Board of Directors Agenda and Reports

Bend Metro Park & Recreation District September 1, 2015 Board of Directors Agenda and Reports

www.bendparksandrec.org

Our Vision

To be a leader in building a community connected to nature, active lifestyles and one another.

Our Mission

To strengthen community vitality and foster healthy, enriched lifestyles by providing exceptional park and recreation services.

We Value

Excellence by striving to set the standard for quality programs, parks and services through leadership, vision, innovation and dedication to our work.

Environmental Sustainability by helping to protect, maintain and preserve our natural and developed resources.

Fiscal Accountability by responsibly and efficiently managing the financial health of the District today and for generations to come.

Inclusiveness by reducing physical, social and financial barriers to our programs, facilities and services.

Partnerships by fostering an atmosphere of cooperation, trust and resourcefulness with our patrons, coworkers and other organizations.

Customers by interacting with people in a responsive, considerate and efficient manner.

Safety by promoting a safe and healthy environment for all who work and play in our parks, facilities and programs.

Staff by honoring the diverse contributions of each employee and volunteer, and recognizing them as essential to accomplishing our mission.

District Office l Don Horton, Executive Director 799 SW Columbia St., Bend, Oregon 97702 | www.bendparksandrec.org | (541) 389-7275 Board of Directors

September 1, 2015 District Office Building | 799 SW Columbia | Bend, Oregon

AGENDA              CONVENE MEETING: 5:30 pm

VISITORS An assistive listening device is available for visitors. Please let the board chair know if you would like to make use of this device and staff will assist you.

Visitors who wish to speak are asked to submit a public comment card provided at the sign- in table. Work sessions are scheduled for the board to receive and discuss information regarding district operations, projects, and planning to aid in their decision-making process. The board will receive comment on work session agenda items at this time. Please state your name and address, and limit your comments to three minutes in the interest of allowing the board to complete the work session agenda.

STAFF INTRODUCTIONS Ryan Richard, River Recreation Specialist Donne Horne, Facilities Specialist Colleen McNally, Marketing Manager Josiah Dawley, Marketing Coordinator

WORK SESSIONS 1. Bend Whitewater Park Operations Update – Pat Erwert & Jan Taylor 2. Senior Center future expansion project and funding sources – Matt Mercer & Lindsey Lombard

7:00 PM REGULAR MEETING

VISITORS An assistive listening device is available for visitors. Please let the board chair know if you would like to make use of this device and staff will assist you. This is the time provided for individuals wishing to address the Board regarding items not listed in the business session. Visitors who wish to speak are asked to submit a public comment card provided at the sign-in table. The Board may elect to ask for comment on business session items at the appropriate time. The visitor’s section is not designed for a lengthy presentation. If you have a proposal for Board consideration, briefly introduce the subject, and request that the Board consider adding discussion to a future Board meeting agenda. Please state your name and address at the time you address the Board. Please limit your remarks to three minutes.

CONSENT AGENDA 1. Meeting Minutes - 8/11/2015 2. Award construction contract for First Street 1Rapids 3. Mirror Pond Park Easement request 4. Land Exchange at Rockridge Park

BUSINESS SESSION 1. Report on Off-leash Dog Opportunities in Peer Organizations – Quinn Keever & Jeff Hagler 2. Adopt Shevlin Park Recreation Management Plan – Jim Figurski and Quinn Keever 3. Alcohol Sales at District Facilities –Matt Mercer

STAFF REPORTS Staff reports are provided to the Board at the first meeting of the month. The reports are provided as an update on ongoing projects and are for informational purposes only.

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S REPORT BOARD MEETINGS CALENDAR REVIEW GOOD OF THE ORDER ADJOURN

EXECUTIVE SESSION - The Board will meet in Executive Session upon adjournment of the regular meeting. The Board of Directors will meet in an executive session pursuant to ORS 192.660(2)(e) for the purpose of discussing real property transactions. This session is closed to all members of the public except for representatives of the news media.

2 Worksession Item 1 BOARD AGENDA COMMUNICATION

AGENDA DATE: Sept. 1, 2015

SUBJECT: Bend Whitewater Park Operations and Maintenance Plan Update

STAFF RESOURCE: Pat Erwert, Park Services Director Jan Taylor, Community Relations Manager

PREVIOUS BOARD ACTION: None

ACTION PROPOSED: None

STRATEGIC PLAN: Theme: Community Connection Objectives: Develop parks to meet community demand Manage partnership Strengthen Community Awareness

BACKGROUND

The construction of the recreational enhancements to the Colorado Ave dam area of the Deschutes River is slated to be completed in late September. Though the construction of the three channels and the pneumatic bladders systems will be completed, there are still several supporting construction projects that will continue into the summer of 2016 including the Colorado Ave. trail undercrossing and the renovation of McKay Park. Work also continues on the development of the operations and maintenance plan and public communications plan.

Key elements of the operations plan include pneumatic bladder operations, scheduled system maintenance and inspections, site stewardship, safety and landscape, riparian and wetlands maintenance.

The District recently completed the recruitment for the River Recreation Specialist (Wave Shaper) position and the successful candidate, Ryan Richard, began work on August 25th. Mr. Richard comes to the District from Boise, Idaho where he worked as a Wave Shaper for Boise Parks, helped develop their system’s waves and scheduling and is very knowledgeable about the Obermeyer bladder systems that are installed at the Bend Whitewater Park .

Signage to provide information to floaters, white water paddlers and surfers is nearing completion and will be installed prior to the site’s opening. The information will include guidance on how to safely float the river, how to use the whitewater channel and which areas are not open to public access, such as the habitat channel, riparian areas and the river right island.

3 A communications plan designed to promote general understanding of the new facility, promote safety and to guide use by locals and tourists alike complements the overall operations plan. This plan includes: • Bend Whitewater Park webpage – How to float the passageway – How to use the whitewater channel – Safety, parking, amenities – Calendar of scheduled wave conditions • Facebook – daily updates on wave/river conditions • Print – Tourist destinations • Signage – rules and safety information • Information on Visit Bend and BPTA websites

Updates of both plans will be shared with the board this evening.

BUDGETARY IMPACT Proposed for 2015-16 Budget • Personnel: $63,231 • Other maintenance (includes utilities): $11,100 • Communications year one: $35,500

4 Worksession Item 2 BOARD AGENDA COMMUNICATION

AGENDA DATE: September 1, 2015

SUBJECT: Senior Center Expansion Project

STAFF RESOURCE: Matt Mercer, Recreation Director Lindsey Lombard, Finance Director

PREVIOUS BOARD ACTION: Adopted 2016-20 Capital Improvement Plan including Senior Center Expansion Project

ACTION PROPOSED: None

Theme: Community Connection Objective: Respond to User Expectations Initiative: Invest in programs and services that appeal to older adult population

BACKGROUND Over the past three years, the District has engaged in a variety of planning efforts to determine the future renovation and expansion needs of the Bend Senior Center and the community’s indoor recreation needs as a whole. The Senior Center originally opened in November, 2001 and a 3,600 square foot event room was added in June, 2004. The current facility is 14,000 square feet of which only 7,500 square feet is functional program space. Besides the event room, the program spaces are divided into small rooms that were originally designed for very specific activities (i.e. library, computer lab, arts and crafts, billiards, and cards).

The Senior Center has experienced considerable growth over the last 15 years as the Bend older adult population has exploded. During this time, the interests and needs of older adults have also evolved to include more active fitness and wellness programs, and lifelong learning opportunities. The current facility had become increasingly inadequate to meet both the growth in the older adult population and the changing interests and desires of participants. As a result, the District began planning how the Senior Center can be renovated and expanded to meet the future needs of the older adults and the community as a whole. Following is a summary of these planning efforts and Board direction that has occurred since.

The District convened a Vision and Planning Committee in March, 2011 to develop broad recommendations for future planning of programs, services and facilities at the Senior Center. As a

5 part of the process, committee members developed recommendations for the renovation of the existing facility and priorities for future expansion should it be feasible. The committee recommendations were presented to the Board on July 19, 2011. One of the key recommendations was to study the feasibility for renovations and expansion to the facility and complete a Master Plan to guide future development. The Board approved funding this in the 2012-13 Budget.

The District worked with BLRB Architects and a committee of citizens and staff to develop a Master Plan based on the original Vision and Planning Committee recommendations and information gained from the 2012 Recreation Needs Assessment and Community Survey. There was considerable consistency between the original committee’s recommendations, the Community Survey results and the subsequent Needs-Unmet Needs analysis as it pertains to indoor recreation facility amenities. The Senior Center Master Plan was presented to and supported by the Board at the March 5, 2013 board meeting that also included a presentation on the larger vision and needs for indoor recreation facilities in the District. The Board also requested that the Senior Center project be included in the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) beginning in fiscal year 2013-14. $1.3 million for a Phase 1 Renovation Project and a portion of the design work for the larger Phase 2 Expansion Project was included in the adopted 2014-18 CIP.

In June, 2013, the District completed the purchase of the land that was necessary for the Senior Center expansion. This land acquisition, located between the original west boundary of Larkspur Park and 15th Street, was included in the 2012 Bond measure and was purchased with bond proceeds.

The Senior Center Master Plan was revisited during a November 5, 2013 work session that included a discussion of indoor recreation needs priorities and how these needs could be addressed with the Senior Center expansion and/or development of a future recreation center on the Simpson Pavilion site. The Board agreed with the staff recommendation that the Senior Center expansion should be the District’s initial priority for indoor recreation facility development with the Simpson site remaining a viable long-term development site. This decision was made in part because of the scale and cost of the two options. The Senior Center expansion cost was estimated at $13-15 million with a projected $60,000-$150,000 increase in annual operating subsidy. A new community recreation center at the Simpson Pavilion Site would cost $25-35 million and require an additional $1 million or more in annual operating subsidy. At the January 21, 2014 board work session, staff presented three options for moving forward with the Senior Center project. The Board chose to work toward funding and completing the full project within a 5-year period and directed staff to include the full potential cost of the project in the 2015-19 CIP with the understanding that funding would require a combination of reserve fund savings and future debt service.

At the April 1, 2014 Board Meeting, staff proposed a plan for minor renovations to the existing Senior Center. The proposed improvements were all a part of the Master Plan and would provide some short-term improvements while awaiting the full build-out. The Board directed staff to include $450,000 for the minor renovation project in the 2015-19 CIP in fiscal year 2014-15. This budget allocation was increased by $250,000 at the July 15, 2014 Board meeting as a result of increased scope and cost. The District completed design for the improvements and put the project out for bid in August, 2014. Only one bid was received and the bid amount was nearly 50% more than the budget. Value engineering discussions did not result in substantial savings so the District recommended that the Board reject the bid on September 16, 2014 and direct staff to revise the scope of the project so that renovations could be completed within the budget allocation.

At the December 16, 2014 Board meeting, staff shared with the Board a reduced construction scope of work and the Board directed staff to move forward with the reduced scope, with a total CIP allocation of $263,116 to be spent in fiscal years 2014-15 and 2015-16. This work has been completed on budget as of August 26, 2015.

Staff is now prepared to begin design of the master-planned expansion of the Senior Center. The adopted 2016-20 CIP and 2015-16 Budget include $1,200,000 in planning and design services for the project. These services would include master plan refinement, schematic design, design development and construction documents including cost estimates at each stage. This would keep the project on schedule for construction to start in fiscal year 2016-17. Before staff proceeds with solicitation for design services, they would like Board confirmation of their commitment to the project, including the funding strategy that would require the District to incur additional future debt service.

BUDGETARY IMPACT The approved 2016-20 CIP includes $16,000,000 in funding allocation for the Senior Center expansion. This funding allocation is based on the conceptual design that was completed in 2013 and adjusted for escalating construction costs. $1,200,000 was budgeted in fiscal year 2015-16 for design services. $14,800,000 was allocated in fiscal year 2016-17 for completion of construction documents and construction, with approximately half of the funding coming from the Facility Reserve Fund reserves and the other half from debt proceeds.

The District currently has $5,427,690 in the Facility Reserve Fund reserves designated for the future project. Using the 5-year financial forecast, the District estimates to have $7,427,690 at the end of 2016-17. This would leave $7,372,310 unfunded to complete construction of the project in 2016- 17 and/or 2017-18 depending on the construction schedule. The Board has previously discussed funding this gap through debt proceeds similar to how the Juniper Swim & Fitness Center expansion was funded in 2005-06. The debt service would be repaid through current property tax revenues over a 20-year debt service likely starting in fiscal year 2017-18. At a current assumed interest rate of 3.4%, this would result in an annual debt service of approximately $500,000. The District’s current 5-year financial forecast demonstrates that the General Fund can support this debt service without impacting current service levels.

