each facility, assume a rate of investment on savings, and using present value calculations determine how much money to put into savings each year so that at the year replacement is required, sufficient revenue is in the special revenue fund to simply pay cash for the replacement facilities. Over time this fund would grow into the millions of dollars. The city would get the money to put into savings for parks either from the general fund or some dedicated source of general fund revenue. Unless the city is collecting more money in the general fund than it needs for current expenses (plus the contingency), it could fund the park's special revenue fund only by reducing some other general fund allocation. At least in its present state, the general fund cannot afford much in the way of savings for a parks' special revenue fund. One strategy the city could adopt for parks is to issue park general obligation bonds on a more timely and more frequent basis. This strategy would begin only after the proposed $57.165 million bond had been issued and all of the planned improvements were made - probably 15 years from 1999 or approximately 2015. These subsequent bond issues would be smaller, say $5 million or $10 million each, once every 5 to 7 years. Each bond would be used to replace a specific set of depreciated facilities so that over the very long run the city would continuously replace old facilities. In this way, the city would not be replacing all park facilities at http://www.cityofsalem.net/departments/parks/master_vol_2.html (26 of 30)2/14/2008 7:23:48 AM City of Salem - Master Plan Volume II one time. Each bond issue would more easily fit into the city's debt limit of $2.42 per $1,000 of assessed value. Such a strategy would avoid repeating the proposed and fairly massive $57.165 million reconstruction and new park construction to make up the LOC deficit. Two important trends are noted in Table II-19. First, operating revenues must keep up with inflation and with the increasing number of acres in parks. The two sources of revenue shown in Table II-19 are the General Fund, unrestricted, and a new source of revenue, identified only as the shortfall. The General Fund revenue is growing in proportion to the growth in the economy and the assessed value of real estate: two percent per year real growth and three percent per year due to increased assessed values on unchanged properties, or a combined annual growth rate of five percent per year. It matches the trend set over the past decade. Total revenue equals the total operating costs. Operating costs are forecast to increase five percent per year due to inflation plus a proportionate increase in operating costs due to new parks being added to the park system. Cost per acre per year is inflated at five percent per year. The General Fund short fall is the difference between total revenues (required for total operating costs) and general fund revenue that increases at an historical rate. The need for a new revenue source becomes a necessity by FY 2006 after enough new parks have been added to the system to significantly increase O&M costs. The city might limp along until FY 2006 by adding a few new acres of park and reducing O&M expenditures per acre to keep all of the parks operating in the short term. In the long term, however, it will have to increase O&M expenditures per acre. The new source will be needed sooner if the city experiences significant housing growth and it builds new parks as required by its urban growth management policy. Also, it is apparent that this new source of revenue must increase with the growth in new parks. The city will probably need to find new sources of revenue for the General Fund to fund growing park O&M expenses. The city is already aware that General Fund property taxes, while the largest single source of revenue to the General Fund, cannot meet all of the city's financial needs. The sources of general fund revenue for any city in Oregon is determined by two key variables, the structure of its economy, and the historical set of City Council and voter-determined tax and fee policies. Compared to other Oregon cities, Salem's economy is heavily weighted to state government. This one sector of Salem's economy is the single largest employer and occupies much of the city's central city real estate, normally very valuable for retail, office, and high-density residential uses. Unlike the private land uses in other central cities, the state does not pay property taxes to Salem. As a result, its property tax collections per capita are far below those of other cities in Oregon. Table II-20 illustrates this point. Table II-20 Comparison of Property Tax Receipts per Capita Population 1996 AV, 1997-98 ($1,000) AV/capita ($/capita) % of Salem Salem(4) 120,835 $5,306,821 $43.92 100.00% Beaverton 63,145 $3,866,262 $61.23 139.42% Corvallis 49,275 $2,766,482 $56.14 127.84% Eugene 126,325 $6,219,702 $49.24 112.11% Gresham 79,350 $3,748,705 $47.24 107.57% Sources: PSU, Center for Population Research, Population Estimates for Oregon July 1, 1996, Portland, Oregon. State of Oregon, Oregon Property Tax Statistics Fiscal Year 1997-98, Salem, Oregon. Because the State of Oregon does not pay property tax, Salem's property collections of $43.92 per capita are 12% less than Eugene and 39% less than Beaverton Over the very long run, the city has to be concerned with establishing reserve funds to operations and maintenance (O&M) and for capital replacement. O&M contingency: Over the very long run, the City is likely to encounter economic recessions or more tax limitation measures such as Measures 5 and 50. These events may reduce general fund revenue and its allocation to parks O&M. Ideally, the city will have set aside a reserve or sinking fund that