Crawford Crossing A Park Concept Plan August 2017 Final Report Prepared For: Prepared By: City of Turner Community Service Center 5255 Chicago Street SE School of Planning, Public Policy, and Management Turner, OR 97392 University of Oregon Special Thanks & Acknowledgements The Community Service Center wishes to thank City of Turner staff David Sawyer and Linda Hansen, as well as City Councilor Joe Soukup for their assistance and advice throughout this project. We would also like to acknowledge Michelle Patrick, the 2016-17 Resource Assistance for Rural Environments (RARE) AmeriCorps Participant with the Mid-Willamette Valley Council of Governments and Marion County, for her support and contributions throughout the project. Finally, we thank Lisa Iverson and her 2016-17 AVID students at Cascade High School for their impressive and thoughtful outreach efforts related to visioning for the new park. Community Service Center Research Team Josh Bruce, Director Greg Oldson, Landscape Designer Ellee Stapleton, Landscape Designer Aniko Drlik-Muehleck, Project Manager Megan Knox, Student Researcher About the Community Service Center The Community Service Center (CSC) is a research center affiliated with the Department of Planning, Public Policy, and Management at the University of Oregon. It is an interdisciplinary organization that assists Oregon communities by providing planning and technical assistance to help solve local issues and improve the quality of life for Oregon residents. The role of the CSC is to link the skills, expertise, and innovation of higher education with the transportation, economic development, and environmental needs of communities and regions in the State of Oregon, thereby providing service to Oregon and learning opportunities to the students involved. Table of Contents Section 1: Background 1 Section 2: The Planning Process 3 Section 3: The Site 6 Section 4: The Conceptual Master Plan 9 Section 5: Developing Crawford Crossing 15 Appendix A: Three Preliminary Designs 21 Appendix B: Community Engagement – Process and Results 25 Appendix C: Resources for Park Development 55 Appendix D: Financing Resources 59 Appendix E: Wetland Resources 65 Section 1: Background Turner, Oregon is growing. A new residential development will soon Crawford Crossing Park and Turner’s Other Parks increase the city’s housing stock by about a third, presenting new opportunities for community and economic development in Turner. Among these opportunities is the chance to develop 40 acres around Crawford Lake into a beautiful lakeside park with access to fishing, boating, hiking, picnicking, and outdoor enjoyment. This document outlines a vision and concept for this new park, based on extensive input from Turner area residents both young and old. The City of Turner and interested community groups can use the park design concept and resources presented here as a guide for building out the park over the coming years. About the Concept Plan Crawford Lake, located in northern Turner, began its life as a quarry excavated by Riverbend Sand and Gravel. The quarry was retired in 2008 and has gradually filled with water to form what is now the 70- acre Crawford Lake. After almost a decade, the land around the lake is being developed, adding 203 new single family homes and 131 apartment units to the Turner residential community. The “Crawford Crossing” development offers more than the promise of residential growth: as part of the project, the City of Turner is receiving 40 acres of donated land on the southern end of Crawford Lake to develop as a public park. As Turner grows, the new Crawford Crossing Park will enhance residents’ quality of life by offering access to the lake’s recreational amenities and increasing the availability of natural areas and open spaces for public use. Crawford Crossing: A Park Concept August 2017 1 Recognizing the need for careful planning to realize the opportunities of the new park, the City of Turner engaged a team from the University of Oregon’s Community Service Center (CSC) to develop a conceptual design and vision for the park. The CSC team spent several months evaluating the park site, gathering input from residents about their desires and vision for the park, and drafting conceptual designs for the layout and amenities of the 40-acre site. After gathering final feedback from residents at the Turner Celebration in early June 2017, the CSC team worked with City staff to finalize the park design. In this document, we present the final park design, describe the process used to develop it, and offer suggestions about how the City can begin to convert an undeveloped tract of land into an accessible, well-used recreational area on the shores of Crawford Lake. The remainder of the plan is organized as follows:  The Planning Process – we describe how we worked with community members to develop a vision for the park that matches their desires and priorities.  The Site – we provide a brief analysis of the 40-acre undeveloped site of the future Crawford Crossing Park.  The Conceptual Master Plan – we present the final design concept with accompanying descriptions and renderings.  Developing Crawford Crossing – we estimate the costs associated with park development and maintenance, offer suggestions about development phasing, and discuss financing strategies. We also include several appendices with additional information about public input, the design process, and resources for park development (including a list of appropriate plants and specific examples of funding Crawford Lake in November 2016 mechanisms). 2 Section 1: Background Section 2: The Planning Process The design for Crawford Crossing Park was created through an iterative Community Conversations process of design development and community input. The final design therefore reflects both the expertise of the CSC’s team of landscape Before beginning design work, CSC staff spoke with a variety of Turner designers and planners as well as the specific input of the residents of residents to gather initial input about their desires for the site. As part Turner. of this process, CSC staff conducted extended interviews with several key stakeholders in the community. To complement these efforts and further investigate the preferences of residents for the new park, AVID students at Cascade High School conducted over 500 surveys with children at the elementary school, students and staff at the high school, and their parents. The AVID students then presented their work to city officials and CSC staff. Finally, the Turnaround Café hosted a drop-in conversation session with CSC staff where community members could learn about the project and offer their ideas and opinions. Planning team surveys the site, Nov. 2016 Site Analysis Site analysis was conducted during the winter of 2016 and early 2017. CSC designers and planners familiarized themselves with site conditions both through remote use of aerial photos and maps, as well as through site visits. Maps and remote imagery of the site helped designers understand the spatial configuration of elements on site, and site visits added context and deeper understanding of on-the-ground conditions. City of Turner staff and CSC staff took extensive notes and photos on site and spent time understanding topography, viewsheds, plant AVID students present findings, Feb. 2017 composition, lake edge conditions, and the relationship of the site to adjacent land. Crawford Crossing: A Park Concept August 2017 3 Preliminary Designs The survey also revealed that most respondents understood the need to raise additional funds to pay for the new park. Of the funding Based on the information gathered from site analysis and community options presented on the survey, respondents most preferred an conversations, CSC designers generated three initial design concepts. increase of the monthly utility bill fee, but had mixed feelings about Each of these concepts addressed a different theme or idea and using a vehicle-entrance fee or forming a parks and recreation special represented a different direction for the future park. “Nature taxing district. In addition to fee-based systems, respondents also Exploration” explored options for limited park programming, expressed support for generating revenue from rentals, fundraisers, emphasized wetland restoration, and focused much of human use on and volunteer efforts. See Appendix B for full details on survey hiking and biking trails. “Lakeside recreation” included more built responses. elements related to lake access but, similar to the first plan, retained the feeling of a community park. “Regional attraction” envisioned the Design Refinement park as a recreational amenity for the broader region, drawing significant numbers of visitors from outside of Turner. Refer to The final consolidated design represents a refined version of the Appendix A to see each of these preliminary concepts. “Lakeside Recreation” concept, based directly on survey respondents’ preference for this design. This design includes amenities that were The goal of these designs was to help community members (as well as consistently popular among survey respondents, most notably trail designers themselves) understand the options that exist for infrastructure, natural areas, and lake access. Also based on development of the park. The designs demonstrate both the types of respondent feedback, the design does not include higher impact amenities that could be included in the park, as well as the spatial developments such as extensive parking facilities, that could brand the orientation of these elements. park as a regional attraction. Survey The three concept plans were presented to the community as part of a broader survey about the development of the park. With over 200 survey responses, the CSC team was able to draw significantly on the public’s input for the final design, as well as ideas for financing the park. In terms of park design and use, survey respondents expressed particular interest in having access to a trail system, maintaining a “natural” feel for the park, and using the park primarily for leisure and social activities as opposed to sports-based uses. Overall, nearly half of respondents (48%) preferred the “Lakeside Recreation” concept (compared with 30% selecting “Nature Exploration” and 22% selecting Turner Celebration activity, June 2017 “Regional Attraction” as their favorite designs). 