November 2001ale RECEIVED
SAN 10 200`
City of Meridiani
City Clerk Offic=-
Comprehensive Pctrks and Reerecition S�stem Ptian
r�.
M G�
Moore lacofano Goltsman. Inc.
412 NW 13th Avenue
Portland OR 97209
503/297.1005
wwW.migcoM.com NOVEMBER 2001
)CMNN/NG TEAM
_ City COU17CiI Robert D. Corrie, Mayor
Ron Anderson, Council Member
Keith Bird, Council Member
Tammy de Weerd, Council Member
Cheri McCandless, Council Member
Pal-ks and Sheri Baker, President
ReC/"eat%On Debbie Watkins, Vice President
Commission Jim Keller
David Moe
Ed Fong
Bruce MacCoy
Creg Steele
Tammy De Weerd, Council Representative
David Moser, School Liason
Pa,-ks and Tom, Kuntz, Director
ReClleat%On Staff Elroy Huff, Parks Superintendent
Catrina Thomas, Recreation Superintendent
COnsU/ting Team MIG, Inc., Portland, Oregon
Jerry Draggoo, Project Manager
Kevin Apperson, Recreation Planner
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Introduction to the Project
1-1
1.2 Integration with other Planning Studies
1-2
1.3 Mission Statement
1-3
1.4 Planning Area
1-3
1.5 Population Growth
1-3
1.6 Existing Recreation Resources
1-4
Chap ter 2
PARK AND OPEN SPACE RECOMMENDATIONS
2.1 Introduction
2-1
2.2 Facilities Pan
2-1
2.2.1 Mini Parks
2-5
2.2.2 Neighborhood Parks
2-7
2.2.3 Community Parks
2-10
2.2.4 Large Urban Parks
2-17
2.2.5 Special Use Areas
2-19
2.2.6 Open Space Areas
2-20
07apter3
FACILITY RECOMMENDATIONS
3.1 Introduction
3-1
3.2 Trails and Pathways
3-1
3.3 Community Center
3-6
3.4 Sports Fields
3-7
3.5 Specialized Recreational Facilities
3-9
Chapter 4
MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
4.1 Introduction
4-1
4.2 Staffing Requirements
4-1
4.3 Impact Fees
4-3
Chapters
PROJECT FINANCING
5.1 Introduction
5-1
5.2 Project Priorities
5-1
5.3 Funding Sources
5-2
5.4 Financing Strategy
5-4
5.5 Project Lists
5-6
CHAPTER 1 -INTRODUCTION
Contents:
• Introduction to the Project
• Integration with Other Studies
._ • Mission Statement
• Planning Area
• Population Growth
.� • Existing Recreation Resources
1.1 INTRODUCTION This report, titled the Action Plan, is a supplement to the
TO THE PROJECT Comprehensive Parks & Recreation System Plan completed in
July of 2000. The intent of this second report is to provide
specific recommendations on a layout plan for parks, open
space, trails and other recreation facilities and to present a
strategy for funding and implementing the Plan.
Once the Action Plan is accepted, it and the original
Comprehensive Parks & Recreation System Plan should be
adopted together. Where inconsistencies appear between the
two documents, the Action Plan should take precedence.
Report Organization The Action Plan has been divided into the following chapters.
Chapter 1 - Introduction: provides an overview of the document
organization, a brief analysis of population growth, and an
inventory of park land found in the city.
Chapter 2 — Park and Open Space Recommendations: identifies
a concept for parks, trails and open space, provides design
standards and policies for each park type and makes specific
recommendations for each site.
Chapter 3 - Facility Recommendations: provides policies and
recommendations for specialized facilities such as pathways and
trails, indoor recreation space, sports facilities, and other
specialized areas.
Chapter I -Introduction Page I- 1
RECE -
FEB 2 7 `002
City of Meridian
City Clerk Offiec
VIA FACSIMILE AND US MAIL
February 20, 2002
Tom Kuntz
Parks and Recreation Director
City of Meridian
11 West Bower Street
Meridian, ID 83642
Re: Comprehensive Parks and Recreation System Plan
Dear Tom:
The Ada County Association of REALTORS® ("ACAR")
represents 1800 real estate professionals, developers and private
property owners in Ada County. On their behalf, we appreciate the
opportunity to provide written comments on the proposed Parks
Action Plan.
While ACAR is pleased with many of the policy changes being
proposed, there are still numerous unresolved policy issues that we
feel need to be addressed prior to the Plan being adopted.
The following comments and recommendations are intended to
highlight ACAR's concerns with respect to the changes being
proposed.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Below we first identify and discuss three questions prompted by
our review of the Action Plan: How will the Action Plan be
funded? What is the basis for the recommended increase in park
impact fees and how would the funds collected be used? What are
the level of service ratios on which the Action Plan is premised and
how are they derived? After presenting some background
information on impact fees, we then address issues and make
recommendations with respect to the Action Plan as follows: First,
it appears that the Action Plan may intend to use increased impact
fees as a way to correct existing deficiencies in parks and to
require new developments in the near term to pay for park
improvements at levels premised on the ultimate build -out of the
THE
ADA
COUNTY
ASSOCIATION
OF REALTORS®
113
REALTOR@
9550 West Bethel Court
Boise, Idaho 83709
208.376.0363
Fax # 208.377.8066
www.adacounty-realtors.com
2002 OFFICERS:
President
GENE STATE, CRS, GRI
President-elect
MICKIE KNUDSEN, GRI
Vice President
BEVERLY ROSS, ABR, GRI, LTG
2002 BOARD OF DIRECTORS:
TIM BURROUGHS, CSP
DALE HOYD
SUE LIEN, CRS, CSP, GRI
JIM PAULSON, CRS, CSP, GRI
GREG SCRIVNER, CRS
Past President
SCOTT CRUM GRI
MLS Chairperson
STEVE OSBURN, GRI
2001 STATE DIRECTORS:
ELIZABETH ALLAN HODGE
CHERIE BARTON, CRS, CSP, GRI
JULIE DELORENZO, CSP, LTG
SHARRON DOMENY
GARRET LONGSTREET, ABR, CRS
SUE NIELSON, CRS, CSP, GRI
ROGER PATTERSON, GRI
TRACY THOMPSON
WCR President
DARLENE BLAKESLEE, CRS, GRI
ACAR Foundation President
BARBARA DAWSON
Executive Vice President
DAMA W. OVERSTREET
Tom Kuntz
February 20, 2002
Page 2
City rather than on a reasonable planning horizon. We ask the City to clarify various issues
concerning the intended use of the increased impact fees. Second, the Action Plan contains
policies that are likely to impose burdens on landowners and developers above and beyond the
amount of the proposed impact fees. We ask the City to focus closer on the expenses of the
projects and policies included in the Action Plan. Third, the Action Plan does an inadequate job
of establishing the relationship between its proposed funding and implementation strategies and
other planning policies and processes in the City, including the existing impact fee ordinance.