The current Senior Center operations require approximately $265,000 in direct annual subsidy. The District does not anticipate this annual subsidy to increase substantially with the facility expansion as the expansion will have significantly greater revenue-generating potential. The expanded facility will also provide a higher level of service to a significantly greater number of participants. A preliminary analysis conducted in November, 2013 projected a $60,000-$150,000 increase in annual operating subsidy. The District pursued a similar strategy at Juniper Swim & Fitness Center and actually reduced the annual operating subsidy by $100,000 while more than doubling the facility size and capacity.

ATTACHMENT Senior Center Planning and Board Communication Summary

7 Senior Center Planning and Board Communication Summary

March 2011-June 2011 Senior Center Vision & Planning Committee work.

July 19, 2011 Committee recommendations presented to Board.

December 2012-April 2013 Senior Center Master Plan Committee work.

March 5, 2013 Master Plan presented to Board along with Indoor Facilities vision.

June 2, 2013 CIP adopted with $1.3 million allocated for Phase 1 Renovation and a portion of design work for Phase 2 Expansion Project.

June 2013 Additional property adjacent to Larkspur Park acquired.

November 5, 2013 Staff presentation on Indoor Recreation Facility priorities (including Senior Center and Simpson sites).

January 21, 2014 Staff presentation on Senior Center development options. Board directs staff to include full master plan build-out in CIP.

April 1, 2014 Staff proposes plan for reduced renovation in advance of full build-out.

June 3, 2014 CIP adopted with $450,000 allocated to reduced Renovation Project in FY 14-15 and $13.96 million for full build-out of Expansion Project in future years ($4.3 million in property tax revenue and $9.65 million in debt proceeds).

July 15, 2014 Board commits an additional $250,000 in funding allocation for the Renovation project due to current cost estimates.

September 16, 2014 Board rejects only bid for Senior Center renovation project as it exceeded budget allocation by $235,000.

December 16, 2014 Staff shares substantially reduced scope for Renovation Project.

June 2, 2015 CIP adopted with $60,000 to complete Renovation Project in FY 15-16 and $16 million for full-build-out of Expansion Project ($8.63 million in property tax revenue and $7.37 million in debt proceeds). $1.2 million allocated in FY 15-16 for design and $14.8 allocated in FY 16-17 for construction.

May-August, 2015 Renovation Project completed within budget allocation.

8 Consent Agenda Item 1 Board of Directors

August 11, 2015 Special Call Board Meeting

BOARD PRESENT Craig Chenoweth, Chair Ted Schoenborn, Vice Chair Nathan Hovekamp Brady Fuller Ellen Grover

STAFF PRESENT Don Horton, Executive Director Michelle Healy, Strategic Planning & Design Director Matt Mercer, Director of Recreation Pat Erwert, Park Services Director Theresa Albert, HR Manager Jan Taylor, Community Relations Manager Steve Jorgensen, Planning Manager Jim Figurski, Landscape Architect Brian Hudspeth, Construction Manager Jeff Haggler, Park Stewardship Manager Chelsea Schneider, Landscape Architect

            

VISITORS

Justin Gotleib – Mr. Gotleib shared that he has participated since 2011. He said that he had just completed a 90 day backpacking trip throughout Oregon and the most beautiful park in the state is Mingus Park in Coos Bay. He also stated that he gave recent testimony at the City of Bend, and shared that he had picked up an envelope of cash.

CONSENT AGENDA 1. Meeting Minutes - 7/21/2015 2. Approve construction contract for Skyline ADA improvements 3. Approve amendment to RRNR consultant contract 4. Approve construction contract for Juniper Park Tennis Court Replacement

Director Schoenborn made a motion to approve the Consent Agenda. Director Grover seconded. The motion passed unanimously, 5-0.

BUSINESS SESSION 9 Consent Agenda Item 1

1. Approve Farewell Bend Bridge engineering contract – Jim Figurski

Mr. Figurski shared that the request originally went out in March of 2015, for consultant services to evaluate the condition and expected useful life of the Farewell Bend Bridge; review two previous assessments done in 2008 and in 2014; and provide recommendations for the repair or replacement of the bridge. He said that only one proposal was submitted in response to the advertisement. The single proposal was rejected and the scope of the project clarified. It was then re-advertised on May 7, 2015. Five proposals were submitted on June 19, 2015 in response to the second advertisement. The design team led by Parametrix of Bend, Oregon was selected by the review committee to enter into contract negotiations with the District.

Mr. Figurski stated that Phase I of the proposed project includes a review and assessment of the existing Farewell Bend Bridge with a recommendation for either repair or replacement of the existing bridge taking into consideration both initial and life cycle costs. Phase II work would entail complete construction documents necessary to replace or repair the existing bridge; obtaining all necessary land use, environmental and construction permits and construction services.

Director Schoenborn moved to authorize the Executive Director to negotiate and execute a contract with Parametrix in the amount of $84,150 for the assessment and repairs of or replacement of Farewell Bend Bridge and to approve a total budget for consultant services not to exceed $92,565. Director Fuller seconded. The motion passed unanimously, 5-0.

2. Approve Rockridge Park Master Plan – Jim Figurski

Mr. Figurski said that Rockridge is a 36 acre site, almost entirely outside the UGB, the the area outside the UGB goes through the County process for planning. He said that there are two phases of the master plan; the first focusing on neighborhood park improvement and the second on community scale improvements. Mr. Figurski shared the public outreach efforts and responses.

Mr. Figurski explained that the initial phase of construction is expected to include the neighborhood park elements in the southwest corner of the site, major path systems and the required off-site improvements to Egypt Drive. The cost for the initial phase is estimated at $1,278,859 including all soft costs. A refined cost estimate and phasing plan for construction will be completed during design development following approval of the Master Plan. The fiscal-year 2016-2020 CIP includes $1,310,460 in system development charges for the planning, design, construction documents, permitting and initial construction of the neighborhood park elements of Rockridge Park. Additional funding for the remainder of the park development would need to be considered for inclusion in a future CIP.

Mr. Figurski said that adoption of the Master Plan does not commit the District to expending funds for the park’s development, but will further the cost of design and construction documents. Once the project is bid, it will go back to the Board for

consideration of the development contract.10 Consent Agenda Item 1

Director Fuller made a motion to approve the Rockridge Park Master Plan. Director Grover seconded. The motion passed unanimously, 5-0.

3. Approve Master Plan for Stone Creek neighborhood park site – Chelsea Schneider

Ms. Schneider said that this neighborhood park is located in the underserved SE quadrant of the district. She explained that it is a developer built park, the developer will build it out and the District will purchase it upon completion. She said that there are many unique aspects of the site, including views to the south, an ASI that encompasses over half of the area and significant rock features both within and outside of the ASI. Ms. Schneider stated that the developer had conducted two neighborhood meetings. They were well attended and a lot of feedback was provided. She shared that there is a lot of desire that the sentiment of the neighborhood association be conveyed to the Board that more needs to be done in this area. Tthey shared that it is sufficient for a neighborhood but there needs to be larger gathering spaces and more opportunities for sports fields in this area of Bend.

Ms. Schneider discussed the opportunities to partner with Silver Rail Elementary and briefly covered the difference between wild side and naturehood play areas. She explained that the naturehood focus is to encourage kids to get out in to nature by using parks as stepping stones, a more natural step for them to get out. Having these areas adjacent to schools support the teachers and curriculums for the sites. It is programmatic and more directly connected to education. Wild side areas are free play, encouraging kids to get out and create and build without expectations of learning outcomes.

Ms. Schneider stated that the projects is under budget and the timeline for land use and breaking ground is for this fall; anticipated purchase in the Spring.

Executive Director Horton added that the amount of turf is significantly less than from what we have historically put in neighborhood parks. He said that the District is looking at what is the appropriate area of turf; in addition to conserving water, we are hearing from the public that natural space is what they really cherish.

Director Schoenborn made a motion to approve the Stone Creek park property Master Plan. Director Fuller seconded. The motion passed unanimously, 5-0.

Complete Board reports and attachments for the above Business Session items are located at: http://www.bendparkandrec.org/about_us/board_meetings/

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S REPORT

Executive Director Horton shared that the Fall Playbook is currently available on-line and will be in mailboxes the week of Aug. 22nd. He said that there were 48,500 copies printed and 45,200 mailed; the mailing increased by 700 households since April. 11 Consent Agenda Item 1 Let’s Picnic was a great success; thanks to Jan Taylor and Community Relations staff

Gopher Broke tournament Friday, Sept. 11, 12:30 at the Bend Golf & Country Club

BOARD MEETINGS CALENDAR REVIEW GOOD OF THE ORDER

ADJOURN: 6:48 pm

EXECUTIVE SESSION - The Board met in Executive Session upon adjournment of the regular meeting pursuant to ORS 192.660(2)(e) for the purpose of discussing real property transactions.

12 Consent Agenda Item 2 BOARD AGENDA COMMUNICATION

AGENDA DATE: September 1, 2015

SUBJECT: First Street Rapids Park

STAFF RESOURCE: Chelsea Schneider, Landscape Architect Brian Hudspeth, Construction Manager Michelle Healy, Strategic Planning & Design Director

PREVIOUS BOARD ACTION: March 18, 2014 Approved First Street Rapids Park master plan. June 2, 2015 Update on the park design.

ACTION PROPOSED: Award Construction Contract

STRATEGIC PLAN: Theme: Customer – Community Connection Objective: Analyze and Adapt to Changing Community Needs Initiative: Acquire land, and plan and develop trails, river access, parks, natural areas and recreation facilities to meet identified community demand and future needs.

BACKGROUND With the completion of the trail work on the west side of First Street Rapids Park last spring, staff completed the design work for the east side of the park in July of this year and on July 15, 2015 the project was advertised for public bid. A mandatory pre-bid meeting was held on July 23, 2015, and bids were opened publicly on August 13, 2015. The District received the following bids:

Company Bid Mountain Sky Landscaping, Inc. $315,178.32 JAL Construction, Inc. $323,700.00 Vic Russell Construction $353,369.64 Deschutes Construction Corp. $388,368.00 Paul Brothers, Inc. $393,051.00

Mountain Sky Landscaping, Inc. is the low bidder with a bid of $315,178.32.

BUDGETARY IMPACT The 2016-2020 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) identifies $646,415 in system development charges (SDCs) for the development of First Street Rapids Park. To date, funds have been expended to build the new accessible trail connection to the Deschutes River Trail on the west side of the park and to complete the design and engineering necessary for the improvements proposed on the eastside of the park. The District currently has $455,525 in SDCs remaining for the construction of the improvements on the east side of the park.

13 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board award a contract to the low bidder, Mountain Sky Landscaping, Inc. in the amount of $315,178.32 plus an additional 10% contingency of $31,158.00 for a total construction contract budget of $346,336.32.

MOTION I make a motion to authorize the Executive Director to award a construction contract to Mountain Sky Landscaping, Inc. for the development of the east side of First Street Rapids Park, in the amount of $315,178.32 and to approve a construction contingency of 10% for a total construction contract budget not to exceed $346,336.32.

ATTACHMENTS None

14 Consent Agenda Item 3 BOARD AGENDA COMMUNICATION

AGENDA DATE: September 1, 2015

SUBJECT: Easement

STAFF RESOURCE: David L. Crowther, Business Manager

PREVIOUS BOARD ACTION: None

ACTION PROPOSED: Grant an Easement

COMMITTEE ACTION: None

STRATEGIC PLAN: Theme: Customer-Community Connection Objective: Analyze and Adapt to Changing Community Need Initiative: Provide an easement for government bodies

BACKGROUND Chris Jasper, representing Fatbeam a fiber optic networks company, approached the District requesting an easement to bore and place a fiber optics cable underground along the west side of Mirror Pond Park just off the parking area. The cable would require two underground vaults at each end of our property. The purpose of the fiber cable is to connect school facilities, county government and city government and Bend Park and Recreation District (if we choose to) on a robust circular fiber system.

The desire to use Mirror Pond Park is due to the lack of overhead utility poles the complete distance between Franklin Street and Newport Avenue at this location. The boring would place the cable approximately three feet underground the length of our property and would not interfere with any utilities or vegetation that the District has in place. In the event that future development of the site would require the fiber optic cable to be relocated, it would be the responsibility of Fatbeam to relocate the cable at their expense.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff is recommending granting the easement to Fatbeam.