4 Section 2: The Planning Process Turner Celebration Presentation A draft of the final consolidated design was unveiled to the community at the Turner Celebration in early June. Community members were given the opportunity to respond to the design and share additional ideas and feedback. Responses were overwhelmingly positive. Final Design Because the design met with a positive reception from the community, only limited modifications were made after the Turner Celebration presentation. The final design responds to community members’ needs and desires and lays the foundation for the City to begin developing this much-anticipated outdoor amenity. Crawford Crossing: A Park Concept August 2017 5 Section 3: The Site The future Crawford Crossing Park has a wealth of space and existing natural features. At approximately 40 acres, this community park has the potential to host unique activities for Turner residents including hiking trails, fishing and boating access, and even an off-leash dog park. The CSC team evaluated opportunities and constraints for park development by reviewing existing conditions and current development regulations. Key opportunities and constraints are summarized below. Opportunities  The large site allows for diverse park programming and the ability to separate active and passive recreational activities. Large swale constructed to manage runoff on site, June 2017  An extensive flat area east of Turner Rd. is ideal for vehicle access and provides a large area for active programming Constraints (playground, group picnic area, dog park, etc.) and infrastructure.  In accordance with the proposed conditions to donate the lake  An abundance of natural resources including wetlands, and park property to the City of Turner, a 100-foot buffer is to Crawford Lake, and a large area of forested hillside provide for be maintained adjacent to any residential development, a multitude of recreational and educational opportunities in regulating any park uses, including lighting. addition to diverse wildlife habitat.  Over 2 acres of wetlands on the eastern side of the park as well  The 70-acre Crawford Lake gives amble space for future water as fringe wetlands along the edge of the lake limit activities including fishing, swimming, and non-motorized boat development without proper mitigation. use.  The forested hillside on the eastern portion of the property has  The forested hillside adjacent to Val View road provides steep grades up to 35% limiting future development to trails viewing opportunities as well as space for a uniquely secluded and possible overlook areas. trail system within Turner’s city limits.  The Crawford Crossing development requires the construction  Long frontage streets along Turner Road and Val View allow of a 20-foot fire access road to connect the south park the development of a variety of pedestrian entry points for entrance at Holly St. to the southeast corner of the housing Turner residents. development. 6 Section 3: The Site Existing Site Conditions Crawford Crossing: A Park Concept August 2017 7 Wooded hillside on the eastern portion of the site, November 2016 8 Section 3: The Site Section 4: The Conceptual Master Plan The conceptual master plan for Crawford Crossing Park was developed based on information acquired through on-site analysis and background research, as well as input from conversations with community members and the public survey. The master plan should be used by the City as a conceptual document for both spatial layout and a recommendation for site amenities that reflect the current desires of the community. As implementation occurs, elements in the park design and layout may vary from the master plan depending on available funding, changing community needs and desires, and unforeseen constraints. Goals To complement the conceptual master plan, we provide a list of broad AVID class survey results – Middle School, Feb. 2017 goals to direct the development of this community-focused park, outlined below:  Preserve and enhance natural features, including delineated wetlands and mixed Douglas Fir and hardwood forests on the eastern portion of the site.  Develop a system of both hard surface paths and soft surface trails to access natural areas and provide ADA accessibility to major park amenities.  Provide a diversity of unique park amenities that are inclusive to all ages and abilities.  Ensure community access to the park through trails and bike paths that connect directly to existing neighborhoods and transportation infrastructure.  Develop safe and ADA approved access for public water activities (fishing, non-motorized boat access, swimming). AVID class survey results - Adults, Feb. 2017 Crawford Crossing: A Park Concept August 2017 9 Final Design Con cept 10 Section 4: The Conceptual Master Plan Final Design Cross Sections Crawford Crossing: A Park Concept August 2017 11 Recommended Site Amenities conservation efforts within the park. A 20-foot fire access road is currently required by the Crawford Crossing Development on the east Parking – Two parking lots with a total of 60 possible parking spaces side of the park. Permeable paver systems (resources included in are proposed within the park. The main parking lot will accommodate Appendix C) should be investigated in order to create a 12-foot hard up to 50 vehicles and provide access to the more highly programmed surface path with 4-foot vegetated paver shoulders to maintain the west side of the park including playground area, picnic pavilion, dog required 20-foot fire access. park, trails and lake access. The parking lot would be accessed from the entrance at the junction of Holly Street and 2nd Street. A second Preferred trail aesthetic (from survey) Source: http://www.mainetrailfinder.com/trails/trail/colby-college-runnals-hill parking lot (10 spaces) is proposed to access wetland and forested trails at the southeast corner of the park. Lake Boardwalk – A boardwalk is proposed as a part of the trail system on the southeastern portion of the park. The boardwalk would serve as an interactive feature with visitors elevated over a portion of the lake. Parking lot example with stormwater management features Source: Greg Oldson Seating benches, interpretive signage, and ADA-compliant fishing access could be integrated into the boardwalk design. Paths and Trails – As the most desired amenity for the new park, more than two miles of trails are proposed. Three different types of paths and trails are recommended, including soft surface hiking trails, five- foot wide concrete walking paths, and 12-foot wide concrete or asphalt multi-use paths. The more highly programmed west side of the park will be entirely ADA accessible with hard surface paths connecting all of the primary amenities. The less developed east side of the park, including wetlands, lakeside views and forested hillside will all be accessed by way of soft surface hiking trails. Interpretive signage should be provided along a wetland trail loop to add educational Boardwalk example opportunities and raise public awareness about the ecology and Source: Reubenscube.net 12 Section 4: The Conceptual Master Plan Dock to provide access for fishing, swimming, and boat access – be located near park access points, central locations, and areas of There is strong local interest in lake activities, including fishing, concentrated uses. Trash receptacles should be located for easy access swimming, and non-motorized boat access. In order to increase lake by park maintenance staff. access and minimize disturbance to the lake’s fringe wetlands, a floating dock is proposed on the southwest side of the lake near the Site Lighting – Lighting should be placed within the park to enhance main parking area. At least one ADA compliant fishing platform should security and safety. All parking lots and hard surface path areas should be considered along the southwest side of the park. be lighted for security. Playground – Input gathered from the community survey and various Picnic Pavilion – A 40-foot by 32-foot covered picnic pavilion is workshops suggest interest in a nature-play themed playground. This recommended near the playground area on the west side of the park. may be an area where local resources (boulders, timber, etc.) and local The pavilion should be located in close proximity to the restrooms and artistic talent can assist with design and construction phases. A parking lot. The facility will have electricity and lighting and should be combination of traditional and nature-based play structures can available for group rentals for a fee. accommodate a wide range of ages and abilities and should be considered to create ADA access. Preferred picnic pavilion aesthetic (from survey) Source: http://www.plantcitygov.com/770/Pavilion-Rentals Preferred playground aesthetic (from survey) Dog Park – A one acre fenced dog park is proposed on the west