We recommend that the Action Plan be revised so that its recommendations can be understood
within the context of other applicable planning and policy documents in particular, so that the
basis for the proposed increase in the amount of the impact fees can be understood. Fourth, an
increase in park impact fees is likely to have an effect on housing costs and the affordability of
housing in the market area subject to the fees, and that these effects should be analyzed and
understood before any impact fee increase is adopted.
ANALYSIS
The major issues of concern we identify relate primarily to three major Action Plan weaknesses
and related questions that the Plan fails to answer as follows:
How will the Action Plan be Funded? The Introduction` to the Action Plan states that
one of its purposes is to present a "strategy for funding and implementation of the Plan."
However, as discussed in the analysis of issues below, the Action Plan does not present a
clear strategy for how the costs of the proposed park acquisitions and improvements — a
total of over $37 million — and other Plan recommendations would be funded. Instead the
Action Plan primarily relies on a general list of funding tools without discussing how the
tools would be specifically used to fund park costs.
What is the Basis for Recommending a 38 Percent Increase in Park Impact Fees and
How Would Those Funds Be Used? The Action plan identifies the City's existing park
impact fee, of approximately $530 for single-family units and $408 for multi -family
units, as one of the primary funding mechanisms for funding park costs. The Action Plan
recommends a 38 percent increase in those fees with little explanation or justification for
how this percentage increase was derived .3 The Action Plan itself recognizes that the
Idaho Code authorizes equitable park development impact programs that require new
development to fund only those park improvements needed to serve that new
development. An equitable park impact fee program should not place a disproportionate
burden on new development to either: (1) correct existing deficiencies in park facilities;
or (2) fund more than its fair share of improvements by requiring payment from more
` Action Plan Section 1. 1, page 1-1.
2 Action Plan, page 1-3.
3 Action Plan page 5-4.
Tom Kuntz
February 20, 2002
Page 3
than just the facilities needed to serve the development. As discussed below, the Action
Plan, although not clear, appears to potentially raise both concerns by proposing the use
of impact fees on new development fund improvements at a high level in order to serve a
build -out population that may not be achieved for forty years, or likely, longer.
What Level of Service Ratios are Used as the Basis for Park Facility
Recommendations and to Program Projects Over Time, and How Are Those LOS
Standards Derived? Another Action Plan concern, which is related to the points above,
is that the Action Plan does not explain or present the level of service ratios used to
develop Plan recommendations, which are designed to meet the needs of a very large
build -out population. The Action Plano estimates the population will approximately
double by 2020. However, the Action Plan is designed to serve a much larger build -out
population of 234,500 persons which is derived from an estimated 80,029 total units at a
build -out assumption of 2.93 persons per household. The Action Plan specifically states
that it does not project when this build -out population might be reached. The concern
with the Action Plan's claim that it bases level of service ratios on build -out population is
twofold.
o First, the Action Plan becomes an extremely long-range plan. Even assuming that
the population doubled again between 2020 and 2040 (as it is projected to double
from 2000 to 2020), the resulting population of approximately 160,000 persons
would still be far short of the build -out population. However, the Action Plan
only includes a six-year capital improvement plan (CIP), with $6,735,000 in
planned expenditures, and does not present any analysis to support the proposition
that the improvements identified in the 6 year CIP are needed to serve the
projected population over that time period. Nor does the Plan address the process
by which the remaining proposed park facilities would be brought online and
funded over time to meet the park needs of the growing population.
o Second, level of service ratios are not adequately presented or analyzed as the
basis for supporting the proposed park improvements. Without more specific
information on any levels of service ratios that were taken into account in
formulating the Action Plan recommendations presented in Chapter 2, it is not
possible to analyze whether the recommended park facilities to serve the City's
build -out population are justified, even over an extremely long planning horizon
of 40 or more years.
The major issues analyzed below relate to the above Action Plan deficiencies. Because impact
fees are the only funding mechanism addressed in detail in the Action Plan, each of the above
° Action Plan (page 1-4) shows the City's population in 2000 as 41,4000 persons and projects a 2020 population of
79,000.
Tom Kuntz
February 20, 2002
Page 4
points relate, either directly or indirectly, to the recommended increase in the City's park impact
fee — from $530 to $730 for single-family homes and from $407 to $562 for multi -family homes.
As discussed below, the Action Plan falls far short of providing the level of analysis required to
support an increase in the City's park impact fee, particularly if developers are also required to
develop and maintain park facilities within developments. In addition, we note that whether the
fees are justifiable in a legal sense is a different question from whether the imposition of fees at
the proposed levels is good economic or fiscal policy. From the Realtor's perspective, a
particular concern with increases in impact fees on all kinds of residential developments is that
these increased costs will be passed on by developers to consumers, with adverse impact to
housing affordability in the City.
ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS
ISSUE: It appears that the Park Action Plan proposes increased park impact fees, in part
as a way to correct existing deficiencies in parks and to require new developments
constructed in the near term to pay for park improvements to support long term
needs that may be generated by a large build -out population.