BUDGETARY IMPACT None

MOTION I make a motion allow the Bend Park and Recreation Executive Director to negotiate an easement agreement with Fatbeam.

15 Consent Agenda Item 4 BOARD AGENDA COMMUNICATION

AGENDA DATE: October 6, 2015

SUBJECT: Land Exchange at Rockridge Park

STAFF RESOURCE: Michelle Healy, Strategic Planning & Design Director Don Horton, Executive Director

PREVIOUS BOARD ACTION: None

ACTION PROPOSED: None

COMMITTEE ACTION: None

BACKGROUND

Approximately 2 years ago, SGS Development, LLC and the City of Bend approached the District about a possible land exchange between the District and SGS at the SW corner of Rockridge Park. The purpose of the exchange was to provide for a more feasible road alignment and to provide for better pedestrian access to Rock Ridge Park. Alpine Ridge Place is being extended from an existing subdivision to a new subdivision and along the SW corner of Rock Ridge Park. This exchange also makes possible the development of the park per the master plan adopted by the Board during our previous Board meeting. (see Exhibit A – ROW dedication and Exhibit B – Rock Ridge Subdivision Site Plan)

The proposed exchange of property also creates a street presence and neighborhood access point on the SW side of the park facilitating a connection between both subdivisions and Lava Ridge Elementary School and Sky View Middle School (see Exhibit C – enlargement of southwest entrance to Rockridge Park)

STAFF RECOMMENDATION

Staff recommends that the District help facilitate the exchange.

BUDGETARY IMPACT

There is no budgetary impact. The amount of land being exchanged is approximately equal. The developer has also agreed to build the road in front of the park.

MOTION

I make a motion to direct the Executive Director to facilitate the proposed exchange of property between SGS Development, LLC and the Bend Metropolitan Park and Recreation District.

ATTACHMENTS

Exhibits A, B and C

17 Exhibit A

18 Exhibit B

19 Exhibit C

20 Business Session Item 1

BOARD AGENDA COMMUNICATION

AGENDA DATE: September 1, 2015

SUBJECT: Overview of Off-Leash Dog Opportunities and Policies within the District

STAFF RESOURCE: Quinn Keever, Planning Analyst Michelle Healy, Strategic Planning & Design Director Pat Erwert, Park Services Director Jeff Hagler, Park Stewardship Manager

PREVIOUS BOARD ACTION: None

ACTION PROPOSED: None

STRATEGIC PLAN: Theme: Customer – Community Connection Objective: Analyze and Adapt to Changing Community Need Initiative: Review, monitor and periodically revise the Comprehensive Plan and Strategic Plan to ensure that they provide direction to address system deficiencies, respond to the needs of a growing community and plan for equitable distribution of facilities.

BACKGROUND In response to concerns over the number of off-leash dogs throughout the City, the Bend Park and Recreation District (“BPRD” or “District”) partnered with the City of Bend and DogPAC1 in 2007 to provide additional off-leash areas (OLA) within the District. The only existing off-leash area at the time was located at Big Sky Park. As part of that effort, the District and DogPAC worked together to develop site criteria that ultimately lead to the development of six additional OLAs - Pine Nursery, Hollinshead, Overturf, Awbrey Butte (Hillside), Ponderosa and Riverbend. Since then the District has built another OLA at Discovery Park, expanded the Big Sky OLA and provided additional (separate) space at Pine Nursery Park and Ponderosa Park OLAs specifically for small dogs. Attachment A shows the locations of the current District-managed OLAs.

As the population in Bend and within the park district grows, the District wants to ensure that it is still meeting the needs of dog owners who desire to recreate with their dogs off-leash. The District recently conducted interviews with other agencies to understand how they are meeting the needs of dog owners and how the District compares to those agencies (see Attachment B: Dog Park Research for the complete interview findings and analysis).

1 DogPAC is a local not for profit organization advocating for off-leash recreational opportunities in Central Oregon.

21 In addition to these interviews, the District also reviewed results from the 2011 Needs/Unmet-Needs analysis pertaining to off-leash opportunities and evaluated data collected by the District’s stewardship staff and law enforcement relating to dogs in local parks and on trails.

The ultimate goal of this research is to use the findings to help guide future planning of new OLAs and inform the forthcoming update to the BPRD Parks, Recreation and Green Spaces Comprehensive Plan.

This Board Agenda Communication provides a brief overview of the findings. Staff will share a more detailed presentation of the research during the Board meeting.

Interview Research: The District interviewed eleven agencies about their experiences with dogs in their parks and on trails. Attachment C: Table 1 - Summary of Dog Off Leash Park Opportunities lists the agencies and provides a summary of off leash dog park opportunities provided by these jurisdictions as compared to BPRD.

Of the eleven agencies included in this study, only Austin Parks and Recreation has more off-leash park acres per 1,000 population than BPRD. When measuring by percentage of parks for off-leash use, Austin Parks and Recreation had the highest percentage, followed by Boise Parks and Recreation and then BPRD. No agency surveyed in Oregon has a higher level of service than BPRD.

In regards to trails, Austin Parks and Recreation is the only agency that allows dogs off-leash on trails within the city (5 of 212 miles). In Missoula, Boulder and Boise, off-leash trails are provided within open space on the fringes of the cities, similar to the off leash trail opportunities provided on Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management property surrounding Bend.

The interviews also included questions about management and enforcement, use of volunteers, dog park amenities provided, successes with off-leash areas and concerns or challenges faced. This information is summarized in Attachment B and will be explained during the Board presentation.

Needs/Unmet Needs Analysis: In 2011, the District conducted a Needs/Unmet Needs Analysis to measure service levels and establish target levels of service for several amenities, including OLAs. Survey findings showed that the need for OLAs has remained steady at around 40% over the course of the last ten years (the past 3 surveys). However, the level at which the need is being met increased significantly from 2008 to 2011, likely due to the development of new OLAs. This analysis should be updated following the next community survey to evaluate if this trend is continuing.

District Management of Dogs in Parks and on Trails: Within the park district boundaries, enforcement of off-leash regulations is a joint effort between the Deschutes County Sheriff’s Office, Bend Police Department and BPRD Park Stewards. Law enforcement officers have the authority to write citations and Park Stewards can issue exclusion notices; although encouraging voluntary compliance through education and outreach is the main goal of the Park Stewardship Program.

As mentioned above, the Park Stewardship Program strives to promote voluntary compliance to the dogs-on-leash rule in the parks and on trails. Education and outreach is done regularly in parks with a

22 kiosk providing information to the public and on a daily basis with interaction between Park Stewards and dog owners. Feedback from park users has been positive and most users seem to appreciate having a staff presence within the parks.

Statistics from the Park Stewardship Program and Bend Police indicate that approximately two thirds of dog owners are complying with the dogs-on-leash rule. Though there are still a high number of dogs off leash, this is a reversal from what the District was observing a few years ago and is a sign that the outreach and education efforts are seeing some significant success. As the Park Stewardship Program evolves, data will continue to be collected and evaluated to determine how well the program is succeeding at addressing off-leash dogs in parks and on trails.

Summary: Dogs are an important part of the lives of many District residents. Overall the research findings show that BPRD is doing a good job of meeting the needs of dog owners. The provision of OLAs within the District is generally meeting community needs as demonstrated in surveys, and the existing off leash areas are geographically well distributed throughout the community. And while the research doesn’t directly quantify the influence of other non-District owned/managed off leash opportunities on the community’s perception of need, it is clear that Bend is fortunate compared to many other jurisdictions to be surrounded by a significant amount of federal land in close proximity, most of which is open to off-leash use.

The District may want to consider adopting a level of service standard for OLAs as part of the update to the Parks, Recreation and Green Spaces Comprehensive Plan. In the meantime, in order to continue to meet the level of service dog owners are accustomed to within the District boundaries, the District should try to provide additional off-leash opportunities proportional to current levels as the population grows. It is unlikely, and supported by the interviews with peer agencies, that the District will identify a trail within District boundaries, that allows off-leash dogs. Furthermore, the work that the Park Stewardship Program is doing to encourage compliance with dog related regulations through education and outreach should continue.

BUDGETARY IMPACT None, information provided for discussion only.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION None, information provided for discussion only.

MOTION None, information provided for discussion only.

ATTACHMENT Attachment A: Map of Off-Leash Opportunities in Bend Attachment B: BPRD Dog Park Research Attachment C: Table 1 Summary of Off-Leash Dog Park Opportunities

23 Attachment A

¤£20 ¤£97

¤£97 Pine Nursery OLA

Hollinshead OLA Hillside OLA Big Sky OLA

¤£97

Discovery OLA

¤£20 Ponderosa OLA Overturf OLA

Riverbend OLA

¤£97

¤£372

¤£97

Legend Off Leash Area Off-Leash Areas (OLA) 2015 Parks 2015 Urban Growth Boundary Park District Boundary Federal Land Ownership BLM µ Map Date: 8-25-2015 Source: Bend Park and Recreation District USFS Not24 to Scale Attachment B BPRD Dog Park Research September 1, 2015

Background In 2007, the Bend Park and Recreation District (BPRD) partnered with DogPAC1 to find locations within the District to provide off-leash opportunities in addition to the existing off-leash area at Big Sky Park. BPRD and DogPAC worked together to develop site criteria including topography, proximity to busy roads, proximity to residences, minimum acreage and existing infrastructure within a park. The result was development of six new off-leash dog opportunities—a mix between fenced and unfenced areas.

Today, as the City of Bend continues to grow, BPRD strives to ensure that it is still meeting the needs of dog owners who desire to recreate with their dog off-leash. This analysis aims to understand how other agencies are meeting the needs of dog owners and how BPRD compares to those agencies. Findings from this report will help direct future off-leash dog opportunities and will help inform the forthcoming update to the BPRD Parks, Recreation and Green Spaces Comprehensive Plan.

Methodology BPRD interviewed park planners and administrators at eleven other agencies. The agencies were selected based upon criteria such as similar size of population served, similar cultures (emphasis on outdoor recreation), similar geographic environment (mountain towns in close proximity to Forest Service land), reputation as a supportive dog community, and/or similar governance structure (park district vs. park department). The following are the agencies interviewed: • Missoula, Montana Parks and Recreation Department • Boulder, Colorado Parks and Recreation Department • Boulder, Colorado Open Space and Mountain Parks Department • Austin, Texas Parks and Recreation Department • Corvallis, Oregon Parks and Recreation Department • Medford, Oregon Parks and Recreation Department • Eugene, Oregon Parks and Open Space Division • Willamalane Park and Recreation District, Springfield, Oregon • Tualatin Hills Park and Recreation District (THPRD), Beaverton, Oregon • Boise, Idaho Parks and Recreation Department • Portland, Oregon Parks and Recreation Department

1 DogPAC is a local not for profit organization advocating for off-leash recreational opportunities in Central Oregon.

25 Summary of Findings Most jurisdictions differentiate between their off-leash dog parks and off-leash dog areas. Off-leash dog parks are completely or almost completely fenced with natural barriers such as rivers or large slopes on one or more sides to give a sense of total containment. Off-leash dog areas are spaces that are minimally fenced or not at all fenced, usually within the context of a larger park. Often times off-leash dog areas have restrictions on times and seasons of allowed use to prevent the off-leash areas from being used during the busiest times of day for the larger park or to prevent extensive turf damage during wet winter months. This report refers to off-leash dog parks and areas as off-leash dog opportunities, unless otherwise noted.

Off-Leash Opportunities Off-leash opportunities were assessed by four different measurements: 1) Off-leash acres per 1,000 population; 2) Percentage of total park acres for off-leash use; 3) Off-leash trail miles per 1,000 population; and 4) Percentage of total trail miles for off-leash use.

Of the eleven jurisdictions included in this study, only Austin Parks and Recreation has more off-leash park acres per 1,000 population than BPRD. When measuring by percentage of parks for off-leash use, Austin Parks and Recreation had the highest percentage, followed by Boise Parks and Recreation and then BPRD. No agency surveyed in Oregon has a higher level of service than BPRD.

Of the eleven agencies interviewed, only Austin Parks and Recreation allows dogs off-leash on trails within the central city. In Missoula, Boulder and Boise, off-leash trails are provided in conservation land or open space on the fringes of the cities; on land designated to serve as a buffer between urban development and wilderness areas owned by federal agencies. In Missoula, Boulder and Boise, off-leash dogs are not allowed on urban trails. The seven remaining jurisdictions do not offer off-leash trails in any form.