side of Source: http://www.play-scapes.com/play-design/natural-playgrounds/westmoreland-nature- the park. A new dog park should have entrances at both the north and play-area-portland-oregon-2014/ south ends of the fenced area to accommodate use from the main Site Furnishings – Site furnishings include picnic tables, benches, trash parking lot as well as for residents in the new Crawford Crossing receptacles, bicycle racks, BBQs, and drinking fountains. Bicycle racks development. Amenities in the dog park should include doggie clean-up should be located near park entrances and major features to station, water spigot, shaded seating benches, and a maintenance encourage non-motorized transportation to the park. Benches and entrance. picnic tables should be scattered throughout the park, individually or in small groupings to provide a diverse array of settings for picnicking, socializing, or resting. Trash receptacles and drinking fountains should Crawford Crossing: A Park Concept August 2017 13 Maintenance Supply Storage – Due to the large size of the park, it is recommended that an additional storage area be located in the park for maintenance equipment. Either the restroom or covered picnic pavilion could be designed to provide additional storage space. Dog park example Source: http://www.visitbuckscounty.com/listing/bucks-county-off-leash-dog-park-core-creek- park/3110/ Restrooms – A two-room conventional restroom is recommended to be located at the north end of the main parking lot. The restroom design could include additional space for needed maintenance equipment and supplies. Romtec restroom example Source: https://romtec.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/napa-golf-course-restroom- building.png 14 Section 4: The Conceptual Master Plan Section 5: Developing Crawford Crossing The development of Crawford Crossing will likely take many years – southeast portion of the park. Below, we list the major features of each even decades – depending on funding availability and the capacity of of the three phases along with an approximate cost estimate for each the community to rally around the effort. We suggest a phased phase. Note that these estimates are for planning purposes only. As the approach to park development so that residents can see some most costly phase, Phase I may need to be broken into several “sub- immediate improvements and begin using the space in the very near phases” that are more manageable. Park development will ultimately future. In this section, we propose phasing and provide cost estimates depend on availability of funding, long-term maintenance strategies, for the various recommended park elements. We also include a brief and continued assessment of the public’s desires for the park. description of funding strategies for park development and park maintenance. These suggestions are based on a scan of financing Phase I – Access and Active West Side strategies that other cities in Oregon similar to Turner are using to Key Features: west main parking lot, large pavilion, playground area, support their parks. The City and its partners can use the phasing, cost restrooms, initial water access, and major hard surface paths to provide estimates, and financing strategy information as resources for making ADA access to amenities. Crawford Crossing a reality. Phase I Cost Estimates Phasing and Development Cost Estimates Program Element Quantity Unit Cost/Unit Total Phase I Access and active west side The proposed phasing for Crawford Crossing Park focuses on creating Site Utilities access to the parks core infrastructure, followed by the addition of a Electrical Service 1 LS $ 15,000.00 $ 1 5,000.00 Lights (Parking Lots) 8 Each $ 2 ,500.00 $ 2 0,000.00 robust trail system and other amenities as funding becomes available. Lights (Paths) 22 Each $ 1,500.00 $ 3 3,000.00 Phasing takes into consideration the community’s desire for specific Sewer 350 ln. ft. $ 5 0.00 $ 17,500.00 park features as well as maintenance needs and the potential for Water service (meter) 1 Each $ 5 ,000.00 $ 5 ,000.00 developing sustainable community volunteer groups and partnerships. Earthwork Bermed areas (fill soil) 1794 Cu. Yd. $ 10.00 $ 17,940.00 With initial grants or other funding for park start-up and infrastructure, Parking West Main Lot - Parking the major active area on the west side of the park should be developed cost per space 46 1 space $ 1,692.50 $ 77,855.00 in Phase I to include parking, primary hard surface paths, restrooms, Playground Area and other amenities to draw the local community. Future lake access Play Equipment (nature play theme) 1 Each $ 50,000.00 $ 50,000.00 may also need to be assessed as Phase I is initiated. Phase II should Bark chip surfacing 185 Cu. Yd. $ 25.00 $ 4,625.00 focus on developing the trails system on the east side of the park as 2R eRsotroomo mcosnventional well as constructing some of the other features that will be unique to restroom with utility room 1 Each $ 90,000.00 $ 9 0,000.00 this park (such as the interpretive trail system). As park use increases, Pavilions 40' x 32' picnic pavilion 1 Each $ 100,000.00 $ 100,000.00 Phase III would add a small parking lot and picnic pavilion in the Crawford Crossing: A Park Concept August 2017 15 Program Element Quantity Unit Cost/Unit Total Phase II – Trails, Trails, Trails, and More Phase I Site Ammenities Picnic tables 8 Each $ 1,500.00 $ 12,000.00 Key Features: east side hiking trails, wetland restoration and wetland BBQ grills 5 Each $ 150.00 $ 750.00 interpretive trail, more playground equipment, and more site Seating benches (6' ADA) 4 Each $ 2 ,000.00 $ 8,000.00 amenities. Drinking fountain 1 Each $ 4,000.00 $ 4 ,000.00 Bike racks 1 Each $ 1,200.00 $ 1 ,200.00 Program Element Quantity Unit Cost/Unit Total Garbage can 3 Each $ 500.00 $ 1 ,500.00 Phase II Trails, trails, trails and more Removable Bollards (on Trails fire access road) 2 Each $ 500.00 $ 1,000.00 Soft surface trails (crushed Entry sign 1 Each $ 3,000.00 $ 3 ,000.00 gravel) 17,800 Sq. Ft. $ 3 .00 $ 53,400.00 Park rules/safety signage 4 Each $ 5 00.00 $ 2 ,000.00 Playground Area Water Access Traditional Play Equipment 1 Each $ 50,000.00 $ 50,000.00 30' x 10' Floating Dock Site Amenities (ADA accessible) 1 Each $ 8 0,000.00 $ 80,000.00 Bike racks 1 Each $ 1,200.00 $ 1,200.00 Paths Park rules/safety signage 4 Each $ 5 00.00 $ 2,000.00 4' hard surface paths (4" Vegetation concrete) 1,000 Sq. Ft. $ 7 .50 $ 7,500.00 Trees (2" caliper) 16 Each $ 250.00 $ 4,000.00 6' hard surface paths (4" Restoration/native concrete) 10,900 Sq. Ft. $ 7 .50 $ 8 1,750.00 plantings Sq. Ft. $ 3.00 Vegetation Phase II Total $ 110,600.00 Topsoil @ new lawn areas 12" 700 Cu. Yd. $ 25.00 $ 1 7,500.00 Fine grading for lawn 19000 Sq. Ft. $ 0.25 $ 4 ,750.00 Compost (for trees) 22 Cu. Yd. $ 3 5.00 $ 770.00 Seeded Lawn 19000 Sq. Ft. $ 0.15 $ 2,850.00 Trees (2" caliper) 44 Each $ 250.00 $ 11,000.00 Planting beds (Soil prep, fertilizers, plant materials, mulch) 5000 Sq. Ft. $ 6 .50 $ 32,500.00 Upland Savannah seed for disturbed areas 180000 Sq. Ft. $ 0.10 $ 18,000.00 Restoration/native plantings 25000 Sq. Ft. $ 3.00 $ 7 5,000.00 Irrigation Lawn area 19000 Sq. Ft. $ 0.50 $ 9 ,500.00 Planting beds 5000 Sq. Ft. $ 0 .50 $ 2 ,500.00 Phase I Total $ 807,990.00 16 Section 5: Developing Crawford Crossing Phase III – Expanded Southeast Access Combined Phases – Total Cost Estimates Key Features: southeast parking lot, small pavilion, lake boardwalk, For planning purposes only, we estimate the total cost of developing ADA accessible fishing dock, dog park. Crawford Crossing will be around $1.3 million. As park development continues, the City will have to obtain more accurate cost estimates Program Element Quantity Unit Cost/Unit Total from contractors for each project. Phase III Expanded southeast access Parking Phase I Total $ 8 07,990.00 Southeast lot 10 1 space $ 1,692.50 $ 1 6,925.00 Phase II Total $ 110,600.00 Pavilions 16' x 12' picnic pavilion 1 Each $ 30,000.00 $ 3 0,000.00 Phase III Total $ 155,375.00 Water Access SUBTOTAL $ 1 ,073,965.00 ADA accessible fishing dock 1 Each $ 3 5,000.00 $ 3 5,000.00 Add 10% Design/Engineering $ 107,396.50 Site Ammenities Add 15% Contingency $ 161,094.75 Picnic tables 2 Each $ 1,500.00 $ 3,000.00 Add 2% Fees $ 21,479.30 Seating benches (6' ADA) 4 Each $ 2,000.00 $ 8 ,000.00 TOTAL $ 1,363,935.55 Garbage can 2 Each $ 500.00 $ 1 ,000.00 Dog Park Fence 835 ln. ft. $ 20.00 $ 1 6,700.00 Ongoing Maintenance Gates 2 Each $ 1 ,500.00 $ 3,000.00 Benches 2 Each $ 2,000.00 $ 4 ,000.00 With an additional 40 acres of developed and natural area park land, Water spigot $ - Turner park’s system will experience a significant increase in Signage/pick-up station 1 Each $ 2 50.00 $ 250.00 maintenance costs. The new Crawford Crossing Park will consist of Paths approximately three to five acres of developed park and 35 acres of 150 ' Lake boardwalk 150 ln. ft. $ 250.00 $ 37,500.00 natural area (undeveloped park). According to Tualatin’s Park and Phase III Total $ 155,375.00 Recreation District, between 2012 and 2016, the average annual maintenance costs were $2,908 per developed acre and $249 per undeveloped acre. Developed Areas – The park’s developed acres will require routine maintenance to keep the park in good working order. This includes regular mowing and weed management, cleaning of restrooms, and minor ongoing upkeep and repairs to structures, site furnishings, paths, signage, and other amenities. Undeveloped Areas – In order to maintain healthy ecological systems within the park, natural areas should be both stabilized and incrementally improved. Maintenance and restoration regimes in natural