Analysis: The Action Plan does not provide the information to adequately assess whether the
proposed capital expenditures upon which the impact fees are being based are to correct existing
deficiencies. According to the Action Plan, the City will focus only on developing and
maintaining "community parks.' Community parks, as defined by the Action Plan,b are large
parks of 20 to 30 acres in size that service an area of roughly 1 to 2 miles. The City currently has
only 3 community parks, which consist of a total of 77 acres. The Action Plan proposes 11 new
community parks, which would add 220 acres of community park land. However, the Action
Plan does not analyze or explain how the proposed number and locations of the new community
parks are designed to meet the needs of the growing population over time.
Of the 11 proposed community parks, the CIP proposes expenditures of approximately $1.8
million over the next 6 years to acquire land for the 3 new community parks, which would
double the number of community parks and ad approximately 80 new acres of park land to the
existing 77 acres. Over half of the CEP park budget (approx. 3.675 million) is directed at park
improvements to develop 5 new community parks and major improvements to the "Meridian
Community Park", which is actually a lage "urban park" and does not meet the Plan's definition
of community park. The remainder of the $6.735 million in the 6 year park CIP is directed to
park renovations ($950,000). Based on the numbers in the CIP, it appears that the City may be
attempting to address existing park deficiencies by doubling both the number and acreage of the
existing community parks over the next 6 years, even though the population will not double its
'Action Plan page 2-2.
6 Action Plan page 2-10
Tom Kuntz
February 20, 2002
Page 5
2000 level until 2020. The Action Plan also indicates that many of the proposed community
parks will also serve residents that are not a part of the City, in surrounding unincorporated areas.
According to the Action Plan, it will "be the responsibility of the private homeowner groups to
develop and maintain smaller mini and neighborhood parks within their subdivisions."'
However, other sections of the Action Plan recommendations are inconsistent with the policy of
requiring that new developments provide and maintain parks within the development or appear
to present unrealistic recommendations. For example, the Action Plan indicates that
neighborhood parks should be acquired and developed by private developers with maintenance
left to the developer or homeowners rather than the City! Yet, this same section of the Action
Plan also indicates that neighborhood parks serve an area approximately .5 miles in radius and if
possible should be located adjacent to elementary schools where sharing of facilities can be
achieved. It does not seem realistic to require that a private homeowners group develop and
maintain a neighborhood park that is serving a .5 mile radius and is located next to an elementary
school.
The neighborhood parks discussed in the Action Plan, would potentially be appropriate types of
facilities for the City to develop using its park impact fee revenues, because as described in the
Action Plan, they are intended to serve development in an area larger than most individual
residential developments. In fact, the Action Plan itself proposes that the City develop a
neighborhood park (Chateau Park), even though it is not a community park, because the City has
already committed to the development of this site. The only other recommended new
neighborhood park, Thousand Springs Park, is proposed for city owned parcels adjacent to the
proposed high school site. Finally, the only existing neighborhood park is listed on the CIP as
requiring a $65,000 expenditure for renovations. Although not clear from the Action Plan, it
appears that impact fee revenues would potentially be used by the City to improve or maintain
these parks. These recommendations are not internally consistent with the stated policy of
requiring private developments to develop and maintain neighborhood parks. As with the
community parks, the Action Plan does not address whether these neighborhood parks are
needed to serve existing or new development. Nor does the Action Plan present an analysis to
show that the recommended number of neighborhood parks proposed is based on a specific level
of projected new growth within the area to be served by the parks.
Recommendation: The City should clarify in the Action Plan whether deficiencies exist in the
current level of park facilities and whether the increase impact fees are proposed to correct
existing deficiencies. Moreover, the Action Plan should more clearly explain how park impact
fee revenues are to be expended. If new development is required to bear the burden of the cost
of correcting past deficiencies or building more parks than is needed to meet the demand
generated by the new development, then the increased impact fees would place a
7 Action Plan page 2-2
'Action Plan page 2-7, Section 2.2.2.B.l.a.
Tom Kuntz
February 20, 2002
Page 6
disproportionate share of the capital costs on new development. For example, the City should
clarify in the Action Plan whether developers may be required to pay impact fees to fund new
parks, but also be required to construct park facilities to serve a development. The Action Plan's
project financing Chapter 5, briefly mentions that "an option to paying the fees is,for the
developer to receive credit by building the park site or donating land"9 but the Plan should more
clearly address how this option is made available to a developer.
ISSUE: The Action Plan contains other design and development policies and
recommendations, particularly with respect to open space areas and trails and pathways, which
may also be burdensome on the developer or individual owner.
Analysis: The Action Plan presents design and development standards and management
policies for each of the different types of park facilities included in the Plan. Some of the
standards and policies may be difficult for a developer or individual homeowner to comply with.
For example, in connection with the open space areas, the Plan proposes a standard requiring that
non-native species should be removed and native indigenous species re -introduced. Along with
this standard is a management policy suggesting that policies be developed to require that
invasive plant materials on open space areas be controlled by the adjacent property owners.10
Depending on the extent of adjacent open space areas, homeowners could potentially be
burdened with large and continuing costs to eliminate invasive species and revegetate areas with
native vegetation.
Similarly Plan policies propose that developers be encouraged to provide and build pathways and
trails within developments to link with the public trail system." However, the Plan does not
address how developers would be "encouraged" and whether such contributions of pathways and
trails would be credited toward the developer's requirement to provide parks on-site or to pay
park impact fees.
In addition, the Plan discusses other major facilities such as a community center 12 and an outdoor
water playground,13 which would require major expenditures of capital funds to construct and to
operate and maintain. The Plan recommends that feasibility studies be undertaken to identify the
need and to forecast the costs to build and maintain such facilities. However, such studies should
also take into account the financing strategy to clearly show how the financial burden would be
met, either through increased taxes or impact fees or by user fees or other sources.
Recommendation: The Action Plan itself recognizes that it would take several years and
financing techniques to fund the $37 million in park improvements that the Plan
'Action Plan, page 5-3.