As mentioned above, Missoula, Boulder and Boise are largely surrounded by wilderness land owned by federal agencies. Similarly, BPRD is surrounded by 1.6 million acres of Forest Service land, including 1,200 miles of trails—95% of which are open to off-leash use in the summer. 100% of the trails are open to off-leash use in the fall, winter and spring. BPRD is also bordered by land owned by the Bureau of Land Management.

Most jurisdictions had more off-leash dog areas than parks. These off-leash areas were usually within larger parks and had seasonal and daily restrictions on use. For example, in Missoula, most off-leash trails are closed from December 1 to April 30, and in Boise, one off-leash area is only open during the following times:

June 1 - August 31, Sunrise to 8:00 a.m. September 1 - May 31, Sunrise to 10:00 a.m. November 1 - February 1, 3:00 p.m. to Sunset

Please see Table 1 on the following page for a summary of off-leash opportunities. 2

26 Table 1: Summary of Off-Leash Dog Opportunities

% of Total Off-Leash Off-Leash Acres Park Acres Total Trail Miles % of Total Trail Number of Off- 2014 Total Park Off-Leash Per 1,000 for Off-Leash Trail Off-Leash Per 1,000 Miles for Off- Leash Agency Population Acres Acres Population Use Miles Trail Miles Population Leash Use Opportunities

Bend, OR Park and Recreation District 1-2 82,069 2,679 54.8 0.67 2.0% 65 0 0.00 0% 8

Missoula, MT Parks and Recreation Department 3 69,821 3,700 6.5 0.09 0.2% 67 35 0.50 52.2% 3

Boulder, CO Parks and Recreation Department 105,112 1,803 8.5 0.08 0.5% 58 0 0.00 0.0% 4 Boulder, CO Open Space and Mountain Parks Department 4 105,112 45,000 0.0 0.00 0.0% 145 87 0.83 60.0% N/A

Austin, TX Parks and Recreation Department 912,791 20,000 664.0 0.73 3.3% 212 5 0.01 2.4% 12

Corvallis, OR Parks and Recreation Department 54,953 3,000 0 0.00 0.0% 7

Medford, OR Parks and Recreation Department 78,557 2,395 2.0 0.03 0.1% 31 0 0.00 0.0% 1

Eugene, OR Parks and Open Space Division 160,561 4,600 15.3 0.10 0.3% 40 0 0.00 0.0% 4 Willamalane Park and Recreation District, Springfield, OR 60,000 1,500 5.0 0.08 0.3% 15 0 0.00 0.0% 1 Tualatin Hills Park and Recreation District, Beaverton, OR 230,000 2,240 5.7 0.02 0.3% 60 0 0.00 0.0% 3

Boise, ID Parks and Recreation Department 5 216,282 5,531 129.0 0.60 2.3% 202 156 0.72 77.2% 11

Portland, OR Parks and Recreation Department 619,360 12,000 65.0 0.10 0.5% 152 0 0.00 0.0% 33 Notes: 1 BPRD acreage assumes 10 acres at Hillside Park. This is subject to change depending upon the outcome of the Hillside Park meeting in late September. 2 BPRD is surrounded by 1.6 million acres of U.S. Forest Service land. This includes 1,200 miles of trails, 95% of which are allowed for off-leash use in the summer. 3 Missoula Parks and Recreation Department acreage includes 3,300 acres of conservation land on the fringes of the city. 4 Land under the jurisdiction of Boulder Open Space and Mountain Parks Department is outside of city limits. 5 Boise Parks and Recreation Department acreage includes 3,912 acres of open space on the fringes of the city. 3

27 Management and Enforcement of Off-Leash Opportunities Each jurisdiction manages their own off-leash dog opportunities, but the entities responsible for enforcement of the opportunities varied. Most jurisdictions explained that police are not likely to respond to the incident unless there is a serious safety concern. Please see Table 2 below for a summary of enforcement entities. Park and recreation agencies that have the ability to issue citations are noted.

Table 2: Summary of Enforcement

Agency Enforcement Entity Bend Park and Park stewards, city police, sheriff Recreation District, OR Missoula, MT Parks and Animal control Recreation Department Boulder Parks and Animal control first, then city police Recreation Department, CO Boulder Open Space & Park rangers (they can issue citations) Mountain Parks Department, CO Austin, TX Parks and Austin Parks and Recreation staff/police Recreation Department Corvallis, OR Parks and City police or Benton County animal control Recreation Department Medford, OR Parks and Code enforcement staff Recreation Department Eugene, OR Parks and City police/sheriff Open Space Division Willamalane Park and Willamalane staff/police Recreation District, Springfield, OR Tualatin Hills Park and THPRD staff/police Recreation District, Beaverton, OR Boise, ID Parks and Two animal control officers patrol parks (they can Recreation Department issue citations). Idaho Fish and Game patrols trails (they can issue citations). Portland, OR Parks and Park rangers and animal control Recreation Department

28 Off-Leash Amenities Sophistication of amenities varied by jurisdiction, but all jurisdictions provided trash receptacles and dog waste disposal bags at a minimum. Portland purposefully limits amenities so as to avoid liability from features like training courses or agility toys. Other jurisdictions such as Boise provide extensive amenities such as four agility courses. The Boulder Open Space and Mountain Parks Department has a sophisticated dog waste composting system. Regarding the amenity of providing space for separation of large dogs and small dogs, please see Table 3 below.

Table 3: Summary of Large Dog/Small Dog Separation

Agency Large Dog/Small Dog Separation Bend Park and Recreation Yes District, OR Missoula, MT Parks and No Recreation Department Boulder, CO Parks and Yes Recreation Department Boulder Open Space & N/A Mountain Parks Department, (Off-leash dogs are CO allowed on trails only) Austin, TX Parks and Yes Recreation Department Corvallis, OR Parks and Yes Recreation Department Medford, OR Parks and No Recreation Department Eugene, OR Parks and Open Yes Space Division Willamalane Park and Yes Recreation District, Springfield, OR Tualatin Hills Park and Yes Recreation District, Beaverton, OR Boise, ID Parks and No Recreation Department Portland, OR Parks and Yes Recreation Department

29 Fees Off-leash dog opportunities are free of charge in each jurisdiction.

Maintenance Costs Only Portland and Boulder Park and Recreation Departments have data on costs to maintain off-leash dog opportunities. In Portland, the most recent data were from 2009 and at that time, it cost $106,277 a year to run 33 off-leash dog opportunities. According to the 2014 Boulder Parks and Recreation Master Plan, the estimated cost to operate and maintain their four off-leash dog opportunities is $17,000 per year.

Volunteers Austin and Boulder Parks and Recreation Departments, THPRD and BPRD have support from formal volunteer organizations. Austin’s organization is called “Friends of Austin Dog Parks.” The group assists with minor physical improvements to the parks. Boulder Parks and Recreation has volunteer groups specific to individual parks, and the groups tend to advocate for their particular parks. THPRD has a formal volunteer group for one of their off-leash dog parks. The group fundraises annually to help offset the cost of the lease for the park site. The group also assists in maintenance of the park. At BPRD, DogPAC fundraised to build a spray park for dogs and provided volunteers to help with park clean-up events. Members of DogPAC sometimes serve on Citizen Advisory Committees for various park projects. Jurisdictions without formal volunteer organizations take it upon themselves to host volunteer days to help clean and maintain the off-leash opportunities.

Level of Service Standard (LOS) Only Boulder Parks and Recreation currently has an identified LOS for off-leash dog opportunities identified in their 2014 Boulder Parks and Recreation Department Master Plan. According to the Master Plan their current LOS is higher than other communities in Colorado and across the nation. Boise is finalizing a draft of an LOS and will present it to their Parks Commission in September 2015. As stated above, only one jurisdiction had an LOS, therefore more research would be necessary to develop an appropriate methodology to help determine a possible standard for BPRD.

Concerns Enforcement The overarching concern from each agency was their limited ability to enforce rules. As the Ridge to Rivers Trail manager in Boise said, “If you can’t enforce off-leash trails, don’t expect any compliance. The rules become ‘suggestions’ if the public knows there is no enforcement.” Agencies also expressed a desire for consistent rules among all off-leash opportunities. Off-leash dog areas posed the greatest frustration because many of them have restrictions on use during certain seasons and times of day.

The Portland Off-Leash Dog Administrator explained that they have trouble enforcing the restrictions on seasons and times because the dog owner can claim they didn’t realize there was a schedule for use. This forces the Portland park rangers into a role of continually educating patrons, rather than actually enforcing rules. 6

30 Boundaries Agencies expressed frustration about off-leash dog areas and off-leash trails due to their lack of physical boundaries. Within off-leash areas, dogs often stray into other areas of a park where off-leash dogs are an incompatible use, such as playgrounds. Similarly, there is no guarantee that off-leash dogs will stay on a designated trail, putting habitat and wildlife at risk in the conservation land and open space in Missoula, Boise and Boulder.

Successes Large Dog/Small Dog Separation Agencies with off-leash dog parks that provide separation for large dogs and small dogs reported that their patrons are grateful for this amenity. The agencies without large dog/small dog areas said that their patrons are requesting this amenity and several of the agencies are working to accomplish this.

Gates, Entrances and Exits Some agencies shared their successes with double gates in their off-leash dog parks, to ensure that gates opened for dogs arriving at the dog park are not inadvertently allowing dogs to leave the park. The “holding” area between the two gates ensures that no dogs are accidentally released from the park.

One agency noted that having separate gates for the entrance and the exit not only ensures that dogs aren’t accidentally released from the park, but also limits conflicts between dogs trying to enter and exit the park at the same time.

Enforcement As mentioned above, enforcement was the overarching concern for most agencies. However, agencies who have the ability to write citations noted that the “fear” of being cited has helped limit the number of infractions.

31 Interview Summaries

Bend Park and Recreation District 2014 District population: 82,069 (per District staff) Contact: N/A

1. What off-leash opportunities do you provide?

• Big Sky Off-Leash Park and Area (some fenced, some not) • Riverbend Park Off-Leash Park, river access available. Small dog area. • Ponderosa Park Off-Leash Park, includes small dog area. • Bob Wenger Memorial Off-Leash Park at Pine Nursery Park. Splash pad open seasonally. Small dog park. • Hollinshead Park Off-Leash Park and Area (some fenced, some not) • Overturf Butte Reservoir Off-Leash Park • Awbrey Reservoir Off-Leash Area (not currently fenced) • Discovery Park Off-Leash Park

2. How many acres of park land vs. dog parks do you have?

• 2,679 acres of park land • 54.8 acres of dog parks

3. How many miles of trails vs. off-leash trails do you have?

• 65 miles of trails • No off-leash trails

4. How are the off-leash areas managed?

• BPRD

5. What are the off-leash amenities: Drinking fountain? Water play? Waste receptacles?

• Drinking fountains • Splash pad and river access • Dog waste disposal bags and waste receptacles • Kiosks • Benches

6. Do you have small dog / large dog amenities?

• Yes

7. Who enforces rules and how are they enforced?

• BPRD and police

8. Is there a fee for entrance?

• No

9. Do you have data on costs to run the off-leash areas?

• No (per Joanna Edwards)

10. Do you have any volunteer groups that support the off-leash areas?

• DogPac has provided support to build a spray park for dogs at Pine Nursery Park. Members of DogPac sometimes serve on Citizen Advisory Committees for various park projects and provide volunteer help for clean-up events.

11. Any concerns or success with your dog parks?

• N/A

12. Does your agency have an LOS for dog parks?

• No

Missoula Parks and Recreation Department 2014 population estimate: 69,821 (U.S. Census Bureau, American Fact Finder) Contact: Neil Miner Parks & Trails Design / Development Mgr. (406) 552-6264. Morgan Valliant, Missoula Conservation Lands (406) 552-6263.

1. What off-leash opportunities do you provide?

• Most of their conservation land (3,300 acres) is voice/sight control off-leash.

33 • Fort Missoula Canine Campus--1/3-acre of fenced area to provide a secure place for dog obedience and agility training. • Playfair Park--One small fenced park with double gate. Less than 1/4 acre. An area within the bigger park, so people tend to use the bigger park instead. Fenced park isn’t used very much since people go to bigger park. • Jacob’s Island Bark Park. Island within the river, only fenced on one side, so uses within the area (floaters, kayakers) often meld. 6 acres. • Constructing a new dog park now, that will include a swimming pond for dogs. Done in Sept 2016 or 2017 (depending upon construction phasing).