areas will include: invasive species control, trail maintenance, Crawford Crossing: A Park Concept August 2017 17 tree falling and removal, reseeding and planting, and potentially community support for parks. In many instances, communities were developing monitoring reports on species inventory and health. able to generate sustained sponsorship for maintenance along with actual money gathered during fundraisers. Examples of fundraisers Volunteers and partnerships will likely become a core strategy for discussed during interviews include sporting events such as triathlons managing upkeep of both developed and undeveloped park areas. and paddleboard races, community festivals and beer tastings, and Appendix D contains more detailed information about how other smaller scale events like monthly bingo nights. Oregon cities have leveraged community members, organizations, and businesses to assist with park maintenance. To complement funds raised for park development, many communities also rely on volunteer support or student projects to actually install Financing Strategies new park features. Volunteers supervised by professionals can perform much of the labor involved with park construction, and students are The Turner Parks Master Plan discusses a wide range of funding tools often looking for community service or applied learning projects. In Mt. available to cities for the development and maintenance of parks. To Angel, for example, students will be welding and installing signs for a gather more specific detail about how cities in Oregon approach heritage trail as part of their course work. For full case studies see funding parks like Crawford Crossing, or park features similar to those Appendix D: Financing Resources. proposed for Crawford Crossing, the CSC team interviewed representatives from six cities and parks districts across the state. Resources Details of these interviews can be found in Appendix D: Financing  Oregon Parks and Recreation Department: Local Government Resources. In the following two sections, we summarize typical Grants: ORPD awards $4 million annually to communities for strategies used by the cities and districts we interviewed. The City of outdoor recreation projects, including parks development. Turner can use these ideas for inspiration as staff begin to assemble a Match criteria is 20% for communities with a population of funding package for the park. 5,000 or less. Financing Park Development Website for all OPRD grants: https://www.oregon.gov/oprd/GRANTS/ Financing strategies for parks development can include grants from government or nonprofit entities as well as partnerships with  Oregon Parks and Recreation Department: Regional Trail organizations to provide sponsorship or donate labor for capital Grants: Available for hiking, biking, running and multi-use trail improvements. The Oregon Parks and Recreation Department’s (OPRD) development. Matching criteria requires applicants (city) grants program are the most abundant source of funding for parks provide at least 20% of project total cost, which may include development available statewide, and many of the communities we cash, materials, volunteer labor, other grants, etc. contacted reported having received one or more grants from OPRD for their most recent park developments. Contact: Mike Law: 503-986-0592 Fundraising was also a popular strategy for funding capital  The Ford Family Foundation: Community Spaces Grants: improvements in parks. Fundraising can be a collaborative effort Grants are focused on enhancing community participation and between local government and community partners such as local created physical spaces that are open to the public. Eligible businesses and school districts, and has the potential to build projects include parks and playgrounds, with a limit of up to 18 Section 5: Developing Crawford Crossing $25,000. Priority given to communities with populations of less decided not to build new parks, even though they have sufficient than 35,000 and projects with demonstrated evidence of funding for park development, because they don’t feel they can cover community investment and project sustainability. the maintenance costs these new parks would create. Website: http://www.tfff.org/what-we-do/vital-rural- Although the cities spoken with expressed the difficulty of ensuring communities/community-and-economic-development/rural- long term maintenance on a lean city budget, they offered some capital-projects creative solutions to keep costs as low as possible. Many of the communities reported using volunteer labor for some maintenance  Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife: Restoration and tasks, although lack of continuity can be an issue. A park in Hood River Enhancement Grants: Funds projects that increase public has a unique “adopt-a-plot” strategy which allows businesses or fishing access, including construction of docks. individuals to volunteer to weed and maintain parcels of the park’s Contact: R&E Program Coordinator: 503-947-6232 landscaping. Community groups, religious organizations, and students Website: http://www.dfw.state.or.us/fish/RE/ may also be sources of routine or one-time maintenance projects. Other sources of maintenance funding include utility bill fees, facility  Oregon Community Foundation Grants: Fund a wide variety of rentals, day-use fees, and park adjacent camping or RV sites. For full projects and activities through public organizations, including case studies see Appendix D: Financing Resources. those which enhance community livability, healthy lifestyle behaviors, and outdoor stewardship. Park developments are Resources not typical award recipients, but OCF has funded parks projects  Oregon Parks and Recreation: Local Government Grants: in the past. Grants also eligible for periodic repairing, restoring or Website: http://www.oregoncf.org/grants- reconstructing on normal wear and tear of facilities. scholarships/grants/community-grants  Salem Area Trails Alliance: Work with public and private partners to develop and sustain trails in the Salem area and  Salem Area Trails Alliance: Work with public and private promote access to healthy, active recreation. partners to develop and sustain trails in the Salem area and promote access to healthy, active recreation. Website: http://www.salemtrails.org/ Website: http://www.salemtrails.org/  Trail Keepers of Oregon: Support trail building projects throughout the state and organize volunteer maintenance.  Trail Keepers of Oregon: Support trail building projects throughout the state and organize volunteer maintenance. Website: http://www.trailkeepersoforegon.org/ Website: http://www.trailkeepersoforegon.org/ Financing Park Maintenance All communities interviewed reported that long-term financing strategies for maintenance is a constant challenge. Many cities have Crawford Crossing: A Park Concept August 2017 19 20 Section 5: Developing Crawford Crossing Appendix A: Three Preliminary Designs Design Concept 1: Nature Exploration Crawford Crossing: A Park Concept August 2017 21 Design Concept 2: Lakeside Recreation 22 Appendix A: Three Preliminary Designs Design Concept 3: Regional Attraction Crawford Crossing: A Park Concept August 2017 23 24 Appendix A: Three Preliminary Designs Appendix B: Community Engagement – Process and Results To ensure the concept plan for Crawford Crossing Park responded to community desires, the CSC planning team gathered input from residents in a variety of ways:  Stakeholder interviews  An “open house” discussion at the Turnaround Café  A survey conducted by Cascade High School AVID students  An online community survey  A booth for feedback on the final park design at the Turner Celebration1 These activities occurred between November 2016 and June 2017. The comments gathered through these activities and the preferences expressed on through the survey have been incorporated into the final design concept. Here, we summarize key themes from the stakeholder interviews and the online community survey. Stakeholder Interviews In the fall of 2017, the City of Turner’s RARE AmeriCorps participant reached out to 7 community members to ask them about important issues to consider when developing the park design. Each stakeholder answered the following questions: 1. Can you first tell us a little bit about yourself and your history and involvement in the Turner community? i.e. How long have you lived there, what part of town do you live in, what do you do for a living/how are you involved in your community? 2. Briefly, what do you see as the strengths and weaknesses of the Turner park system as a whole? 3. Opportunities – Crawford Lake Park: How might the development of the Crawford Lake Park strengthen Turner’s park system? What amenities would you like to see it provide? How do you think the community would like to use this space? 4. Challenges – Crawford Lake Park: What potential issues do you foresee as the City begins to develop Crawford Lake Park? Are there any questions we should be asking now? Are there any specific concerns we should be researching? 5. Is there anything else you would like to add? While each respondent contributed unique insight about the future park, a few main ideas arose from the conversations:  Strengths of Turner’s Park System o Fifth Street Park is a well-used and appreciated amenity, especially because of the water access, the trees, and the open space. o Parks are mostly accessible and have nice playgrounds. o Parking is generally viewed as adequate at existing parks. 