INTRODUCTION

PHASE I. INVENTORY

• Overview
• Demographic Profile
• Facilities Inventory and Assessment
• Inventory and Assessment Results

PHASE II. NEEDS ASSESSMENT

• Overview
• Public Attitude Research
• Interactive Public Forums

PHASE III. POLICY DEVELOPMENT

• Overview
• Steering Committee
• Policy Advisory Committee
• Review of Existing Planning Policies and Programs
• Planning Process

PHASE IV. ACTION PROGRAMS

• Role of Park and Recreation Advisory Board
• Policy Implementation
  • Part 1 Recreation and Open Space Facilities
  • Part 2 Capital Improvement Plan
  • Part 3 Operation and Maintenance Plan
  • Part 4 Financing Strategies

HISTORICAL FINANCIAL ANALYSIS

TABLES

• Table II-1: Existing Neighborhood Parks
• Table II-2: Existing Community Parks
• Table II-3: Existing Large Urban Parks
• Table II-4: Existing Special Use Facilities
• Table II-5: Existing Historic Areas
• Table II-6: Existing Natural Resource Areas
• Table II-7: Existing Connector Trails
• Table II-8: Policy Advisory Committee
• Table II-9: Deficit-Related Parks
• Table II-10: Growth-Related Parks
• Table II-11: Park Standards and Acres
• Table II-12: Acquisition and Development Costs
• Table II-13: Park Acquisition and Development Costs
• Table II-14: Park Operations and Maintenance Costs per Acre
• Table II-15: Growth of Population and Park Acres
• Table II-16: SDC Options
• Table II-17: Systems Development Charge Fund
• Table II-18: General Fund and Parks Operations Revenues
• Table II-19: Forecast Cash Flow
• Table II-20: Comparison of Property Tax Receipts per Capital
• Table II-21: Assessed Values by Jurisdiction in the Salem Vicinity

FIGURES

• Figure II-1: Existing Conditions Legend and Map
• Figure II-2: General Fund and Park Revenue
• Figure II-3: General Fund and Short Fall Revenues
• 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

Key Findings

An evaluation of the demographic profile data identified four key findings to be considered when developing the Master Plan:

• 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.
• 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.
• Park System Growth. The park system should also grow to keep pace with the recreational demands of population growth.
• 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.

• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Connector Trails

These provide for safe uninterrupted pedestrian and/or bicyclist travel between parks and open spaces around the community on separate pathways where possible.

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)

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.

• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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 convenience, proximity, and tranquility of smaller community and neighborhood parks.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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:

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.

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:

• Inventory information
• Needs Assessment
• 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:

• Guide new park development as contemplated in the Master Plan.
• 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.
• Provide input to the Budget Committee and City Council regarding alternative sources of revenue to finance park facilities and O & M.
• Provide an annual review of the park programs and the City's progress in implementing the Master Plan to City Council.
• 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:

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.

• Their unique nature and special locational requirements make it very difficult to develop rational standards.
• 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.
• 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.

• 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.
• 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.
• 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 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).

*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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

• Priority One: Renovate, upgrade, and remove barriers to existing parks
• 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
• 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.

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.

• 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.
• 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 operations.
• 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:
  • Increase the transient occupancy tax
  • Expand the current business license fee
  • Create a business gross receipts tax
  • Create a current employee tax
  • Create a restaurant/meal tax
  • Create an amusement/admission tax
  • Cost savings through inter-agency cooperation
  • Donations
  • 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 i