2. How many acres of park land vs. dog parks do you have?

• 400 acres of parkland, 3,300 acres of conservation land =3,700 acres. • 6.5 acres of dog parks.

3. How many miles of trails vs. off-leash trails do you have?

• 22 miles of urban trails. No off-leash urban trails. • 45 miles of trails in the conservation land, 35 are allowed off-leash. Conservation lands are designed to be a buffer between the city and federal land and are of the fringe of the city. Their city limits are not contiguous, so they have parcels owned by city but completely surrounded by the county. • The 35-miles of off-leash trails are voice/sight control. Dogs are allowed off-leash 100 yards past the trailhead. Most trails are closed from December 1 to April 30, and dogs are allowed off-leash under voice restraint from May 1 to November 30.

4. How are the off-leash areas managed?

• Missoula Parks and Recreation Department

5. What are the off-leash amenities: Drinking fountain? Water play? Waste receptacles?

• Jacob’s Island Bark Park: dog waste disposal bags/trash receptacles, double gate fences, benches, and picnic tables • Playfair park: dog waste disposal bags, trash receptacles • Conservation lands trailheads: dog waste disposal bagsand trash receptacles

6. Do you have small dog / large dog amenities?

• Playfair is a default small dog area due to its very small acreage.

34 • Not at Jacob’s Island • New park will have large dog/small dog separation.

7. Who enforces rules and how are they enforced?

• Animal control. Police won’t enforce off-leash rules. Not really enforced well.

8. Is there a fee for entrance? • No

9. Do you have data on costs to run the off-leash areas?

• No, mowing is probably the biggest expense.

10. Do you have any volunteer groups that support the off-leash areas?

• No formal group, just general volunteers through park department.

11. Any concerns or success with your dog parks?

• Suggest having more than one gate to avoid conflicts between dogs coming or going. • No square fencing so that dogs can’t get cornered. • Missoula citizens have requested large dog/small dog separation.

12. Does your agency have an LOS standard for dog parks?

• Not formally, but he’ll see if he can come up with something and email it to me.

Boulder Parks and Recreation Department 2014 population estimate: 105,112 (U.S. Census Bureau, American Fact Finder). Contact: Doug Godfrey, Parks Planner. 303-413-7229, [email protected] Phillip Yates , Open Space and Mountain Parks Department, 303-441-3440, [email protected]

1. What off-leash opportunities do you provide?

• There are two departments that primarily deal with the dogs and leash laws, the Parks Department and our Open Space and Mountain Parks (OSMP) Department.

• The Parks and Recreation department operates four dog parks. Three of the dog parks are fenced. One of the parks is unfenced and operates under the voice and site control standard. This unfenced dog park is demarcated by yellow poles.

• Boulder Parks and Recreation Department has approximately 1,490 acres of developed parkland and 313 undeveloped acres =1,803. (Acreage based on Boulder Park and Recreation Comprehensive Plan, not interview)

• Acreage information for each of our four dog parks is below:

• East Boulder Dog Park Fenced area for both large and small dogs. Water access to a small lake. Large area is about 1.5 acres, small area is about .45

• Foothills Dog Park Two acre fenced park with a separate areas for both small and large dogs. Large area is about 1.6 acres, small area is about .5 acres

• Howard Heuston Dog Park Voice and Sight Control area is designated by yellow poles. The remainder of the park is leash law. The size of the Voice and Sight area is about 1.25 acres.

• Valmont Dog Park (within a City Park) Fenced area for both large and small dogs. Large area is about 3 acres. Small area is about .25 acres. A water spigot is available seasonally.

2. How many acres of park land vs. dog parks do you have?

• Boulder Parks and Recreation Department: o 1,803 acres of park land (acreage based on Boulder Park and Recreation Comprehensive Plan, not interview) o 8.55 acres of off-leash dog parks

• Open Space and Mountain Parks Department: o 45,000 acres o No dog parks 3. How many miles of trails vs. off-leash trails do you have?

• Boulder Parks and Recreation Department: o 58 miles of multi-use trails (per their website, Mr. Godfrey only told me OSMP trail mileage). I didn't include the miles that are streets where bikes can ride (which is 160 miles). o Off-leash use is not permitted on trails 12

36 • Open Space and Mountain Parks Department: o 145 miles of trails o 87 miles are allowed off-leash 4. How are the off-leash areas managed?

• We have an operational work group that handles the maintenance of the dog parks within the parks system. Otherwise OSMP handles maintenance of their trails.

5. What are the off-leash amenities: Drinking fountain? Water play? Waste receptacles?

• Typically we have water spigots, and benches or picnic tables. We have recently installed shelters at some of our dog parks. We do have waste receptacles and doggie- doo bags. One of our dog parks has access to an adjacent pond. At at least one of our parks we piloted a dog waste-composting program, but I don’t know if that is still in effect or how successful (if at all) it has been. OSMP also has a dog waste-composting program at some of its sites. Composting reduces the amount of dog waste going to landfills and helps transform that waste into a beneficial compost mixture. A local business is doing the composting for OSMP. Watch a video on how dog waste is turned into high quality potting soil: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gwiff9uG87s • More composting information: https://bouldercolorado.gov/osmp/dogs-on- osmp#compost

6. Do you have small dog / large dog amenities?

• Yes, at three of the four parks.

7. Who enforces rules and how are they enforced?

• The parks department does not really have any official enforcement powers. I think that (and I may be wrong on this one) the public is encouraged to contact the Police Department regarding any issues and they send out an animal control officer. Most of the time the public calls us and we direct them to the police/animal control or we contact the police on their behalf. On OSMP lands rangers have enforcement powers by issuing citations.

8. Is there a fee for entrance?

• No

9. Do you have data on costs to run the off-leash areas?

• According to the 2014 Master Plan, in 2013 the Boulder Park and Recreation Department estimated they spent $17,000 on operations and maintenance for their four off-leash dog opportunities. 13

37 10. Do you have any volunteer groups that support the off-leash areas?

• There are a number of groups that often volunteer their time for maintenance and clean-up activities at the dog parks. The groups are very specific to a particular dog park. I don’t think that there is one group that volunteers at all of the dog parks. The groups that are out there can be very vocal about their particular park.

11. Any concerns or success with your dog parks?

• Mr. Godfrey did not list anything here.

12. Does your agency have an LOS for dog parks?

• Yes, in the Boulder Parks and Recreation Department Master Plan.

Austin Parks and Recreation Department 2014 population estimate: 912,791 (U.S. Census Bureau, American Fact Finder) Contact: D’anne (pronounced Dee-ann) Williams. Phone: 512-974-6700

1. What off-leash opportunities do you provide?

• Our ordinance allows for areas that dogs can be off leash so technically they are all off- leash areas. We do not have any off-leash parks. The two fenced areas we have are portions of larger parks.

12 off-leash dog areas:

• Davis White Northeast District Park • Auditorium Shores • Emma Long Metropolitan Park • Onion Creek District Park • Shoal Creek Greenbelt • West Austin Park • Walnut Creek District Park • Zilker Park • Red Bud Isle • Far West • Mary Moore Searight Metro Park • Norwood Tract at Town Lake Metro Park

38 2. How many acres of park land vs. dog parks do you have?

• They own 16,659 acres of parkland, although they maintain 20,000 acres that are open to the public. • 664 acres of off-leash dog areas.

3. How many miles of trails vs. off-leash trails do you have?

• 212 miles of urban trails • 5 miles of off-leash dog trails

4. How are the off-leash areas managed?

• The Austin Parks and Rec ground staff.

5. What are the off-leash amenities: Drinking fountain? Water play? Waste receptacles?

• Most of our off leash areas were established in an ordinance in 1972 so there were no standards for amenities. Our Watershed department supplies dog waste disposal bags and garbage bags, we supply trash cans. We would like to have 1 drinking fountain at the main trailheads or entrances but most do not currently have them often due to the remote locations. We do not have any man made water play but we do have water access at Auditorium shores on Town Lake and at Red Bud Isle.

6. Do you have small dog / large dog amenities?

• Only at the fenced in off leash area at Norwood. The public really seems to appreciate the separation and I have seen them in all of the new fenced in off leash areas in the surrounding cities.

7. Who enforces rules and how are they enforced?

• Most of it is peer pressure. City staff can ask people to leave that are disruptive but the police are the only ones who can ticket and it is very low priority for them so it’s mostly on an honor basis. 8. Is there a fee for entrance?

• Not yet. We have talked about it but do not have the staff resources to monitor and enforce.

9. Do you have data on costs to run the off-leash areas?

• No, it’s lumped in with overall grounds maintenance currently

39 10. Do you have any volunteer groups that support the off-leash areas?

• There is a local non-profit, The Friends of Austin Dog Parks that do some minor assistance but they have had difficulty with fund raising and agreement on scope. Some of the neighborhood park adopters have assisted with clean up but that’s about it.

11. Any concerns or success with your dog parks?

• I’d say our biggest issue is that people will use the dog waste disposal bags but then leave them on the ground so there is little follow through and accountability. Also in Austin most people treat any park as an off leash area so we have issues with people complying with the leash law. We are working on an education/sign program that may assist with these issues and hope to cause a cultural shift. We find that in the fenced areas, people treat them like day cares and do not monitor their dogs so there are more conflicts and the concentrated use makes them smelly, dusty unpleasant areas. Design and money could help with these issues but it’s like landscaping, it’s easy to cut from the project and budget.

12. Does your agency have an LOS for dog parks? • No

Corvallis Parks and Recreation Department 2014 population estimate: 54,953 (U.S. Census Bureau, American Fact Finder) Contact: Jackie Rochefort-541-766-6468. [email protected] Emailed her on 8- 12-15 to follow-up on outstanding questions.

1. What off-leash opportunities do you provide?

• One fenced dog park: Corvallis Fenced Dog Park, ½ acre. • Bald Hill Park Off-Leash Area--areas north and west of the barn only • Chip Ross Park Off-Leash Area--entire park is off-leash • Martin Luther King Jr. Park--open fields south of the multi-modal path, EXCEPT ball fields • Willamette Park Off-Leash Area--entire park EXCEPT sports fields, playground and shelter areas • Woodland Meadow Park Off-Leash Area--west side of the park ONLY • Crystal Lake Sports Fields--turf areas from November to March ONLY; dogs must be on leash near the boat ramp • Dogs are NOT permitted in these Corvallis parks, even when on leash: Central Park, Chintimini Park, Franklin Square Park, Lily Park, Washington Park (dogs prohibited in the playground area only, otherwise allowed on leash) 16

2. How many acres of park land vs. dog parks do you have?

• 3,000 acres of park land…She will add up off leash areas for me.

3. How many miles of trails vs. off-leash trails do you have?

• She will send miles of trails to me, no off-leash trails

4. How are the off-leash areas managed?

• Corvallis Parks and Recreation staff

5. What are the off-leash amenities: Drinking fountain? Water play? Waste receptacles?

• Corvallis Off-Leash Dog Park: year round water and dog bags • Off-Leash Dog Areas: dog waste disposal bags and receptacles only

6. Do you have small dog / large dog amenities?

• In Corvallis Off-Leash Dog Park only

7. Who enforces rules and how are they enforced?

• City police or Benton County animal control.

8. Is there a fee for entrance?

• No

9. Do you have data on costs to run the off-leash areas?

• Jackie will ask the park operations crew

10. Do you have any volunteer groups that support the off-leash areas?

• No formal group, but citizens volunteer for a clean-up once a year.

11. Any concerns or success with your dog parks?

• Everyone loves them, and everyone hates them. People appreciate the new Corvallis Off-Leash Dog Park.

12. Does your agency have an LOS for dog parks?

• She will ask park operations manager--Jude Geist

41 Medford Parks and Recreation Department 2014 population estimate: 78,557 (U.S. Census Bureau, American Fact Finder) Contact: Sandi Sherman (541) 774-2400

1. What off-leash opportunities do you provide?

• Bear Creek Dog Park: This is a 2 acre fenced off-leash area with water, covered picnic table and natural track. It is located in Bear Creek Park at the corner of Highland Drive and Barnett Road, near I-5 Exit 27. There are no lights at this facility and all city park hours are 6am - 10:30pm unless posted otherwise. • Building one at Hawthorne Park, done in Sept. 2015. Entirely fenced. No trails, no unfenced areas. • No dogs are allowed at US Cellular Community Park.