1 This activity also included a craft activity for children and families. Participants created concrete mosaic-decorated stepping stones that will be installed at the new park as soon as development begins. These decorative items will serve as a reminder that the park is a community effort. Crawford Crossing: A Park Concept August 2017 25  Weaknesses of Turner’s Park System o Maintenance issues: vandalism is a problem, lighting may not be adequate, and there may not be enough trash/recycling receptacles. o There are not enough “adult uses” in the parks (they are mostly geared towards children). o Some parks lack adequate shade and resting places. o One interviewee mentioned lack of parking as a concern.  Opportunities for Crawford Crossing o Almost all interviewees mentioned a desire for walking and biking trails – there is a strong desire to use the park as a safe and enjoyable place to walk, run, and bike. o Many interviewees mentioned a desire for picnic areas, especially covered picnic areas. o Many interviewees wanted to have a play structure for children. o Many interviewees stressed the need to provide adequate bathroom and waste disposal facilities. o Many interviewees highlighted lake access as an important consideration for the park. These interviewees expressed interest in using the lake for fishing, boating, and swimming. One interviewee specifically mentioned that creating ADA accessible lake access would be important. o A few interviewees expressed interest in having a fenced dog park as part of Crawford Crossing. o Other ideas mentioned by at least one interviewee included: areas for nature observation, basketball courts, soccer field, place for kite flying, and resting areas/benches throughout the park. One interviewee commented that it would be nice to involve Turner Elementary students in fundraising for the new park.  Challenges/Issues to Consider for Crawford Crossing o Lake safety/liability: generally, interviewees were concerned about this issue, but felt that the benefits of lake access outweighed the potential issues. o Many interviewees mentioned parking as an issue, but had mixed feeling about how big of an issue this would be. Some pointed out that the park will be easily accessible on foot, others said they wanted to limit parking to keep traffic down, and others were concerned about having enough parking. o Maintenance: one interviewee stressed the need for a good maintenance plan. Others suggested that vandalism could be limited by providing good lighting, and keeping major amenities out in the open away from trees. o Other issues mentioned by at least one interviewee included: noise from the park disturbing the neighbors and the possibility of needing flood insurance. Community Survey The CSC team created a short online survey to gather input about preferences for park design and funding mechanisms from a broad range of potential park visitors. Residents of Turner and the surrounding area could take the survey between March 22, 2017 and April 19, 2017. The City of Turner disseminated the survey by posting a link on Facebook, including a link in the City Newsletter, and by sending the link to various email lists maintained by the City, with a request to forward the survey on to others who might be interested in providing feedback about the new park. In total, the survey received 228 full responses and 58 partial responses. Of these respondents:  98% were adults (18 or older)  76% were Turner residents  40% lived within at least a half mile of the park  64% had children (with the majority having 1-2 children) 26 Appendix B: Community Engagement – Process and Results Respondents skewed younger and wealthier: 61% were between the ages of 18 and 45, and 42% reported a household income of $75,000 or more. This over-represents younger age groups, but roughly aligns with the income distribution of Turner residents: only about a third of Turner residents are 18-45 years old2, but about 38% of Turner residents have a household income of $75,000 or more3. Since the survey was not administered using a random sample, the responses should not be considered directly representative of the views of residents of Turner and the surrounding area. However, it does provide valuable insight into the preferences of some residents who are likely to use the park (91% of respondents indicated they would visit the park at least a few times per year). Here, we summarize the key themes evident in the survey responses, followed by a full report of the distribution of responses for each survey question. Key Themes Park Design and Use Trails systems were one of the most important elements emphasized in park design and activities.  60% of respondents said they would like to use the park for hiking and walking (the only use option that more than 35% of respondents selected).  Trails were the 3rd most popular park amenity (selected by 43% of respondents).  Written comments in multiple categories also mentioned trails.  Requests for trails were divided among different uses (through more respondents indicated walking/hiking than other uses). Respondents selected biking, walking, and running, with some write-in requests for horse riding trails. A “natural” design and enjoyment of the outdoors were also important to survey respondents.  Many of the park uses selected by respondents as activities they would most like to use the new park for were nature oriented: trails and hiking (60%), fishing (27%), enjoying nature/wildlife viewing (25%), swimming (22%), and boating (20%).  Written comments emphasized desire for nature-oriented design and activities.  Nature based amenities ranked highly on desired amenities: nature trails (43%), fishing dock (27%), and wetland boardwalk (25%). Respondents’ desires for the park are more aligned with leisure and social uses than activity and sport based uses:  Popular park amenities reflected a child and family friendly area and social uses: picnic tables (48%), playground equipment (40%), and covered pavilion (36%).  Respondents were less interested in water-based amenities than the above mentioned “leisure and social use” amenities: only about a quarter of respondents or less selected fishing docks, wetland boardwalk, kayak docks, and beach as desired amenities.  Sport-related amenities such as sports equipment rentals, sand volleyball court, and basketball ranked both low on list of desired facilities and high on list of undesired facilities.  A dog park was popular across multiple questions and in write-in comments. Although respondents indicated a desire for a natural park design and reported only moderate interest in water- based amenities, the “Nature Exploration” park design was less popular (30%) than the “Lakeside Recreation” 2 US Census Bureau. 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-year Estimates. Age and Sex, Table S0101. 3 US Census Bureau. 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-year Estimates. Income in the Past 12 Months (in 2015 Inflation-Adjusted Dollars), Table S1901. Crawford Crossing: A Park Concept August 2017 27 design (48%). Nevertheless, these two designs were more favored than the “Regional Attraction” design, which only 22% of respondents preferred. This suggests that the final design should work combine a favorable balance of both nature amenities and lakeside recreation amenities. Finally, based on the heat maps produced for each of the three park designs, respondents are across all three designs were likely to show a preference for the design elements in the eastern arm of the park. This suggests that this part of the park may see the heaviest use when the park is developed. Park Funding Respondents seem to understand the need to raise additional funds to pay for the new park.  Only 15% of respondents said they would not support a fee of any kind to help pay for the new park. Respondents indicated the most support for a monthly utilities bill fee.  42% of respondents supported a utility bill fee, higher than any other funding mechanism.  A monthly utility bill fee was the only option that more respondents supported than opposed. 73% of respondents supported a utilities bill fee of at least $1 per month. The $1- to $2-dollar range was the most popular amount proposed. There are mixed sentiments about the use of a vehicle-entrance fee and a parks and recreation special taxing district.  Vehicle entrance fee was the option that received the least support in individual questions (32% supported, 58% opposed) and yet, in the question which proposed choosing between all fee systems it was the second most popular option (37%).  While a 40% of respondents supported a parks and recreation special taxing district in individual questions, only 26% supported it in the question which proposed choosing between all fee systems.  The written comments expressed concerns that Turner residents will pay the most for the park while out of town users will be able to enjoy the benefits while not sharing the burden. The vehicle entrance fee was the only option proposed that would charge non-Turner residents in any way. In addition to fee-based systems, respondents expressed the most support for holding special event fundraisers.  Fundraisers and facility/boat rentals were more popular among respondents as funding mechanisms than selling food: more than half of respondents supported fundraisers and rentals, but only about a third supported food-based revenue-generators.  Some written comments suggested that the park could find additional funding through sponsorships from area businesses/organizations. 