can be drawn from to make up the difference between normal O&M costs and diminished general fund revenue. The amount to hold in reserve depends on the expected period of economic recession. Most recessions last for less than two years, and on average occur less than once a decade. Assuming general fund allocations to the parks system is reduced by 50 percent for two years, it would be wise to have an O&M reserve equal to one year's worth of O&M costs. Currently, annual O&M costs about $2.1 million. This cost will increase as park acreage is increased and as inflation increases labor and materials costs. Presently, the city maintains a contingency in the general fund for all general fund purposes: parks, police, planning, administration, etc. The contingency is held in part as a hedge against economic recession and in part for periodic extraordinary costs. The city's policy is not to segment and dedicate the contingency in specific dollar amounts to any general fund purpose. To determine if the contingency is adequate to protect all general fund purposes including parks is beyond the scope of this project; however, the Parks Operations Division can at least identify annually to the City Council what its financial risks are in a recession and ask them to make provisions for it and for all other general fund purposes. The contingency is assumed to handle extraordinary emergencies, not the usual annual maintenance of park facilities. To avoid letting facilities depreciate from lack of maintenance, the annual O&M budget should be of sufficient size to keep all facilities in use as http://www.cityofsalem.net/departments/parks/master_vol_2.html (27 of 30)2/14/2008 7:23:48 AM City of Salem - Master Plan Volume II intended, and to maximize the full expected life of each facility. Capital replacement: Over time all capital improvements will physically or functionally depreciate, and at some time in the future all of the swing sets, tennis courts and restrooms will have to be replaced. The capital replacement does not include land or the initial investment in land improvements to clear, grade, and install utilities to it. Capital replacement concerns only those physical assets put on the land for recreational uses, including light fixtures, play equipment, restrooms. Repair of these facilities such as replacing light bulbs, the seats on swings, table tops, and even trash containers is paid for and budgeted as annual O&M costs. When the basic structures wear out, such as the whole swing set, or the entire restroom building, then the city would normally pay for it by issuing a general obligation bond. Some have suggested that the city establish a sinking fund for capital replacement. It could. The sinking fund is more appropriately a special revenue fund. To implement it, the city would calculate a replacement cost and year to replace each facility, assume a rate of investment on savings, and using present value calculations determine how much money to put into savings each year so that at the year replacement is required, sufficient revenue is in the special revenue fund to simply pay cash for the replacement facilities. Over time this fund would grow into the millions of dollars. The city would get the money to put into savings for parks either from the general fund or some dedicated source of general fund revenue. Unless the city is collecting more money in the general fund than it needs for current expenses (plus the contingency), it could fund the park's special revenue fund only by reducing some other general fund allocation. At least in its present state, the general fund cannot afford much in the way of savings for a parks' special revenue fund. One strategy the city could adopt for parks is to issue park general obligation bonds on a more timely and more frequent basis. This strategy would begin only after the proposed $57.165 million bond had been issued and all of the planned improvements were made - probably 15 years from 1999 or approximately 2015. These subsequent bond issues would be smaller, say $5 million or $10 million each, once every 5 to 7 years. Each bond would be used to replace a specific set of depreciated facilities so that over the very long run the city would continuously replace old facilities. In this way, the city would not be replacing all park facilities at one time. Each bond issue would more easily fit into the city's debt limit of $2.42 per $1,000 of assessed value. Such a strategy would avoid repeating the proposed and fairly massive $57.165 million reconstruction and new park construction to make up the LOC deficit. Two important trends are noted in Table II-19. First, operating revenues must keep up with inflation and with the increasing number of acres in parks. The two sources of revenue shown in Table II-19 are the General Fund, unrestricted, and a new source of revenue, identified only as the shortfall. The General Fund revenue is growing in proportion to the growth in the economy and the assessed value of real estate: two percent per year real growth and three percent per year due to increased assessed values on unchanged properties, or a combined annual growth rate of five percent per year. It matches the trend set over the past decade. Total revenue equals the total operating costs. Operating costs are forecast to increase five percent per year due to inflation plus a proportionate increase in operating costs due to new parks being added to the park system. Cost per acre per year is inflated at five percent per year. The General Fund short fall is the difference between total revenues (required for total operating costs) and general fund revenue that increases at an historical rate. The need for a new revenue source becomes a necessity by FY 2006 after enough new