2. How many acres of park land vs. dog parks do you have?

• 2,395 acres of parks. 2 acres of dog parks, plus a new dog park under design. Doesn’t have an estimate of how big new park will be.

3. How many miles of trails vs. off-leash trails do you have?

• 31 miles of bike trails. No off-leash trails.

4. How are the off-leash areas managed?

• Medford Parks and Rec stocks dog waste disposal bags, remove trash, maintain it, fill holes in ground, repair fence.

5. What are the off-leash amenities: Drinking fountain? Water play? Waste receptacles?

• Dog bowl for water, trash receptacles and dog waste disposal bags.

6. Do you have small dog / large dog amenities?

• No

7. Who enforces rules and how are they enforced?

• No supervision, the public usually calls the City’s code enforcement department with complaints. Code enforcement then transfers to the parks department if it’s a facility issue (i.e. not a human or dog dispute).

8. Is there a fee for entrance?

• No

9. Do you have data on costs to run the off-leash areas?

• No, the dog park is a small part of a bigger park (Bear Creek) so hard to divide out the costs for just the dog area.

10. Do you have any volunteer groups that support the off-leash areas?

• No, but there are some clean-ups sometimes.

11. Any concerns or success with your dog parks?

• The public is requesting double gates at the entrance to the dog park. Public also wants large dog/small dog area.

12. Added the LOS question after this interview.

Eugene, Parks and Open Space Division 2014 population estimate: 160,561 (U.S. Census Bureau, American Fact Finder) Contact: Philip Richardson, 541-682-4906

1. What off-leash opportunities do you provide?

• In Eugene by city code, off-leash dogs in public are only allowed in designated areas, which right now are only in our 4 fully fenced dog parks.

Four off leash dog parks: (Unless otherwise noted, the website didn’t give acres of the dog parks) • Alton Baker Park • Amazon Park (large and small dog park). 3 acre park for dogs of all sizes. ½-acre small dog park inside the Amazon Dog Park. • Candlelight Park (3.5 acre dog park). Eugene Weekly says there are two separate play fields here. • Wayne Morse Family Farm

2. How many acres of park land vs. dog parks do you have? • Many ways to define, but we currently own and manage about 4,600 acres. Total dog park acreage: 15.3

3. How many miles of trails vs. off-leash trails do you have?

• About 40 miles of soft-surface trails (official unpaved trails). None of these are approved for off-leash use. We’re discussing a much larger dog park (20-40) acres in a more ‘natural’ setting, in which there would be trails but that’s at least 5-10 years out. Unless city council tells us to, and I don’t expect they will, we will not be changing rules to approve of off-leash dogs on our trails.

4. How are the off-leash areas managed?

• Eugene Parks and Open Space

5. What are the off-leash amenities: Drinking fountain? Water play? Waste receptacles?

• All our dog parks have double gated entrances, picnic tables and/or benches, waste receptacles, bin for plastic bags (supplied by users), water supply (turned on seasonally). Some of them also have cross-fencing (to allow grass field regeneration), irrigation, shelter, picnic tables, benches, and user-supplied kiddie pools.

6. Do you have small dog / large dog amenities?

• Just one, in Amazon Park.

7. Who enforces rules and how are they enforced?

• Peer pressure makes a difference, but we really don’t have any internal division for enforcement of any or our park rules. Police/Sheriffs are called if necessary, but unless a crime is in process, they typically will not respond.

8. Is there a fee for entrance?

• No

9. Do you have data on costs to run the off-leash areas?

• I’ll ask but doubtful

44 10. Do you have any volunteer groups that support the off-leash areas?

• Unofficially – our Park Steward program will often set up volunteer events in the dog parks, and they’re generally well attended, but I don’t think there are any official dog groups. • The small dog park inside the Amazon Dog Park was constructed and is maintained by a volunteer group.

11. Any concerns or success with your dog parks?

• Water is a necessity. We use a rather expensive Murdock hydrant. • Bigger is better. We have about 4-5 acres, and it’s just not big enough – the areas are hugely impacted, especially in our climate, and while dogs love the mud, dog owners don’t. • Double gated entry needed • Cross fencing and irrigation best to allow for turf renovation. • Avoid placing dog parks near waterways (or sensitive natural areas) – the temptation is just too great, and all ours are near them, and those stretches are heavily impacted with lots of bank erosion. Where we can we’ve fenced off the waterways, but most places you can’t do that. • Natural area impacts are also really significant, we get lots of off-leash dog use on our trails even though it isn’t approved. Signs we’ve placed have been removed the same day. There’s a fairly wide swath of impacts to either side. • Users are a vocal and very engaged population, the dog parks get a huge amount of use, but they also take up a lot of maintenance resources, and are single use areas.

12. Does your agency have an LOS for dog parks?

• Not really, our plan calls for them to be distributed equitably, but we’re not really there yet.

Willamalane Park and Recreation District 2014 Population Estimate: 60,000 Contact: Damon Crume, 541-736-4111

1. What off-leash opportunities do you provide? • One off-leash dog park 2. How many acres of park land vs. dog parks do you have? • 1,500 acres of park land • 5 acres of dog parks

45 3. How many miles of trails vs. off-leash trails do you have? • 15 miles of trails • None for off-leash 4. How are the off-leash areas managed? • Willamalane staff

5. What are the off-leash amenities: Drinking fountain? Water play? Waste receptacles? • A shelter, picnic tables, dog waste disposal bags, trash cans, water spigot. 6. Do you have small dog / large dog amenities? • Yes, the dog park is divided into large dog/small dog areas. 7. Who enforces rules and how are they enforced? • Willamalane staff 8. Is there a fee for entrance? • No 9. Do you have data on costs to run the off-leash areas? • No 10. Do you have any volunteer groups that support the off-leash areas? • Not formally, but the Youth Corps helps remove weeds next to the fence line. 11. Any concerns or success with your dog parks? • Nice to have large dog/small dog areas, so when one is closed for maintenance dogs can still use the other side. 12. Does your agency have an LOS for dog parks? • No

Tualatin Hills Park and Recreation District 2014 Population Estimate: 230,000 Contact: Lisa Novak at [email protected]. 503-629-6342.

1. What off-leash opportunities do you provide?

• Hazeldale Park: The fenced-in park spans two acres, and is divided into sections for large, medium and small dogs. Amenities include benches, dog waste disposal bags and

46 a water fountain. The surface is grass and dirt. Hazeldale Dog Park is maintained by THPRD and run by volunteers. See question 4.

• Winkelman Park: A two-acre dog park. The park includes an all-season area, as well as separate fenced areas for large and small dogs. Only the all-season area is open year- round; the remaining areas are open approximately April 1 to Nov. 1 each year. Amenities include an agility area, with jump walls and weave poles. A paw wash and pet drinking fountain also is provided.

• PCC Rock Creek: This 1.7-acre off-leash area opened in September 2013. The park includes a small dog paddock, a winter paddock with wood chips for use during the wet season, and a large, sloped area. Only the winter paddock is open year-round, with the remaining areas open approximately April 1 to Nov. 1 each year. The site includes benches, a water fountain, a concrete entry and a chain link fence. Parking spots have been designated for dog park users.

• No off-leash trails.

2. How many acres of park land vs. dog parks do you have?

• 2,240 acres of park land, 5.7 acres of dog parks

3. How many miles of trails vs. off-leash trails do you have?

• Miles of trails- 45 paved, 15 unpaved=60. No off-leash dog trails.

4. How are the off-leash areas managed?

• All managed by THPRD • Hazeldale has volunteer group that helps with maintenance. Property for Hazeldale dog park is actually leased from church. The volunteers do fundraising to help offset cost of the lease. Volunteers approached THPRD about pursuing lease, about 10 years ago.

5. What are the off-leash amenities: Drinking fountain? Water play? Waste receptacles?

• Winkleman has dog agility equipment. • PCC, sections are turf, with bark chip pathway around inside perimeter.

6. Do you have small dog / large dog amenities?

• All 3 dog parks have big dog/small dog areas. PCC and Winkleman have closures during winter to restore turf in large dog areas.

7. Who enforces rules and how are they enforced?

• Citizens call THPRD. Park patrol also does drop-by checks. They can issue exclusions.

8. Is there a fee for entrance?

• No

9. Do you have data on costs to run the off-leash areas?

• Main expense is the rehabilitation of the turf, especially in wet winters. Irrigation is also expensive.

10. Do you have any volunteer groups that support the off-leash areas?

• Just Hazeldale. See question 4.

11. Any concerns or success with your dog parks?

• Hazeldale is oldest park with least number of amenities, but people like it because it has a lot of trees. Citizens are consistently asking for more shade in the other two dog parks.

12. Added LOS question after this interview.

Boise Parks and Recreation 2014 population estimate: 216,282 (U.S. Census Bureau, American Fast Finder) Contact: Jerry Pugh (Pronounced Pew) 208-608-7617, [email protected] Also spoke with David Gordon, Ridge to Rivers (trails information) contact: (208) 493-2531

1. What off-leash opportunities do you provide?

• 129 acres of off-leash dog parks and off-leash dog areas. Off-leash dog areas have seasonal and time restrictions, such as in Winstead Park where the off-leash dog hours are:

June 1 - August 31, Sunrise to 8:00 a.m. September 1 - May 31, Sunrise to 10:00 a.m. November 1 - February 1, 3:00 p.m. to Sunset

• Off-leash trails Ridge to Rivers Trail system

48 2. How many acres of park land vs. dog parks do you have?

• 1,619 acres of park land and 3,912 acres of open space=5,531. 129 acres of park land available for off-leash use and will have 136 upon completion of a few more parks.

3. How many miles of trails vs. off-leash trails do you have? • 22 miles of urban trails (Boise River Greenbelt). No off-leash dogs on urban trails. • Ridge to Rivers has 180 miles of open space trails, of which 156 miles are available for off-leash use. • Total of 202 miles of trails, 156 are off-leash.

4. How are the off-leash areas managed?

• Boise Parks and Recreation manages off-leash dog parks and dog areas. • Ridge to Rivers manages off-leash trails. Ridge to Rivers Trail System is a cooperative agency between City of Boise, Ada County, the Bureau of Land Management Four Rivers Field Office, the Boise National Forest and the Idaho State Fish and Game Department. The Partnership exists under a multi-agency Memorandum of Understanding, with the City of Boise serving as the lead agency.

5. What are the off-leash amenities: Drinking fountain? Water play? Waste receptacles?

• Parks: Dog waste disposal bags dispensers, trash cans, picnic tables, shade structures, one park has doggie drinking fountain (water is available from mid-April through mid- October), and one park has a pond. Four parks have training/agility equipment. Parks Department has plans to install doggy drinking fountains in all the dog parks/areas. • Trails: Trash cans and dog waste disposal bags. No water.

6. Do you have small dog / large dog amenities?

• Not at this time, but a few are in the plans.

7. Who enforces rules and how are they enforced? Is it difficult to enforce the areas/times of day for the off-leash areas?

• For off-leash parks and areas: Two animal control officers patrol all parks and open space. They educate upon the first infraction, then enforce for the second infraction. • For trails: Idaho Fish and Game can enforce their land by writing tickets. City of Boise can enforce the rest of the land by writing tickets.

8. Is there a fee for entrance?

• Not for parks or trails

49 9. Do you have data on costs to run the off-leash areas?

• Not for parks or trails

10. Do you have any volunteer groups that support the off-leash areas?

• Off-leash parks/areas: Occasional volunteer groups help with construction of dog parks, but no permanent, formal group. Parks Department is considering establishing an oversight committee that will address dog issues. • Trails--No from a dog standpoint.

11. Any concerns or success with your dog parks?

• For Parks: It seems most communities struggle with the same off-leash issues. • For Trails: If you can’t enforce the off-leash trails, don’t expect any compliance. The rules/laws become “suggestions” if the public knows there is no enforcement. When dogs stray off the designated trail, it impacts habitat and wildlife. Ridge to Rivers saw better compliance once the City of Boise hired two staff people, even though they can’t patrol full time, the “fear” of a ticket is helping with overall compliance.

12. Does your agency have a Level of Service standard for dog parks or areas?

• Staff is preparing to go to the Parks Commission with a recommendation for a dog off- leash service level in September.

Portland Parks and Recreation Department 2014 population estimate: 619,360 (U.S. Census Bureau, American Fact Finder) Contact: Bryan Tierney, Dog Off Leash Administrator 503-823-8073. [email protected]

1. What off-leash opportunities do you provide?

• 9 fenced dog parks. 24 unfenced dog areas = 33 off-leash opportunities • Dogs are not allowed off-leash in natural area parks.