10 Action Plan, page 3-2.
" Action Plan, page 3-2
12 Action Plan, 3-6.
13 Action Plan, page 3-10.
Tom Kuntz
February 20, 2002
Page 8
Analysis: In assessing the affect of an impact fee on housing affordability, a key consideration
is determining who ultimately bears the burden of the fee. Market factors must be considered in
determining whether it is a landowner, a developer or a homebuyer who will bear the burden of
the fee. Although it is the developer who most often actually pays the impact fee, depending on
market conditions, a developer will likely shift at least a portion of the fee either to the
landowner, in the form of a reduction in the price of land, or to the home buyer, in the form of
increased sales prices or rents.
The extent to which a developer can shift the burden of the impact fee depends largely on the
strength of demand for housing in the market area, sensitivity to increases in price and
availability of comparable housing that is located within the same market are but outside of the
jurisdiction imposing the fee. For example, a developer of high-end houses in the City may not
be able to completely shift the burden of the impact fee to home buyers if there is similar housing
stock available in the adjacent jurisdictions that is considered to be in the same market and
equally desirable, yet not subject to a similar level of impact fee. In this example, the developer
may be forced to accept less profit for a house or pay less for land in order to make a feasible
development project that meets the developer's expectations for a return on the investment in the
project.
In a strong housing market it is likely that at least a portion of the cost of the impact fee will be
passed on to the homebuyers. Developers may also choose to shift a larger, more upscale
housing product, for which the impact fee would represent a smaller percentage of the total cost.
This is often the case if demand is strong within the market area.
Recommendation: The Action Plan does not take into account the effect that the proposed
increase in impact fees in the City will have on housing demand and the affordability of housing.
The City should revise the Plan to take account of this aspect in developing a more detailed and
balanced strategy for funding park improvements. Before adopting any increase in impact fees,
let alone an increase of the magnitude proposed in the Action Plan, the City should undertake an
analysis that takes into account the existing impact fee structures of surrounding jurisdictions
within the market area. The analysis should provide the information needed to compare the
City's proposed park impact fee structure with surrounding jurisdictions, including comparisons
of key assumptions on factors such as levels of service and cost per person, in order to assess
how the Action Plan recommendations compare with surrounding jurisdictions. In addition, the
analysis should take into account market factors needed to assess the likelihood that demand for
housing will be directed away from the City to other jurisdictions with low fees or whether the
impact fees are likely to be passed on by developers in the form of higher housing prices.
If this analysis shows that other jurisdictions within the market have comparable park impact fee
structures and demand is sufficiently strong that developers are likely to pass along the burden of
the impact fee structure to consumers, the City should analyze the implications of the likely
increases on housing prices and decline in affordability. For example, the City Comprehensive
Plan or other planning or affordable housing policies should be reviewed to determine whether
Tom Kuntz
February 20, 2002
Page 9
an action that is likely to make new housing in the City less affordable is consistent with those
existing policies.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed Parks Action Plan. We would
welcome the opportunity to meet with you to discuss our concerns and recommendations.
Sincerely yours,
ntlm
Mark H. Estess
Director of Government Affairs
cc: Mayor Robert D. Corrie
cc: City Council
Tammy de Weerd, Chairman
Keith Bird
William L.M. Nary
Cheri McCandless
cc: Planning and Zoning Commission
Keith Borup, Chairman
Jerry Centers
Kevin Shreeves
David Zarimba
Leslie Mathes
cc: Shari Stiles, Planning Director
Brad Hawkins -Clark
Steve Siddoway
FROM MARK ES'TESS
Z, 2
Lam: tt .�
cc: Bill Nichols oAi
Meridian Comprehensive Parks and Recreation System P/an
Chapter 4 — Administration and Management Recommendations:
includes recommendations and policies for administrating a park
and open space system, establishes policies and recommendations
for staffing the program, and looks at potential changes to the Park
Impact Fee structure.
Chapter 5 — Project Funding: provides a list of potential funding
sources, identifies project priorities, suggests a financing strategy,
and recommends a 6 -year capital improvement program.
1.2 INTEGRAT/ON
There have been several documents and studies prepared over
WITH OTHER
the last several years that influenced the development of the
PLANK/NG
Action Plan. These documents were reviewed for policies,
STUD/ES
guidelines, and relevant information that could be incorporated
and used to prepare the Action Plan. These documents Include:
• Comprehensive Parks & Recreation System Plan (July 2000)
• City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan - Draft (June 2000)
• Development Monitoring Report (February 2000)
• Local Land Use Planning Act (Seminar, April 2000)
• Park Impact Fee Ordinance (March 1996)
It is also important for the Action Plan to comply with existing land
use regulations as they apply to park and facility development.
Comprehensive Parks&
This planning document was intended to provide the background
McCfeationSystemP/an
information and set policy for managing a park and recreation
/Comp/eted-lu/y 2000/
program in Meridian. Upon its completion it was decided that
additional studies were needed to provide more direction and
establish a design program for parks, open space and trails. The
original plan evaluated existing conditions, assessed the need for
park land and established objectives for land acquisition, park
development, and management/operations.
City of Meridian This draft plan was completed in June, 2000 and is currently
ComprehensiveP/an undergoing minor revisions and analysis. Hearings on the plan
are expected to begin in the Fall of 2001. This document
provides policies and direction on how the city should grow and
develop. It includes a profile of the demographic, physical, and
service characteristics of the community, and establishes policies
for urban growth.
Development Monitoring The Ada County Development Monitoring Report provides an
Report overview of development activity in Ada County for the year
1999. This is one of many annual reports prepared since 1980.
It contains information regarding platted subdivisions and
building permits issued for both residential and non-residential
development.
Chapter I - Introduction Pge I- Z
Meridian Comprehensive Parks and Recreation System,01.717
Loca/Land Use P/anningAct The Idaho Local Land Use Planning Act provides cities with the
authority to plan, protect and implement policies related to the
development of lands within its jurisdiction. This includes the
use of zoning to control land development.
Park/moactFee Ordinance Title 67, Chapter 82 of the Idaho Code authorizes the imposition
of park development impact fees as an equitable program for
planning and financing park improvements needed to serve new
growth and development. This fee is attached to every new
housing unit developed in the city and can only be used for land
acquisition or development. The current rate is about $530 per
single-family unit and $408 for a multi -family unit.