parks have been added to the system to significantly increase O&M costs. The city might limp along until FY 2006 by adding a few new acres of park and reducing O&M expenditures per acre to keep all of the parks operating in the short term. In the long term, however, it will have to increase O&M expenditures per acre. The new source will be needed sooner if the city experiences significant housing growth and it builds new parks as required by its urban growth management policy. Also, it is apparent that this new source of revenue must increase with the growth in new parks. The city will probably need to find new sources of revenue for the General Fund to fund growing park O&M expenses. The city is already aware that General Fund property taxes, while the largest single source of revenue to the General Fund, cannot meet all of the city's financial needs. The sources of general fund revenue for any city in Oregon is determined by two key variables, the structure of its economy, and the historical set of City Council and voter-determined tax and fee policies. Compared to other Oregon cities, Salem's economy is heavily weighted to state government. This one sector of Salem's economy is the single largest employer and occupies much of the city's central city real estate, normally very valuable for retail, office, and high-density residential uses. Unlike the private land uses in other central cities, the state does not pay property taxes to Salem. As a result, its property tax collections per capita are far below those of other cities in Oregon. Table II-20 illustrates this point. Figure II-4 Assessed Values of Jurisdictions in Salem and Vicinity http://www.cityofsalem.net/departments/parks/master_vol_2.html (28 of 30)2/14/2008 7:23:48 AM City of Salem - Master Plan Volume II The proposal to develop a park district would parallel the recent attempts to form a library district. Formation of the district would have to be approved by voters and voters would have to approve any tax rate or general obligation bond measure to pay for parks. The district would have its own elected board of directors which alone would be responsible to the voters. In an idealistic formation, the two cities and two counties would relinquish their parks to the district for free and the district would immediately take responsibility for the parks, operate them, and make all of the choices about what new parks to build. This, of course, would foster competition for the limited property tax revenue available under the ten dollar per $1,000 assessed value imposed by Ballot Measure 5. Table II-21 Assessed Values by Jurisdiction in the Salem Vicinity 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 Salem/Keizer SD 3,671,262,373 3,581,650,714 3,637,318,381 3,754,963,683 3,981,512,714 4,346,795,302 5,131,493,589 5,817,707,540 6,607,428,612 % Growth -2.4% 1.6% 3.2% 6.0% 9.2% 18.1% 13.4% 13.6% % of Salem 155.1% 154.8% 153.2% 154.8% 155.6% 154.5% 152.2% 152.3% 153.3% Salem 2,367,059,689 2,313,040,882 2,374,671,462 2,425,096,651 2,559,570,173 2,813,295,913 3,370,487,673 3,819,129,950 4,309,978,222 % Growth -2.3% 2.7% 2.1% 5.5% 9.9% 19.8% 13.3% 12.9% % of Salem 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Keizer 377,962,640 371,049,940 378,643,350 401,900,070 439,185,430 491,681,730 590,767,830 672,401,710 785,728,070 % Growth -1.8% 2.0% 6.1% 9.3% 12.0% 20.2% 13.8% 16.9% % of Salem 16.0% 16.0% 15.9% 16.6% 17.2% 17.5% 17.5% 17.6% 18.2% Unincorporated 926,240,044 897,559,892 884,003,569 927,966,962 982,757,111 1,041,817,659 1,170,238,086 1,326,175,880 1,511,722,320 % Growth -3.1% -1.5% 5.0% 5.9% 6.0% 12.3% 13.3% 14.0% % of Salem 39.1% 38.8% 37.2% 38.3% 38.4% 37.0% 34.7% 34.7% 35.1% 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Salem/Keizer SD 7,386,516,552 8,392,138,615 9,225,667,914 8,149,808,318 8,604,452,827 % Growth 11.8% 13.6% 9.9% -11.7% 5.6% % of Salem 153.5% 154.3% 155.5% 153.5% 153.0% Salem 4,812,184,509 5,437,515,920 5,932,754,884 5,308,293,410 5,623,728,284 http://www.cityofsalem.net/departments/parks/master_vol_2.html (29 of 30)2/14/2008 7:23:48 AM City of Salem - Master Plan Volume II % Growth 11.7% 13.0% 9.1% -10.5% 5.9% % of Salem 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Keizer 890,665,180 1,060,977,450 1,150,878,900 1,063,315,846 1,123,576,376 % Growth 13.4% 19.1% 8.5% -7.6% 5.7% % of Salem 18.5% 19.5% 19.4% 20.0% 20.0% Unincorporated 1,683,666,863 1,893,645,245 2,142,034,130 1,778,199,062 1,857,148,167 % Growth 11.4% 12.5% 13.1% -17.0% 4.4% % of Salem 35.0% 34.8% 36.1% 33.5% 33.0% In a less idealistic formation, the cities and counties may agree to relinquish only large urban parks, regional parks, or both to the district, and each city might retain its own neighborhood and community parks. The neighborhood and community parks serve a much smaller geographic area than larger parks, and the larger parks are more likely used by people from outside the local area. In the future, the jurisdictions may explore a parks and recreation district to better equate park usage with taxable authority. Such a solution may rest ultimately with Salem and Keizer alone because the unincorporated areas of the counties will ultimately be incorporated into the cities. Page Last Modified: July 21, 2006 Top of Page Comment PrintVersion City Contacts Website Help Home | Services | About | Calendar Fire | Legal | Library | Police | Municipal Court Public Works | Parking Services | Transportation Senior Center | Neighborhood Associations Copyright © 2007 City of Salem, Oregon All Rights Reserved All City pages are maintained by City of Salem employees. Email comments or suggestions to webmaster@cityofsalem.net Website Disclaimer http://www.cityofsalem.net/departments/parks/master_vol_2.html (30 of 30)2/14/2008 7:23:48 AM