2. How many acres of park land vs. dog parks do you have?

• 12,000 acres of park land, almost 6,000 of which is Forest Park. 65 acres of off-leash dog parks and areas.

3. How many miles of trails vs. off-leash trails do you have?

• 152 miles of trails. No off-leash trails.

4. How are the off-leash areas managed?

• Portland Parks and Rec has full time dog park administrator. Zone managers work with facilities staff for maintenance.

5. What are the off-leash amenities: Drinking fountain? Water play? Waste receptacles?

• Water spigots, avoid other amenities unless requested. City is pretty risk adverse.

6. Do you have small dog / large dog amenities?

• Fields Park has 2 dog areas and Normandale has 3 dog areas.

7. Who enforces rules and how are they enforced?

• Park rangers make random patrols to enforce leash and scoop laws. Multnomah County Animal Control also assists with leash laws.

8. Is there a fee for entrance?

• No

9. Do you have data on costs to run the off-leash areas?

• The most recent data is from 2009. At that time, it cost $106,277 a year to run 33 dog parks and areas.

10. Do you have any volunteer groups that support the off-leash areas?

• No formal groups. Trying to get stewardship work parties together.

11. Any concerns or success with your dog parks?

• Try to fence all the parks. • Try to keep hours of operation consistent for all parks. • Challenging to regulate off leash areas, both in the geographic space and in the hours it’s okay to use it as off-leash.

12. LOS question was developed after this interview.

51 ATTACHMENT C

Table 1: Summary of Off-Leash Dog Opportunities

Bend, OR Park and Recreation District 1-2 82,069 2,679 54.8 0.67 2.0% 65 0 0.00 0% 8

Missoula, MT Parks and Recreation Department 3 69,821 3,700 6.5 0.09 0.2% 67 35 0.50 52.2% 3

Boulder, CO Parks and Recreation Department 105,112 1,803 8.5 0.08 0.5% 58 0 0.00 0.0% 4 Boulder, CO Open Space and Mountain Parks Department 4 105,112 45,000 0.0 0.00 0.0% 145 87 0.83 60.0% N/A

Austin, TX Parks and Recreation Department 912,791 20,000 664.0 0.73 3.3% 212 5 0.01 2.4% 12

Corvallis, OR Parks and Recreation Department 54,953 3,000 0 0.00 0.0% 7

Medford, OR Parks and Recreation Department 78,557 2,395 2.0 0.03 0.1% 31 0 0.00 0.0% 1

Boise, ID Parks and Recreation Department 5 216,282 5,531 129.0 0.60 2.3% 202 156 0.72 77.2% 11

52 Business Session Item 2 BOARD AGENDA COMMUNICATION

AGENDA DATE: September 1, 2015

SUBJECT: Shevlin Park Recreation Management Plan

STAFF RESOURCE: Jim Figurski, Landscape Architect Quinn Keever, Planning Analyst Michelle Healy, Strategic Planning and Design Director

PREVIOUS BOARD ACTION: None – project updates provided to Board on 9/16/2015 and 3/03/2015.

ACTION PROPOSED: Approve Shevlin Park Recreation Management Plan

STRATEGIC PLAN: Theme: Community Connection Objective: Analyze and Adapt to Changing Community Need Initiative: Acquire land, and plan and develop trails, river access, parks, natural areas and recreation facilities to meet identified community demand and future need. BACKGROUND When the 1992 Shevlin Park Coordinated Resource Management Plan was written, the population of Bend was around 20,000. Since then Bend’s population has quadrupled to over 80,000 residents. The park’s popularity is evident and issues with wear and tear and user conflicts are becoming more common. As land around Shevlin Park develops and the City of Bend continues to grow, there is a strong likelihood that user-related pressures and conflicts will increase.

On March 20, 2014 the District entered into a contract with ESA Vigil-Agrimis to prepare a Recreation Management Plan for Shevlin Park. The District initiated this planning process to review existing uses in the park and develop recommendations that would provide a positive balance between use and experience while conserving the park’s abundant resources. The first step in this process was to conduct a comprehensive public outreach campaign that included:

• An online questionnaire intended to ascertain current uses and issues. The District received 827 questionnaire responses. • Field interviews by staff with over 166 park visitors on six different days and at varying times of the day. Park users were also given hard copies of the questionnaire to complete at home and were also offered general information sheets with project goals. • Targeted interviews were held with key stakeholders including adjacent private and public landowners and agencies such as the City of Bend, Deschutes County, USFS, Bend-LaPine Public Schools, ODFW and Oregon Department of Forestry. • Staff conducted four roundtable discussions with 15 key BPRD staff involved in the daily management and maintenance of Shevlin Park, as well as representatives from the Children’s Forest of Central Oregon and the U.S. Forest Service.

53 • Project staff visited the Board of Directors for several partner groups and sent invitations to participate in the online questionnaire and future outreach efforts to: o Central Oregon Trail Alliance (COTA) o Central Oregon Running Klub (CORK) o DogPac o City of Bend Office of Neighborhood Associations, the primary conduit to all neighborhood associations in Bend • A special “neighbors meeting” targeting residents of Shevlin Commons, Shevlin Pines and the Three Pines neighborhoods was held early in the public outreach process. • Staff conducted six meetings with a 19-person Citizens Advisory Committee to identify key issues, develop a project mission statement, project goals and help develop recommended policies. • A general public meeting was held on June 24, 2015 at which time the draft policies and implementation priorities for the Shevlin Park Recreation Management Plan were presented.

The resulting Shevlin Park Recreation Management Plan recommends and prioritizes a combination of operational and physical changes to be implemented by the District over time at the park. Staff will share details of the entire planning process, the outcomes and draft recommendations via a presentation during the Board meeting.

BUDGETARY IMPACT The District’s 2016-2020 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) identifies a total project funding allocation of $650,000 in SDC funds to prepare the Shevlin Park Recreation Management Plan and implement initial recommendations from the plan.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Board approve the Shevlin Park Recreation Management Plan.

MOTION I move to approve the Shevlin Park Recreation Management Plan.

54 Business Session Item 3 BOARD AGENDA COMMUNICATION

AGENDA DATE: September 1, 2015

SUBJECT: Alcohol Sales at District Facilities

STAFF RESOURCE: Matt Mercer, Recreation Services Director

PREVIOUS BOARD ACTION: Discussion during December 2, 2014 and June 16, 2015 Board Work Sessions

ACTION PROPOSED: Approve application for liquor license for the sale of malted beverages, wine and cider at the Pavilion

STRATEGIC PLAN: Theme: Community Connection Objective: Respond to user expectations Initiative: NA

Theme: Financial Stewardship Objective: Maintain Financial Stability Initiative: Maximize alternative funding resources

BACKGROUND Bend Park and Recreation District ordinance currently allows the consumption of alcohol on District property by permit only. (Article I.7: “No person shall drink or be in possession of an open container of alcoholic beverages on district property without obtaining an alcohol permit issued by the District.) Historically, the District has not sold or allowed alcohol to be consumed during District sponsored programs, activities or events, even though there is no formal policy addressing the issue. Alcohol consumption and sales has been allowed by permit to other organizations renting District parks or facilities. This ranges from private events (weddings, reunions, etc.) to larger community events such as Munch n’ Music.

The Board of Directors has had two previous work session discussions regarding the potential sale of alcohol at designated district facilities (December 2, 2014 and June 16, 2015). During these discussions, the Board agreed that the District should consider selling alcohol at targeted District facilities and directed staff to conduct further research. Specifically, the Board requested: 1. What personal liability, if any, do Board members assume for incidents arising from alcohol sales or consumption at District facilities? 2. Are Board members personally the applicant/signee for a liquor license? 3. What insurance requirements would the sale of alcohol require and what are the potential costs? 4. Operational considerations, including where, when and how to make alcohol available.

Following is a summary of staff findings to assist in answering these questions.

Liability: Neil Bryant, District Legal Counsel, has researched potential liability to individual District Board members and has prepared a memo regarding his findings (see attached). Essentially, Oregon law does not create any additional or personal liability for District Board members arising from alcohol related incidents unless the Board members personally hold the liquor license and/or are directly involved in the operations of the sale of alcohol.

Applicant/Licensee: The District met with representative of the Oregon Liquor Control Commission (OLCC) and were told that the District would apply as a “corporation” and that the applicant/licensee for the liquor license is typically the CEO or administrative officer of the corporation. The application form asks for corporate officers and a list of Board of Directors, but the Board is not the signee on the application. The OLCC staff said individual history checks are completed on the applicant(s)/licensee(s) and not on Board members. The District also contacted Deschutes County as they had recently applied for a liquor license for the Deschutes County Fair and Expo Center. The County confirmed that the County Administrator was the signee on the license and that the County Commissioners are listed under Board of Directors on the OLCC application. They also confirmed that the individual history was completed only on the County Administrator and the manager responsible for operation.

Insurance: David Crowther, District Business Manager, researched the requirements for covering liquor liability. The District would need to purchase a separate liquor liability policy since the current liability policy with Special Districts Association of Oregon (SDAO) excludes alcohol sales. SDAO does not provide liquor liability policies so the District insurance broker, Brown and Brown, researched the cost of a separate policy. Estimates are that a policy covering $3,000,000 per occurrence would cost $3,000-$4,000 annually.

Operational Considerations: District staff has suggested that alcohol sales be limited to certain facilities and programs so that the District can gain experience and feedback on the sale of alcohol. The District has also recommended that alcohol sales be limited to malted beverages, wine and cider. The District does not believe the volume of sales will make it feasible or attractive for outside contractors except for certain larger events. The use of outside contractors would also greatly reduce the net revenue the District would receive from alcohol sales while not eliminating the District’s liability. As a result the District recommends that District staff sell and serve alcohol if alcohol sales are permitted. This also allows the District to have full control over how the program is implemented, something that the OLCC strongly recommended.

District staff proposes to apply for a liquor license for the Pavilion only at this time. The license would allow the District to pilot the sale of malted beverages, wine and cider at other locations including athletic field complexes and the Senior Center as the license can be used on a temporary basis at other locations for a specific number of days (approximately 30 per year). District staff proposes selling alcohol products at the Pavilion during most afternoon and evening hours. The area in which alcohol can be consumed will vary depending on the activity. During mixed use time, the consumption of alcohol will be limited to specific areas whereas during adult programs such as hockey and curling, alcohol may be allowed in a larger portion of the facility. Outside of the Pavilion, the District proposes to sell alcohol only during adult programs and events, such as adult softball and Senior Center special events.

56 BUDGETARY IMPACT The District anticipates alcohol sales being a potential revenue center that can help offset some facility operating costs. Additional costs include the application fee ($203), purchase of liquor liability insurance ($3,000-$4,000) and start-up equipment costs (most of which are already included in the Pavilion concession equipment budget).

STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board approve the application for a liquor license at the Pavilion and direct staff to complete operational planning and implementation for the sale of alcohol at the Pavilion and select other District locations on a temporary basis.

MOTION I move to authorize the Executive Director to apply for a liquor license for the Pavilion and to implement an operation plan for the sale of malted beverages, wine and cider, that protects the District and maintains a positive environment at District facilities and programs.

ATTACHMENT Memo from Neil Bryant’s Office

Memo

To: Neil Bryant From: Caroline Ponzini Date: August 11, 2015 Re: Personal liability of BPRD Board of Directors for alcohol related incidents that stem from alcohol consumption at District owned facilities.

Issue: Whether the Bend Parks and Recreation District (“BPRD”) board members bear any additional or personal liability, beyond what they already assume, for incidents arising from alcohol consumption at BPRD owned facilities.

Oregon law does not create any additional or personal liability for BPRD board members arising from such incidents. Under the Liquor Control Act, ORS 471.001 et seq., liability for damages cause by intoxicated persons is limited to licensees, permittees, and social hosts. See ORS 471.565 and ORS 471.567. So long as the board members do not personally hold the liquor license or permit under which alcohol is being served at the District facility, they would not be liable for damages caused by intoxicated persons who consumed alcohol at that facility. Liability lies with the person, or entity, holding the license. There is no special provision in the Liquor Control Act that imputes liability to the board members of an entity that holds a liquor license.

Furthermore, nothing in ORS 198.010 et seq. governing special districts imposes additional or personal liability on district board members for alcohol related incidents.

I was also unable to find any case law describing circumstances under which the individually members of an entity’s board would be personally liable for damages arising from Liquor Control Act violations, or damages arising from liquor related negligence claims.