1.3 Mission
Statement
Meridian Parks and Recreation seeks to provide
opportunities for the citizens of Meridian to
participate in life enhancing activities by offering
quality year round recreation programs, and a well
designed and maintained parks system.
"It is not the parks we maintain, or
the recreation programs we operate,
but the value we add to people's
lives and the memories we help
create that are most important."
1.4 Planning Area The Planning Area for this study includes all of the city limits of
Meridian (approximately 12.6 square miles) plus unincorporated
lands that may eventually be annexed to the city. This total area
is called the Area Of Impact and consists of approximately 40.5
square miles. Generally, the boundaries of the planning area
extend from the Chinden Road on the north to Amity Road on
the south and from McDermott on the west to approximately
one-half mile east of Eagle Road on the east.
1.5 Population Population growth primarily occurs through three means; 1)
Growth annexations, 2) in -migration, and 3) natural growth within the
city. In Meridian, the two primary growth sources are in -
migration and subsequent annexations. Both of these sources
are hard to forecast because they are dependent upon outside
influences such as regional growth, ability to attract growth that
comes to the Boise area, the economy and the city's policies
towards accommodating new growth.
The following population estimates and growth forecasts are
taken from the draft of the city's Comprehensive Plan and
represent the current thinking on how Meridian will grow in the
future.
Chapter I - Introduction Page I-.3
Meridian Comprehensive Parks and Recre ation System P/an
Table 1.1
Population Estimates and Growth Forecasts
City of Meridian
Source. Intermountain Demographics
The Park Layout Plan presented in the next chapter is designed
to serve the community when fully developed. While there is no
target date for this occurrence, it is expected it will occur some
time after the year 2020. Taking the amount of available
residential land within the Impact Area calculated in the draft
Comprehensive Plan and multiplying by an average density of
2.8 persons per household the expected population is derived at
build -out.
Table 1.2
Population Density
City of Meridian
Density
MeridianYear Area
Acres Acres
1980
5,059
1990
9,596
2000
41,400
2010
62,000
2020
79,200
Source. Intermountain Demographics
The Park Layout Plan presented in the next chapter is designed
to serve the community when fully developed. While there is no
target date for this occurrence, it is expected it will occur some
time after the year 2020. Taking the amount of available
residential land within the Impact Area calculated in the draft
Comprehensive Plan and multiplying by an average density of
2.8 persons per household the expected population is derived at
build -out.
Table 1.2
Population Density
City of Meridian
Density
Available Density/ Total Units
Acres Acres
i
Medium
Density
1
The 80,029 housing units multiplied by an average of 2.93
persons per household derives an estimated population of
234,500 at build -out. This number will be used to develop the
Level of Service ratio for park land.
1.6 Existing Three types of park land are found in Meridian: developed park
Recreation sites owned by the city, developed park sites owned by Western
Resources Ada County Park District, and undeveloped park sites owned by
the city. An inventory of this park land is shown beginning on
the next page.
Chapter / - Introduction Page /- 4
Meridian Comprehensive Parks and Recreation System Flan
Table 1.3
Inventory of City Park Land
City of Meridian
Table 1.4
Inventory of Park Land Owned by Western Ada Recreation District
Meridian Area
Park
Acres—
Type
Existing Parks
25.00
Community Park
Storey Park
15.00
Community Park
Tully Park
18.00
Community Park
8' Street Park
4.00
Neighborhood Park
Generation Plaza
0.25
Special Use Area
City Hall Park
0.20
Special Use Area
Fothergil Pathway
0.50
Linear Park
5 -Mile Creek Pathway
1.20
Linear Park
Subtotal Existing
39.15
Undeveloped Sites
Chateau Park
6.80
Los Alamitos Park
4.00
Meridian C. Park
56.00
Storey Park
5.00
Also listed above
Thousand Springs Park
2.20
Bear Creek Park
19.00
Subtotal Undeveloped
93.00
Total City Park Land
132.15
Table 1.4
Inventory of Park Land Owned by Western Ada Recreation District
Meridian Area
Table 1.5
Total Existing Park Land
Meridian Area
Park
Acres
City Park Land 132.15
Other Park Land 26.50
Total 158.65
Chapter I - Introduction Page I- 5
Park
Acres
e
Fuller Park
25.00
Community Park
Tammy Street Park
0.50
Mini Park
Swimming Pool
1.00
Special Use Area
Total
26.50
Table 1.5
Total Existing Park Land
Meridian Area
Park
Acres
City Park Land 132.15
Other Park Land 26.50
Total 158.65
Chapter I - Introduction Page I- 5
_ Contents:
• Facilities Plan
o Mini -Parks
o Neighborhood Parks
o Community Parks
o Special Use Areas
o Open Space Areas
2.1 INTRODUCTION This section of the plan discusses the recommendations for
specific park and open space lands in Meridian. These
_ recommendations are divided into the following park
categories:
Park Type Page #
Mini -Parks 2-5
Neighborhood Park 2-7
Corrvnunity Park 2-10
Large Urban Park 2-17
_ Special Use Areas 2-19
Open Space Areas 2-20
2.2 FACILITIES PLAN
The Facilities Plan shown on page 2-4 is a graphic illustration of
the concept for meeting future park, open space and trail needs
_ in Meridian. Some important notes about the Facilities Plan are
discussed below.
1. A letter of the alphabet and number (such as C-2)
defines each site on the Facilities Plan. The number is
for site identification only and corresponds to text in this
section. The letter represents the type of existing or
proposed park The letter symbols are shown on the
next page:
Chapter 2 - Park Land Recommendations Page 2-1
V— r— W-- 7-- T--- T-- r— r' r— W— r- r-- r W— t— " - ., m
L�.
COMPREHENSIVE -PARK -S
RECREATION. -SYSTEM PiLAN
CITY OF MERIDIAN IDAHO
s
5
t... 5
t - I...
g MBnVM coh8wMTY PARK -
1
AM
Q
77
-✓� 'GHX�
+tom
x
a7k8iT RPC PFN}dIIECR®tP_AiNJVAY - -•-.. ! `.