28 Appendix B: Community Engagement – Process and Results Survey Results Part 1: Park Context and Overview Q2. Where do you live in relation to the new Crawford Crossing Park? (n = 271) Q3. How often do you think you will use the new park? (n=261) Crawford Crossing: A Park Concept August 2017 29 Q4. What types of activities would you most like to use the new park for? Please select up to three (3). (n=262) Of “Other” responses, the following were the most frequent written-in comments:  Dog parks or lease-free areas (x15)  Paddle boarding and other non-motorized boating (x5) Other suggestions included: equestrian trails, disc golf, and skateboarding. 30 Appendix B: Community Engagement – Process and Results Q5. What type of transportation would you most likely use to access the park? Check all that apply. (n=262) Crawford Crossing: A Park Concept August 2017 31 Part 2: Park Preferences Q6. Please select five (5) specific site amenities that you would MOST like to see in the new Crawford Crossing Park. (n=253) Q7. Are there additional amenities or park activities that you would like to see included in the final park design? Responses to this question presented several core themes that are important to the survey respondents. Trail systems were the most numerous request (with twelve respondents), and include hopes of biking and running trails, horseback riding trails and trails that are accessible to the disabled and elderly. There was a strong emphasis on preserving the integrity of the natural environment, from adding nature observation decks to stocking the lake with fish. Facilities related to group activities and dining such as picnic tables, BBQs and water fountains were other high priorities. Sixty people provided written feedback for this question. 32 Appendix B: Community Engagement – Process and Results Q8. Please select five (5) specific site amenities that you would LEAST like to see in the new Crawford Crossing Park. (n=245) Crawford Crossing: A Park Concept August 2017 33 Q9a. Of the following images, which one is closest to representing your ideal of a picnic area for the new park? (n=254) 34 Appendix B: Community Engagement – Process and Results Q9b. Of the following images, which one is closest to representing your ideal of playgrounds for the new park? (n=252) Crawford Crossing: A Park Concept August 2017 35 Q9c. Of the following images, which one is closest to representing your ideal of fields/open space for the new park? (n=253) 36 Appendix B: Community Engagement – Process and Results Q9d. Of the following images, which one is closest to representing your ideal of pavilions for the new park? (n=252) Crawford Crossing: A Park Concept August 2017 37 Q9e. Of the following images, which one is closest to representing your ideal of trails for the new park? (n=253) 38 Appendix B: Community Engagement – Process and Results Q9f. Of the following images, which one is closest to representing your ideal of lake interface for the new park? (n=250) Crawford Crossing: A Park Concept August 2017 39 Q10. Design 1: Nature Exploration. Q11. Design 2: Lakeside Recreation. 40 Appendix B: Community Engagement – Process and Results Q12. Design 3: Regional Attraction. Q13. Of the three preliminary park designs, which one do you like the most? (n=224) Q14. Please use the space below to tell us anything else you would like us to know about the design of the park or the amenities it might have. The highest concentration of responses to this prompt dealt with the desire for pedestrian and bike trails to be more central to the design of the park as opposed to car based access (x13). In particular, many opposed the addition of a paved road connecting the housing development to the park and circling the lake. Respondents cited congestion and wish to maintain the “natural” feel of the area among their reasons. Water related suggestions were the second most numerous with ten responses, including desire for fishing areas and a splash pad for children too young to swim. A dog park, play structures, and well-maintained facilities such as restrooms were among other requests. Fifty-five respondents provided written feedback for this question. Crawford Crossing: A Park Concept August 2017 41 Part 3: Paying for the Park Q15. Would you support a new fee on your utility bill to help pay for the new Crawford Crossing Park? (n=237) Of “Other” responses, the following were the most frequent written-in comments:  Need more information (x6)  Depends on the quality or design of the park (x5) 42 Appendix B: Community Engagement – Process and Results Q16. Would you support a general property tax levy on properties within the Turner city limits to help pay for the new Crawford Crossing Park? (n=231) Of “Other” responses, the following were the most frequent written-in comments:  Depends on what if goes to or quality of park (x4)  Not a resident of Turner (x3)  Prefer other payment strategy (x2) Crawford Crossing: A Park Concept August 2017 43 Q17. Would you support the formation of a special parks and recreation taxation district that includes Turner and the surrounding area to help pay for the ALL parks and recreation within the district? (n=227) Of “Other” responses, these were the most frequent written-in comments:  Need more info (x6)  Depends on amount of use of funds (x2) Q18. Would you be willing to pay a $2-$5 fee to have vehicle access to the new Crawford Crossing Park? (n=233) Of “Other” responses, these were the most frequent written-in comments:  Would prefer an annual membership fee to per-use fee (x7)  Not in favor of the fee (x3)  In favor (x2)  Prefer a fee only for non-residents of Turner (x2) 44 Appendix B: Community Engagement – Process and Results Q19. Which kind of fee systems would you like to see implemented to help pay for the new Crawford Crossing Park? Check all that apply. (n=231) Of “Other” responses, these were the most frequent written-in comments:  Fee only for non-residents of Turner (x4)  Prefer a day-use fee (x2)  Fee for non-residents of Turner and Turner residents pay in another way i.e. utilities bill or monthly fee (x2) Crawford Crossing: A Park Concept August 2017 45 Q20. To cover the costs of operating and maintaining a park, many parks offer for-purchase amenities. Which of the following "for-purchase" amenities would you be interested in using at the new Crawford Crossing Park? Check all that apply. (n=221) Of “Other” responses, these were the most frequent written-in comments:  None of the above (x6)  Community events i.e. concerts, 5k runs (x3) 46 Appendix B: Community Engagement – Process and Results Q20a – Q20f were asked only of respondents who said in Q20 that they would be interested in using that “for-purchase” amenity. Q20a. How often do you think you would make use of food concessions? (n=97) Q20b. How often do you think you would make use of vending machines? (n=71) Crawford Crossing: A Park Concept August 2017 47 Q20c. How often do you think you would make use of boat rentals? (n=117) Q20d. How often do you think you would make use of picnic pavilion rentals? (n=129) 48 Appendix B: Community Engagement – Process and Results Q20e. How often do you think you would participate in special event park fundraisers? (n=161) Q20f. How often do you think you would make use of your "other" for-purchase amenity? (n=13) Crawford Crossing: A Park Concept August 2017 49 Q21. Would you be willing to volunteer some time each year to assist with park maintenance projects? (n=233) Of “Other” responses, these were the most frequent written-in comments:  Depends on project (x5)  Physical limitations such as disability makes it difficult (x5)  Depends on time of volunteering (x3)  Willing, particularly through group (x3)  Depends on design or use of park (x2) Q22. Is there anything else you would like to tell us about paying for the new park? The largest category of responses in this section came from respondents voicing their opposition to or concerns regarding the park’s cost (x9). This was followed closely by calls for a discounted entry price for Turner residents, and general concern that town residents will be paying for the park while out-of-town users will receive the benefits at no cost (x8). Other respondents suggested adding fees to developers and/or homeowners in the new development (x5). Another prominent category included fundraising suggestions such as community events or inviting businesses and residents to “sponsor” park additions such as benches and other features (x7). Forty-six respondents provided written feedback for this question. Q23. Is there anything else you would like to tell us about the new park in general? A significant portion of responses to this question involved respondents expressing their opinions about the new park, either support (x11) or opposition (x7). Another area of interest was the park’s relationship to the housing development; some expressed concerns about the connecting road and preference for a pedestrian path or trail (x3). Other homeowners expressed frustration that their views of the lake appear to be blocked by trees in the proposed designs (x5). Other common themes were desire to keep the park a natural area and requests to have rigorous security and maintenance so that the park feels safe and family friendly. Frequently requested facility additions included fishing areas and a dog park. Sixty-one respondents provided written feedback for this question. 