{01917426-00588411;1} 58 Community Relations Department Update August 2015

Community Relations and Communications • Bend Whitewater Park: Plan and prepare for communications - Draft rules for communications and signage, write for website, poster, plan soft opening with BPTA, prepare communications for press releases, address inquiries, post to internal website, meet with Eye on Bend re: live feed • Met with Oregon Marine Board regarding laws for behavior on the river • Hollinshead House museum: hire designer for the booklet of stories by Sharron Rosengarth; hire videographer to develop a series of short videos of site history • Address public and media inquiries re: park use, events, business activities in parks • Historic signs: replacing damaged/faded signs in park system; evaluating re-design to new standards • Fall Playbook published and mailed to over 44,500 households. Fall registration opened on August 10th. Includes ice skating, hockey and curling for youth and adult programs at The Pavilion. • Fall recreation marketing underway.

Outreach/Events • Finished the 5-park series of Let’s Picnic • Participated in Latino Community Foundation family event

Targeted Campaigns/Promotions • Recreation focus: Fall recreation, fall sports registration, free summer programs • Bend Senior Center: Remodel, fall programs, fall events enrichment classes • Rental facility marketing: introduction of Pavilion party room • JSFC: Outdoor activity pool and recreation swim; kids triathlon, fall recreation and swim lessons • Pavilion: introduction of Pavilion programs and drop-in sessions in Fall Playbook, social media and website • Bend Whitewater Park: introduction of use and access in Fall Playbook, social media and website • General Recreation: summer free programs and events • District-wide branding and communications: tv and radio campaigns run end of August for fall recreation

Website/Social Media

• Employee website: e-newsletters sent every two weeks. Open rate around 28%. • Updated website: continue update of website from conversion to Wordpress for mobile responsiveness.

59 • New Pages: Developed and launched new website pages for the Bend Whitewater Park and The Pavilion. • Website traffic : (data for August 1 – 11 unavailable due to website conversion) August 12 - 24 2015 website traffic (compared to August 12 – 24, 2014): 23,562 visits (+15%) 15,501 visitors (+17%) 54,362 pageviews (+9%) 2.31 pages per visit (-6%) 02:11 avg. visit duration (+2%) Device used: Desktop - 10,272 sessions for 43% (-7%), Mobile – 10,813 sessions for 46% (+34%), Tablet – 2,477 sessions for 10.5% (-10%)

• Increasing fan base in social media: Facebook: as 08/25/15 Twitter: as 08/25/15 BPRD – 3,690 likes BPRD – 3,384 followers JSFC – 2,451likes BSC – 206 likes BWP – 112 likes

Volunteers Supporting recreation programs • Recruitment of volunteers for fall sports, recreation programs and events • Background checks and support to training meetings for fall sports volunteers • Wrap up of summer teen volunteer involvement including appreciation events and documentation of hours for students. More than 85 teens volunteered their time with summer programs.

BPR Foundation Gopher Broke • Recruiting and coordinating sponsors and players for Gopher Broke Scramble Golf Tournament - to be held Friday, September 11th at Bend Golf & Country Club • Communication with Foundation board members and volunteers to support event • Event logistics including securing prizes, set up for registration process and golf course, invoicing and receipts. Dedicated benches • Communication with donors and park maintenance staff for two sites.

60 Park Services Department Update August 2015

Park Services Accomplishments for August 2015

Facilities/Construction Maintenance • Orchard Park asphalt path repair and bench install • Quail Park structure stain • Summit Park parking lot crack seal, asphalt seal and strip • Farewell Bend bridge work • Rebuild Juniper Park horseshoe court backboards • Installed TVs at Senior Center • Hired Facilities Specialist and River Recreation Specialist approved in the 15/16 FY Budget

Construction (See Planning and Design report)

Landscape • Daily field prep for recreation softball programs • Provided tournament support for softball, rugby and soccer • Installing Baseline irrigation controllers on the south side of Pine Nursery to assist with efficient water management of the entire site • Completed internal walkthrough of the new irrigation system at the north side of Pine Nursery, mapped and reprogramed the system to water efficiently • Core aeration at Big Sky, Skyline and Pine Nursery sports fields • Installed new demo Weather-matic smart link controller at Hollygrape Park • Weed control applications at all parks • Supported several large events in community parks: Munch n Music (3), Classic car Show, Cascade Lakes Relay and Shakespeare in the Park

Natural Resources • Continue to haze geese • Crew fixed the gated access road at Shevlin Park on the north side off of Stag Road. Crew filled in the huge canyon that developed due to past washouts and use, then put in a better drainage route • Painting picnic tables, repairing and re-staining the boardwalks and a couple of bridges in Shevlin Park • Replacing old broken down fence along the Larkspur trail • Resurfaced River Rim Trail

Shop Staff

61 • Purchased utility van and (2) Toro mowers • Repaired soccer goals, fabricated trail signs, installed gate at Pine Nursery on path leading to restrooms from pickleball court and fabricated a ball cart for sports department • Supported “Picnic in Parks” and recreation programs

Park Stewardship Program • Shevlin Park kiosk outreach day 8-22-15 with Sheriff Deputy very successful and is making a difference in reducing the off-leash dog problem • Met with Sheriff Nelson to improve communication and response from DCSO • Preparing Park Steward staff for opening of Bend White Water Park • “Picnic in Parks” program on Wednesday nights assisted by steward staff • Public events support included 22 event days hosting 17 separate events

DEVELOPMENT PROJECT UPDATES August 2015

Bond-Funded Projects

Bend Whitewater Park: Major construction is near completion and the District is finishing several small tasks before opening the park. By the first week in September BPRD should be programming the wave computer, receiving permanent power to the vault and working on landscape, fencing and other punch list items. Park is expected to be open by September 18. Please continue to observe closures and detours while traveling in and around the project area. Closures and detours will be in place until all surrounding construction is complete in 2016.

McKay Park: Land use permitting for improvements to McKay Park were approved by the City of Bend Planning Commission on July 27. Building permits are submitted and the project is scheduled to go out to bid in September. Construction is planned to commence later this fall following the completion of the Bend Whitewater Park. McKay Park is expected to reopen in the summer of 2016. Please continue to observe posted pedestrian, bike and river detours around McKay Park.

The Pavilion: Concrete crews are working on the front exterior of the Pavilion. Work has also started on the required off-site improvements for Bradbury Way. The pavilion ceiling work continues and installation of the sheet rock for the walls, siding, and storefront window systems is underway in the support building. The project is expected to be complete by the end of 2015.

Riley Ranch Nature Reserve (RRNR): The Conditional Use Permit was submitted on June 22 and a hearing date before the County hearings officer is scheduled for 6:30 p.m. on September 8 in the Barnes and Sawyer room of the Deschutes Services Center. Work has begun on putting together the necessary construction documents for Phase I. Pending permit approvals park construction should be underway in 2016.

Deschutes River Trail (DRT): Putnam to Riley Ranch Nature Reserve Bridge Segment – Shevlin Sand and Gravel representatives tentatively agreed to provide the future trail connections for

63 this segment of the DRT, but timing is at least one to two years out as they address the safety concerns related to their operations. This will delay installation of the new bridge connecting to Riley Ranch Nature Reserve. Brooks Resources also reviewed the preliminary easement language, and after meeting with representatives of the Awbrey Meadows Homeowners Association (HOA), they have suggested a new trail alignment on the north side of their property. Staff is continuing to work with them on securing an agreement for the trail alignment and potential future trailhead parking area.

Kirkaldy Ct. to Putnam Rd. Segment – After meetings with adjacent property owners and the Awbrey Meadows HOA Board of Directors, the issue of BPRD acquiring a trail easement over the buried Tumalo Irrigation pipeline has not yet been resolved. Draft easement documents were reviewed by the HOA. Staff is also working with Brooks Resources on possible trailhead parking on their property which would alleviate some of the HOA’s concerns.

Pacific Park to Drake Park Segment – The trail alignment has been surveyed and conceptual drawings will be revised as needed. Any additional design work is now on hold until the scope of work for the Mirror Pond project is resolved. Once the centerline of the trail is finalized, easement documents will be drafted.

Galveston to Miller’s Landing Park Segment – The street right-of-way has been surveyed which will result in refined concept drawings and include several new options for an improved pedestrian-friendly Gilchrist Alley that can act as a gateway to Columbia Park. Staff will schedule another community open house later this summer to gather more input on the refined concepts.

South UGB Segment – The Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) evaluated five conceptual bridge options along with eight trail options and ultimately developed a recommendation. Staff continues to coordinate with U.S. Forest Service and Oregon Parks and Recreation Department representatives to determine the proper permitting processes and timing of efforts to proceed with the project.

Colorado Undercrossing and DRT Trail Extensions: Work has started on the undercrossing with the installation of the storm drain sediment manhole and relocation of the high pressure gas line by Cascade Natural Gas. Trail construction will start in September and continue until the District closes Colorado Avenue for construction of the undercrossing from October 5 – November 17. Coordination with City staff on the Colorado Lift Station Project continues, as both teams are working to construct the two projects within the same road-closure window.

64 Non Bond-Funded Projects

Shevlin Park Management Plan: Staff will present the Draft Shevlin Park Recreation Management Plan to the Board on September 1. Planning is underway for a comprehensive way-finding and signage program for the park as well as for traffic calming and safety improvements.

Canal Row Neighborhood Park: Land use permitting was approved by the City in August. Final construction documents are being finished and bidding is expected to proceed by the end of September. Construction should begin later this fall with the park expected to open in summer/fall of 2016.

1st Street Rapids Park: The east side phase of the project has been bid with an anticipated contract award at the September 1 Board meeting. Construction should progress through the fall with completion expected this coming winter or spring.

Pine Nursery Community Park: Construction of Phase 3 is complete with the exception of the playground fall surfacing, which will be re-installed by the contractor as soon as possible. The surfacing did not pass the required safety testing for fall protection. The surfacing must pass this test prior to the District accepting and opening the playground for public use. At this time the completion date is expected later this fall.

Ponderosa Park: District managed construction at Ponderosa Park is complete. However, construction of additional parking adjacent to the current Ponderosa Park parking lot off 15th Street is under construction by the School District. Please watch for construction related traffic in and around the current parking lot. For information related to School District projects, please contact Bend—LaPine Schools http://www.bend.k12.or.us/.

Alpine Park Trailhead: Construction of the street improvements at Alpine Park is complete. All needed easements have been signed by Tetherow. The accessible trail section of this project is scheduled for construction beginning this month with expected completion in October.

Skyline Park Accessibility Improvements: Construction of the new accessible routes from the two parking areas to the sports fields and playground, plus minor restroom accessibility upgrades went out to bid in July and the Board awarded a construction contract in August. Construction will begin soon and continue through the fall and early winter.

Hillside Park Master Plan: The District met with representatives of the Multi-Use Advocates group on August 6 to discuss adjustments to the original preferred master plan. The Board will tour Hillside Park and the off-leash area on September 4. A public meeting is planned for September 29 to review the adjusted proposed Master Plan. It is expected that the final Hillside Park Master Plan will be presented to the Board on October 6 along with a contract amendment to proceed into construction drawings for Phase I work.

Rockridge Park Master Plan: The Board approved the Master Plan for Rockridge Park in early August and staff is now negotiating a contract amendment for development of the construction drawings and permitting for Phase I improvements. This contract amendment will be presented to the Board on October 6.

Stone Creek Neighborhood Park Property: Lands Bend LLC is completing design of a new 6+ acre neighborhood park in the Stone Creek development. The park is being designed and constructed to District standards and will ultimately be owned and operated by the District. The Board approved the Master Plan for the park in early August. Work on construction documents and permitting is now underway. The developer plans to begin construction of the park this fall.

Eagle Park: Planning and design for Eagle Park are underway with public outreach and master planning expected to last approximately six months. A public open house was held on August 26 at the site. Upon approval of a master plan it is anticipated that the District will proceed with construction documents. Construction is anticipated to begin in the spring or summer of 2016.

Farewell Bend Bridge Renovation: Staff is working with the consultant team on a project schedule. It is expected that initial bridge inspections will take place early in September with a preliminary report due by the end of September.

Juniper Park Tennis Court Replacement: Replacement of the 40+ year old tennis courts is underway. Work includes a new asphalt base, striping and surfacing, nets, posts and fencing. The walkway around the south side of the courts will also be improved. The courts are expected to re-open by the summer of 2016.