_ i.
EE
3
F err^
i. ...
F t w
PAAIC
ip
FT
A16Rd d
a m � mr cv
November -2001
LEGEND
® Phrrih,g Nae (Free o9 MP2cf1
_,. GYtylhnits
[-7 Cftyd Markkk Park Reaeallcn and Ops+, Sam Antes
F WestemAda Camy Perk Dmict lands
r- 00w Pak Reawkn and Open Saw Ness
® F"c SdKds
mve Schools
EXISTING
RESOURCES
PLAN
7�J
Meridian Comprehensive Perks and Recreation System P/7n
2001
2. On the Facilities Plan, an asterisk illustrates proposed
park sites. The intent is to only show a general location
of where a park site should be located. The actual
location will be determined based on land availability,
acquisition cost, and the property owner's willingness to
sell.
3. The location and arrangement of the parks is designed to
serve the entire Urban Services Planning Area at
build -out.
4. Future park names are for reference only. It is assumed
overtime they will be assigned an official name by the
City Council.
Overall Concept The proposed park system for Meridian features the larger multi-
use Community Park as the centerpiece of the city's park system.
These parks have been located on the premise that no resident
will be further than about one mile from a park. These parks will
provide a wide variety of both passive and structured (sport
fields) activities for the immediate neighborhoods. This "core"
system of parks will provide the basic active and passive
recreational opportunities.
Linking these parks together and with the neighborhoods is a
comprehensive system of off-street trails. This overall concept is
called "the String of Pearls" with the pearls as parks and the
string being the trail system. Supplementing this string of pearls
will be open space areas, parks serving specialized functions and
private mini and neighborhood parks maintained by private
homeowner groups.
It is important to note here that the city is placing its emphasis on
developing and maintaining community parks only. It will be
the responsibility of private homeowner groups to develop and
maintain the smaller mini and neighborhood parks within their
own subdivisions. While the city has several small parks in its
inventory, no more of these park types should be developed by
the city nor should the city, in the future, agree to assume
maintenance of private mini or neighborhood parks
Chapter 2 - Park Land Recommendations Pge 2-2
Symbol•-
M
Mini Parks
N
Neighborhood Parks
C
Community Parks
LU
Large Urban Parks
SU
Special Use Areas
OS
I Open Space Area
2001
2. On the Facilities Plan, an asterisk illustrates proposed
park sites. The intent is to only show a general location
of where a park site should be located. The actual
location will be determined based on land availability,
acquisition cost, and the property owner's willingness to
sell.
3. The location and arrangement of the parks is designed to
serve the entire Urban Services Planning Area at
build -out.
4. Future park names are for reference only. It is assumed
overtime they will be assigned an official name by the
City Council.
Overall Concept The proposed park system for Meridian features the larger multi-
use Community Park as the centerpiece of the city's park system.
These parks have been located on the premise that no resident
will be further than about one mile from a park. These parks will
provide a wide variety of both passive and structured (sport
fields) activities for the immediate neighborhoods. This "core"
system of parks will provide the basic active and passive
recreational opportunities.
Linking these parks together and with the neighborhoods is a
comprehensive system of off-street trails. This overall concept is
called "the String of Pearls" with the pearls as parks and the
string being the trail system. Supplementing this string of pearls
will be open space areas, parks serving specialized functions and
private mini and neighborhood parks maintained by private
homeowner groups.
It is important to note here that the city is placing its emphasis on
developing and maintaining community parks only. It will be
the responsibility of private homeowner groups to develop and
maintain the smaller mini and neighborhood parks within their
own subdivisions. While the city has several small parks in its
inventory, no more of these park types should be developed by
the city nor should the city, in the future, agree to assume
maintenance of private mini or neighborhood parks
Chapter 2 - Park Land Recommendations Pge 2-2
Meridian Comprehensive Parks and Recreation System P/7n 2001
The parks proposed in this plan are designed to achieve several
objectives. These include:
1. Providing community parks within a reasonable bicycling or
walking distance of most residents.
2. Providing land for specialized facilities such as an indoor
recreation center, special playgrounds and other unique
features.
3. Utilizing linear parks, canals, and water courses for trails.
Pawk/ndex- The purpose of the table below is to provide a quick reference
locating the discussion on specific park sites.
Table 2.1
Index of Individual Park Recommendations
Meridian Planning Area
Chapter 2 - Park Land Recommendotions
Page 2-3
Park Name
,_ Number
EXISTING
7MMer7idianCommunity
LU -4
Park
2-18
N-6
Chateau Park
2-9
C-7
Tully Park
2-13
N-8
8' Street Park
2-9
M-10
Tammy Street Park
2-6
C-12
Fuller Park
2-14
SU -14
Generation Plaza
2-19
SU -15
City Hall Park
2-19
C-18
Storey Park
2-15
C-21
Bear Creek Park
2-15
PROPOSED
C-1
McMillan Road Park
2-12
C-2
Ten Mile Road Park
2-13
C-3
North Meridian Road Park
2-13
C-5
Blackcat Road Park
2-13
OS -9
Five Mile Creek Greenway
2-22
C-1 1
Fairview Avenue Park
2-14
C-13
Meridian Junior High School Park
2-14
C-17
Franklin Road Park
2-14
OS -16
Ten Mile Creek Greenway
2-22
OS -19
Nine Mile Drain Greenway
2-22
C-20
Overland Road Park
2-15
N-22
Thousand Springs Park
2-9—
-qC-23
C-2 3
Locust Grove Road Park
2-16
C-24
Eagle Road Park
2-16
�
z
�
c
Page 2-3
r— r— s— r r— r— r' r r r r r r r— r r— r— r s
Lk.
LEGEND
® pw"AM(Nmoflmpaci)
RopMdOpmS�e
- M�
_
® MY Of MwkU- Pork Reoeerlon end Open SpaceAreaa
s • e BMV Tref.
WeaanAda Om* Park MW
e e S Rapowd OBSftW Traft
F-*--' Oma Pak Rameaft and Open Specs Areae
Roposed On•SeaetT,,l
= Rbk School.