50 Appendix B: Community Engagement – Process and Results Part 4: Respondent Demographics Q1. How old are you? (n=230) Q24. What is your age? (n=224) Crawford Crossing: A Park Concept August 2017 51 Q25. How many children are in your household? (n=230) Q26. Are you a resident of the City of Turner? (n=232) 52 Appendix B: Community Engagement – Process and Results Q27. What was the combined income for your entire household last year? (n=231) Crawford Crossing: A Park Concept August 2017 53 54 Appendix B: Community Engagement – Process and Results Appendix C: Resources for Park Development This appendix includes a list of potential vendors for some of the Playground Equipment amenities recommended for the new Crawford Crossing Park. We also Columbia Cascade Company include a list of recommended plants to use when landscaping the 1300 S.W. Sixth Avenue, Suite 310 park. Portland, OR 97201 Website: http://playground.columbia-cascade.com/ Contacts Phone: 503-223-1157 Buell Recreation Park and Playground Products Docks 7327 Southwest Barnes Road #601 KFS Inc. Boat Docks Portland, OR 97225 1701 Clackamette Drive Website: https://www.buellrecreation.com/ Oregon City, Oregon 97045 Phone: 800-266-1250 Website: http://www.kfsboatdocks.com/index.html Phone: 503-449-6667 Northwest Recreation 6925 SW Canyon Drive Oregon Marine Construction Portland, OR 97225 9085 Arney Ln NE Website: http://www.nwrecreation.com/ Woodburn, OR 97071 Phone:503-248-7770 Website: http://oregonmarine.net/ Phone: 503-982-5521 Northwest Playground Equipment P.O. Box 2410 Fire Access Permeable Pavers Issaquah, WA 98027 NDS Website: https://www.nwplayground.com/playgrounds.html Website: https://www.ndspro.com/permeable-pavers Phone: 800-726-0031 Phone: 1-888-825-4716 Restroom Facilities Invisible Structures Inc. Public Restroom Company* 1600 Jackson St. Suite 310 2587 Business Parkway Golden, Colorado, USA 80401 Minden, NV 89423 Website: http://www.invisiblestructures.com/ Website: http://www.publicrestroomcompany.com/ Phone: 1-800-233-1510 Phone: 888-888-2060 *Has manufacturing facility in Oregon Crawford Crossing: A Park Concept August 2017 55 Romtec, Inc.* Recommended Plant List 18240 North Bank Rd. Roseburg, OR 97470 Developed Park Areas Website: http://romtec.com/ Phone: 541-496-3541 This list of plants will provide the basis for durable, deer and drought *Based in Roseburg, Oregon tolerant plantings within the major programmed areas of the park. Comprised of both native and non-native species, as well as full-sun to Shelters / Pavilions full-shade plants, these species can be combined to create beautiful, Northwest Playground Equipment* four-season interest throughout the park. P.O. Box 2410 Issaquah, WA 98027 Trees Website: https://www.nwplayground.com/playgrounds.html  Acer circinatum - Vine Maple Phone: 800-726-0031  Acer sp. - Maple * Reseller of pre-fab shelters from Poligon  Fraxinus spp. - Green Ash or White Ash  Gingko biloba - Gingko Romtec, Inc.  Quercus garryana – Oregon White Oak 18240 North Bank Rd.  Quercus palustris - Pin Oak Roseburg, OR 97470  Quercus rubra - Red Oak Website: http://romtec.com/ Phone: 541-496-3541 Shrubs  Berberis thunbergii - Japanese Barberry Site Furnishings (Bike Racks, Trash Receptacles, Drinking  Cornus sp. - Dogwood Fountains, Etc.) Columbia Cascade Company  Cotinus coggygria - Smoke Tree 1300 S.W. Sixth Avenue, Suite 310  Mahonia aquifolium - Oregon Grape Holly Portland, OR 97201  Myrica californica - California Myrtle Website: http://playground.columbia-cascade.com/  Osmanthus x burkwoodii - Burkwoodii Osmanthus Phone: 503-223-1157  Potentilla fruticose - Shrubby Potentilla  Rhododendron spp. - Rhododendron Huntco Site Furnishings, LLC  Ribes sanguineum - Red Flowering Current P.O. Box 10385  Sarcococca confusa - Fragrant Sarcococca Portland, OR 97296  Spiraea sp. - Spirea Phone: 503-224-8700 Perennials Cascade Recreation, Inc.  Achillea spp. - Yarrow PO Box 64769  Echinacea purpurea - Purple Coneflower University Place, WA 98464  Penstemon spp. - Penstemon Phone: 253-566-1320 56 Appendix C: Resource for Park Development  Perovskia atriplicifolia - Russian Sage Mixed Woodland/Riparian Forest – Key Species  Rudbeckia spp. - Black-eyed Susan  Alnus rubra - Red Alder  Salvia nemorosa - Sage  Acer macrophyllum - Big-leaf Maple  Populus trichocarpa balsamifera - Black Cottonwood Groundcover  Rosa nutkana - Nootka Rose  Arctostaphylos uva-ursi - Kinnikinnik  Cornus albus - Red-osier Dogwood  Cotoneaster dammeri - Bearberry Cotoneaster  Lonicera involucrata - Black Twinberry  Gaultheria shallon - Salal  Physocarpus capitatus - Ninebark  Juniperus horizontalis - Groundcover Juniper  Sambucus racemose - Red Elderberry  Mahonia repens - Creeping Oregon Grape  Symphoricarpos albus - Snowberry  Polystichum munitum - Sword Fern  Polystichum munitum - Sword Fern  Prunus laurocerasus Mt Vernon - Mt Vernon Laurel Cherry  Agrostis exarata - Spike Bentgrass  Calamagrostis Canadensis - Bluejoint Undeveloped Park Areas  Deschampisa elongata - Slender Hairgrass This list suggests key species that should be considered and encouraged in the parks various undeveloped natural areas. Prairie Wetland and Willow Slough – Key Species Trees and Shrubs Oak Savanna – Key Species  Salix scouleriana - Scouler's Willow  Pinus ponderosa - Willamette Valley Ponderosa Pine  Cornus albus - Red-osier Dogwood  Quercus garryana - Oregon White Oak  Salix lucida ssp. - Lasiandra Pacific Willow  Amelanchier alnifolia - Saskatoon Serviceberry  Salix sitchensis - Sitka Willow  Corylus cornuta - Beaked Hazelnut  Spiraea douglasii - Hardhack  Holodiscus discolor - Oceanspray  Juncus effuses - Soft Rush  Oemleria cerasiformis - Indian Plum  Carex aperta - Columbia Sedge  Polystichum munitum - Western Sword Fern  Carex obnupta - Slough Sedge  Rosa nutkana - Nootka Rose  Juncus ensifolius - Dagger-leaf Rush  Symphoricarpos albus - Snowberry  Agropyron trachycaulum - Slender Wheatgrass Ground Cover  Aster hallii - Hall's Aster  Rosa nutkana - Nootka Rose  Bromus carinatus - California Brome  Spiraea douglasii - Hardhack  Danthonia californica - California Oatgrass  Camassia quamash - Camas  Festuca idahoensis - Idaho Fescue  Beckmannia syzigachne - American Slough Grass  Festuca roemeri - Roemer's Fescue  Carex densa - Dense Sedge  Koeleria macrantha - Junegrass  Danthonia californica - California Oatgrass  Deschampisa elongata - Slender Hairgrass  Deschampsia cespitosa - Tufted Hairgrass Crawford Crossing: A Park Concept August 2017 57  Festuca rubra - Red Fescue  Hordeum brachyantherum - Meadow Barley  Plagiobothrys figuratus - Popcornflower  Sisyrinchum idahoense - Blue-eyed Grass  Subspicatus douglasii - Douglas' Aster 58 Appendix C: Resource for Park Development Appendix D: Financing Resources To complement the financing strategies, we present in the Crawford For each example, we include a brief project description, a discussion Crossing Concept Plan, this appendix offers examples of financing of funding sources, and relevant contacts that can supply Turner staff strategies that other communities in Oregon have used successfully for with additional information and details. parks projects. We divide these examples into two categories:  Capital development projects (building trails, docks, play structures, etc.)  Ongoing operational and maintenance funding Capital Development Projects Mt. Angel Heritage Trail Source: http://elgl.org/2014/03/25/local-governments-new-normal-eileen-stein-city-administrator-mt-angel/ Location: Mt. Angel, OR Project Description: “Trail” of historic sites and buildings throughout the town with interpretive signage and welded plaques (to be developed) Funding Sources Used Funding Source Used for Amount Generated Marion County Community Development Grant Oregon Community Foundation Grant Additional Notes The City is collaborating with the Mt. Angel and Silverton school districts to have their vocational classes do some of the welding work pro-bono, and a few students will likely to do installation work as a senior project. For both this project and maintenance of their small parks, the City of Mt. Angel relies heavily on volunteer labor from local businesses. Businesses will host work days or “sponsor” certain projects by providing ongoing maintenance (for example, the downtown flower baskets). Contact(s): City Manager Crawford Crossing: A Park Concept August 2017 59 Hood River Waterfront Park Source: http://hoodriverwaterfront.org/index.html Location: Hood River, OR Total Cost: $1.377 million – $860,000 has been fundraised to this point, and they are in need of 517,000 to complete the park. Project Description: Park developed along the Columbia River water in Hood River. Amenities include a swimming beach, paths, picnic pavilions, play areas, restrooms, etc. Funding Sources Used Funding Source Used for Amount Generated Oregon Parks and Recreation Grant Phase I of construction: initial $500,000 Ford Family Foundation Grant landscaping, solar powered restrooms, children’s play area Waterfront Community Park Association Fundraising Phase II: 2 picnic shelters, 2 drinking $860,000 fountains, a rinsing shower, shade trees Additional Notes Park development has essentially been spearheaded by the Waterfront Community Park Association (WCPA), a citizen’s group turned 501(c)3. They convinced the city to donate the land and have done most of the fundraising for it. Fundraisers events include hosting events like a kids’ triathlon, paddle board races, and beer tastings. The nonprofit also solicits individual donations. Maintenance strategies include an annual earth day weeding party and allowing families, schools and businesses to “adopt-a-plot”, or volunteer to weed and maintain a garden bed in the park. The WCPA has an informative website with many interesting details: http://hoodriverwaterfront.org/index.html. Hood River has a complicated parks funding structure in general as they have parks under the jurisdiction of several different bodies, including the City, the Port, the school district, and the Parks and Recreation Special District. The Parks and Recreation Special Tax District was set up about ten years ago, and is mostly used to maintain the pool, leaving little money for parks development. The City Manager doesn’t see it as the best funding strategy outside of the pool because the tax rate is very low. He also indicated that it complicates responsibility of the parks, as the public often doesn’t know who is responsible for which parks. Safety Note: The City has dealt with safety and liability on the swimming beach at the Waterfront Park by posting signs that alert swimmers that there is no lifeguard on duty and to “swim at your own risk”. They also do not allow dogs in the swimming area as it creates water quality issues. 60 Appendix D: Financing Resources Funding for Operations and Maintenance Sisters Parks District http://5starcampgrounds.com/sisters-city-park-campground/ Location: Sisters, OR Funding Sources Used Funding Source Used for Amount Generated Taxes Fundraising events Parks programming Up to $146,000 per year Additional Notes The director of the Sisters Parks and Recreation District offered insight into the benefits and drawbacks of creating a special tax district for parks funding and operations. The tax district in Sisters is unique because it operates much like a nonprofit and tax revenue only represents 26% of its total funding. The director emphasized that while a special district has its own funding issues, not being dependent on the budget of the City allows greater stability. It also provides a much greater tax base – Sisters has a population of 2,200 but the parks tax district population ranges from 8,000-10,000. The district has primarily used grants for their capital developments, but fundraising finances most of their programing and recreation. Past fundraisers include basketball and lacrosse tournaments, car shows, cross country championships, a luau, and a brewfest. The district once undertook a large scale fundraiser that brought people from out of town: the district hosted a bike ride over the McKenzie pass, which drew crowds from all over the state. Although the fundraisers don’t always raise that much individually, they build valuable social capital through engaging the community. The district has primarily used volunteer labor to keep the cost of maintenance low, but staff don’t see this as a sustainable solution to the costs in the long range. Maintenance is the most difficult issue to find continual funding for, even with the special tax district. A drawback of the special tax district is that it lacks the formal structure to guarantee its future stability outside of the taxes collected. However, the director overall sees the special district structure as an advantage. Contact(s): Liam Hughes: 541-935-2191 Crawford Crossing: A Park Concept August 2017 61 Warrenton Parks Source: http://www.ci.warrenton.or.us/parksandtrails/page/city-community-park Location: Warrenton, OR Funding Sources Used Funding Source Used for Amount Generated Taxes (City’s general fund) Maintenance System Development Charges (SDCs) Capital Development Quincy Robinson Trust Fund Capital Development Warrenton Trails Foundation Trail development and maintenance Additional Notes Warrenton parks benefit from a trust fund set up by a local family that has provided a steady source of revenue to pay for park development and improvements. Maintenance comes out of the City’s general fund. It is a small budget and can be a challenge to work with. A portion of systems development charges go to parks. These funds can only support development, however, and the City has been cautious about developing more parks when they do not know how they would pay for the maintenance. Community organizations such as the Warrenton Trails Foundation and the Warrenton Kids Association have donated time or resources to support the city parks. Estacada Parks Source: http://www.mearsdesigngroup.com/gallery.php Location: Estacada, OR Funding Sources Used Funding Source Used for Amount Generated System Development Charges (SDCs) Capital development Oregon Parks and Recreation Grants Skate park development Additional Notes The City received two grants from Oregon Parks and Recreation to develop their skate park, one for each phase of construction. Systems development charges have garnered a significant amount of money that would be available for park development but the City does not feel they have the maintenance capacity to add another park at present. They had only about 4-5 public works staff who cover the entire city, including park maintenance, which makes maintenance a challenge. Recently, however, they just funding approved for a designated parks employee which may improve maintenance capacity. 62 Appendix D: Financing Resources Gervais Parks Source: http://www.gervaisoregon.org/city-parks.html Location: Gervais, OR Funding Sources Used Funding Source Used for Amount Generated System Development Charges (SDCs) Capital Development Oregon Parks and Recreation Grants Black Walnut Community Park $474,600 BINGO (local nonprofit) Elm Street Park Volunteers Maintenance Additional Notes The City has two parks developed through unique efforts. The City received a grant from Oregon Parks and Recreation in 2011 to develop Black Walnut Community Park, which they used in conjunction with SDC funds they had been saving over the past two decades for the purpose of a park. The park, which is just over three acres, has had a lot of maintenance support from volunteers. Elm Street Park was developed through collaboration between a local non-profit, the French Prairie Community Progress Team, the Gervais School District, and the City of Gervais. Together, these groups established BINGO to help fund the park’s initial development. BINGO was hosted every month at the local high school, with cash and prizes donated from local businesses, nearly totaling $300,000. After three years of BINGO, the City had enough funding to install a playground and add landscaping to the park in 2006. Additional Cities to Investigate Turner might also consider reaching out to the following cities to  Veneta – Veneta is slightly larger than Turner and does not gather additional ideas for funding. operate any parks with lakes, however, the City has been very creative with funding strategies and may have some useful  Lowell – Has a similar population to Turner and borders the ideas. Lowell reservoir. The reservoir is operated by the Army Corps  Philomath – Philomath is larger than Turner and does not of Engineers, however, so this example may be slightly less operate any parks with lakes, but may have some useful applicable to Turner’s situation. funding ideas.  Vernonia – similar population, they have a park on a lake  Winston – Winston is larger than Turner, but the Riverbend  Silverton – Linda has brought up the Sliverton Reservoir a few Park & Skatepark offers river access and the City may have times… some useful safety ideas.  Gold Hill – Has a similar population to Turner and operates public park property along the Rogue River. Crawford Crossing: A Park Concept August 2017 63 64 Appendix D: Financing Resources Appendix E: Wetland Resources As a condition of a Department of State Lands permit for the Crawford existing facility that already had a boardwalk; more grants could be Crossing housing development, the Crawford Crossing park site must available for new construction. Additionally, more grants might have include a section of wetland. This appendix includes a resources from been available if the boardwalk trail system could have been connected the Department of State Lands about Removal-Fill Permits (the type of into regional trail systems. permit issued for the Crawford Crossing housing development) and maps of the wetland within the park boundaries (Wetland A/Hillside Other Support Seep). These resources can help the City of Turner plan for how to Although the city has been responsible for funding the project appropriately incorporate the Wetland A into the park design. internally, community partners have been important for ongoing maintenance and care of the park. Two different river basin councils Happy Valley Wetland Precedent have provided support and the City has also partnered with Friends of Trees. Community partners are important for ongoing projects such as Other jurisdictions experience with wetland mitigation in parks may invasive species removal and annual plantings. also inform the City’s decision making. We talked with Happy Valley about a 50-acre park they have developed that includes 24-acres of Additional Information wetland. Below, we provide a brief summary of the Happy Valley’s For more project information see: park/wetland project. https://www.fws.gov/oregonfwo/ToolsForLandowners/UrbanConserva tion/Greenspaces/Documents/Projects/1996/96HappyValleyNaturePar The Project k.pdf Happy Valley Park (also called the “wetlands park”) is a 50-acre park in Happy Valley Oregon. The park contains 24 acres of wetlands that have Contact: City of Happy Valley Public Works: (503) 783-3844 – Chris been preserved, and includes the headwaters of Mt. Scott Creek. The Randall, Public Works Director park contains a boardwalk trail that is designed to highlight the natural features and views of the park’s wetlands. The City is currently in the process of adding signage to the trail to explain these important elements. Funding Although the City applied for multiple grants, they were unsuccessful in obtaining grant funding for the project. Ultimately the entire project was paid from the City’s general fund. Access to grant funding was somewhat limited by the fact that the project was a renovation of an Crawford Crossing: A Park Concept August 2017 65