Ropowd Pads
RW RNete School.
FACILITY
PLAN
Meridian Comprehensive Parks and Recreation System P/an 200 J
2.2.1 M/N1-PA1?KS Definition: Mini -Parks or Tot Lots are small one -lot parks designed to
provide a small playground and open space area within a subdivision.
Because of their size (less than one acre) they are limited to the
facilities they can offer. They are designed primarily for small
children.
A. Existing inventory.'
1. Existing Conditions: Currently, there is one mini -park in the
Meridian area and it is owned by the West Ada Recreation
District. It is:
Tammy Street Park (Recreation District) 0.50 Acres
B Design and Development 1 • General Land Use Guidelines:
Policies
a. The development and maintenance of Mini -Parks should
be left to the responsibility of the land developer and
homeowner groups. Their intent is to provide local open
space and minimal recreation use for a local subdivision.
b. The following policies apply to private developments that
provide mini -parks within their project.
c. The development of mini -parks may also be encouraged
as part of multi -family developments where densities
exceed 20 units per net developed acre.
2. Site Selection Criteria:
a. Mini -Parks should be no smaller than 20,000 square feet.
b. The site should be central as possible to the area it
serves.
c. The site should be mostly flat and usable.
d. If possible, walking distance should not exceed one-
quarter mile, and not require crossing of busy streets.
3. Design and Development Standards:
a. Appropriate facilities include:
• Children's playground
• Open grass play area
• Site amenities (picnic tables, benches, bike racks,
drinking fountains, trash receptacles, etc.)
b. The site should be visible from a local residential street
and have no less than 100 feet of street frontage.
Chapter Z - Park Land Recommend77oons P7ge 1-5
Meridian Comprehensive 11,7rks and Recreation System P/an
C. 1?eC0/7 MendcV017S.
2001
Table 2.2
Summary of Mini -Park Recommendations
Meridian Planning Area
TOTAL 0.50
Note: Bold site is in public ownership
Existing Developed Acres = 0.5 Acres
Proposed Acres = 0.0 Acres
2. Specific Improvements:
Tammy Street Park Site M-10
Tammy Street Park is a small park located at the corner of
Jericho Avenue and Tammy Street. No improvements are
planned.
Chapter 2 - Park Land 1?ecommend,7oons / ,3ge 2-6
Meridian Comprehensive Packs and Recreation System Plan
2001
2.2.21VEIGHBORHOOD Definition: Neighborhood parks are a combination playground and
PARKS park designed primarily for non -supervised, non -organized recreation
activities. They are generally small in size and serve an area of
approximately one-half mile radius. Typically, facilities found in a
neighborhood park include a children's playground, picnic areas,
trails, open grass areas for passive use, outdoor basketball courts, and
multi -use practice fields for soccer, youth baseball, etc. Size ranges
from 2 to 10 acres, with the optimum size at 5 acres.
A. Existing inventory 1. Existing Conditions: Currently, there are two neighborhood
parks in the Meridian planning area. They are:
8'h Street Park (City) 4.00 Acres
Chateau Park (City) 6.80 Acres
B. Design c7nd Deve%pment 1. General Land Use Guidelines:
Policies
a. In general, neighborhood parks should be acquired and
developed by private developers with maintenance left
to the developer or a homeowners' group. The city of
Meridian should not assume maintenance responsibility
for this type of park.
b. A neighborhood park should be developed when the
area it will serve reaches about 50% development
(measured by either acreage developed, or
accommodated population).
c. If possible, neighborhood parks should be located
adjacent to an elementary school where a sharing of
space and facilities can be achieved. Where this occurs,
the minimum park size may be reduced to about two
acres.
2. Site Selection Criteria:
a. Under most conditions, neighborhood parks should be
no smaller than three (3) acres in size.
b. The site should be reasonably central to the
neighborhood it is intended to serve.
c. If possible, walking or bicycling distance should not
exceed one-half mile for the area it serves. Access routes
should minimize physical barriers and crossing of major
roadways.
d. The site should be visible from adjoining streets and have
no less than 200 feet of street frontage.
Chapter 2 - Park Land Recommendations Page 2-7
Meridian Comprehensive Pwrks and Recreation System Plan
2001
e. Frontage should be on a local residential street. If
located on a busy street, incorporate buffers and/or
barriers necessary to reduce hazards from passing vehicles.
3. Design and Development Standards:
a. Appropriate facilities may include:
• Unstructured open play areas and practice sport fields
• Children's playground (tot and youth)
• Basketball courts
• Tennis courts
• Picnic areas
• Shelter building (small)
• Trails and/or pathways
• Natural open space
• Site amenities (picnic tables, benches, bike racks, drinking
fountains, trash receptacles, etc.)
b. Parking Requirements: Minimum of three (3) spaces per
acre of usable active park area to accommodate both
handicap and standard parking. If on -street parking is
available, this standard can be reduced by one car for
every 25 feet of available street frontage. The park
design should encourage access by foot or bicycle.
c. Active and noise producing facilities, such as tennis and
basketball courts, should not be located near adjoining
homes.
The following are recommendations for existing and future
C. Recommendations' neighborhood parks in the Meridian area. The table below
summarizes the recommendations for neighborhood parks.
Table 2.3
Summary of Neighborhood Park Recommendations
Meridian Planning Area
TOTAL 19.20
Existing Acres - 17.00 Acres
Proposed Acres = 2.20 Acres
Chapter 2 - Park Land Recommendations Page 2-9
N-6
Chateau Park
6.80 (E)
Expansion/Redevelopment
N-8
8' Street Park
4.00 (E)
No change
N-22
Thousand Springs Park
6.20 (E)
2.20 (P)
Acquisition/Development
TOTAL 19.20
Existing Acres - 17.00 Acres
Proposed Acres = 2.20 Acres
Chapter 2 - Park Land Recommendations Page 2-9
Meridian Comprehensive Parks and Recreation System P/an
2. Specific Improvements:
Chateau Park
200/
Site N -G
Chateau Park is located north of Chateau Drive east of Ten
Mile Road. The site abuts the Rutledge Drainage Way.
A portion of this site is developed but the city plans on
redeveloping this section along with development of the
remaining four acres now undeveloped.
While the city has a commitment to develop this site,
improvements should be kept at a minimum since it does not
meet the definition of a Community Park.
8'h Street Park Site N-8
8`h Street Park is located directly east of Tully Park and
consists of a playground and open grass areas. It is fully
developed. The city's Water Department shops are found at
the front of the park.
Because of its proximity to Tully Park, no additional
improvements are recommended for this park site.
Proposed Thousand Springs Park Site N-22
Two small undeveloped city -owned parcels are found at the
south end of the proposed high school adjacent to the
Thousand Springs Subdivision. These include Los Alamitos
Park (4 acres) and Thousand Springs Park (2.2 acres). In
addition, the school district owns a 2.2 -acre parcel just south
of the Los Alamitos Park that will revert to the city if it is not
developed for a school site. The school district has recently
indicated that it does not intend to develop this property.
It is recommended that this property be combined with the
two existing sites to create a site suitable for the development
of a neighborhood park. By combining these three parcels
together, a 8.4 -acre park site can be created.
Chapter 2 - Park Land Recommendations Page 2-9
Meridian Comprehensive Parks and RPCre0017 System Plan
2001
Z.Z.3 COMMUN/7YPARKS Definition: A community park is planned primarily to provide active
and structured recreation opportunities. In general, community park
facilities are designed for organized activities and sports, although
individual and family activities are also encouraged. Community parks
serve a much larger area and offer more facilities. As a result, they
require more in terms of support facilities such as parking, restrooms,
and covered play areas. Community parks usually have sport fields or
similar facilities as the central focus of the park. Their service area is
roughly a "1-2" mile radius. Size ranges from "20 to 30" acres, with
the optimum size at 25 acres.
A. Existing/nventory.- 1. Existing Conditions: Currently, there are three (3)
community parks in the Meridian area. They are:
Storey Park(City) 20.00 Acres
Tully Park (City) 18.00 Acres
Fuller Park (Recreation District) 25.00 Acres
B. Design and Development 1. General Land Use Guidelines:
Policies
a. The Community Park will be the primary park type
provided in the city. It is intended to serve local needs as
well as facility needs for sport fields and other structured
and active uses.
b. Because of their size, the acquisition of community park
land should occur far in advance of its need.
c. A community park should be constructed when the area
it will serve reaches about 50% development (measured
by either acreage developed, or population
accommodated).
d. Wherever feasible, community parks should be
developed adjacent to junior or high school sites.
2. Site Selection Criteria:
a. Minimum size should be roughly 15 acres with the
optimum being 25 acres.
b. At least two-thirds of the site should be available for
active recreation use. Adequate buffers of natural open
space or low use should be used to separate active use
areas from nearby homes.
c. If possible, walking or bicycling distance should not
exceed 1 - 2 miles for the area it serves.
Chapter 2 - Park Land Recommendations Page 2-10
Meridian Comprehens!✓e Parks and Recreation System 19/7n
1001
d. The site should be visible from adjoining streets and have
street frontage on at least two sides. Streets on all sides
of the park are preferred. A 400 -ft. minimum of total
street frontage is recommended. Where canals or other
non-residential mainly use one side of the park, only one
street frontage is required.
e. Frontage on one side should be on a collector or arterial
street.
3. Design and Development Standards:
a. Appropriate facilities include:
• Designated sport fields - softball, baseball, soccer,
etc.
— • Tennis courts
• Sand or grass volleyball courts
• Open multi -use grass area
• Children's playground
• Restrooms
• Picnic area
• Picnic shelters (various sizes)
• Group picnic facilities
• Trails/pathway systems
• Outdoor basketball courts
• Site amenities (picnic tables, benches, bike racks,
drinking fountains, trash receptacles, etc.)
b. Parking requirements: dependent upon facilities
provided. Require 50 spaces per ball field plus 5 spaces
per acre of active use area. On- street parking may
account for some of the parking requirements based on
` 25 lineal feet of street frontage per automobile.
c. Permanent restrooms are appropriate for this type of park
but should be located in highly visible areas and near
public streets.
Chapter 2 - Park Land Recommendations page 1--/ I
Meridian Comprehensive Forks and Recreation System P/7n
C 1?eCOMMendc7P%0/7S 1. Summary of Recommendations:
Table 2.4
Summary of Community Park Recommendations
Meridian Planning Area
1001
Existing Acres = 77.00 Acres
Proposed Acres = 220.00 Acres
2. Specific Improvements:
Proposed McMillan Road Park Site C-1
This proposed park site is located in the northwestern corner
of the planning area and is intended to serve all of the area
between McDermott Road, Blackcat Road, Chinden Road
and Nine Mile Drain. The best location is along the north
side of McMillan Road.
Because this park will serve a somewhat smaller area, the site
could be as small as 20 acres. It is anticipated that this park
site will also serve residents to the west and north who are
not part of the city.
Please refer to the Design and Development Policies for
Community Parks for the appropriate land use, site selection, and
design/development criteria.
Chapterl- Park Land Recommendations Page 1-11
oil,
ProposedSite Existing (E)
Acres
Action
C-1
McMillan Road Park
20.00 (P)
Acquisition/Development
C-2
Ten Mile Road Park
30.00 (P)
Acquisition/Development
C-3
North Meridian Park
30.00 (P)
Acquisition/Development
C-5
Blackcat Road Park
20.00 (P)
Acquisition/Development
C-7
Tully Park
18.00 (E)
No Changes
C-1 1
Fairview Avenue Park
20.00 (P)
Acquisition/Development
C-12
Fuller Park
25.00 (E)
No change
C-13
Meridian Junior High Park
-
Development on school site
C-17
Franklin Road Park
25 00 (P)
Acquisition/Development
C-18
Storey Park
15.00 (E
5.00 (P)
No Change
C-20
Overland Road Park
20.00 (P)
Acquisition/Development
C-21
Bear Creek Park
19.00 (E)
Development
C-23
Locust Grove Park
30.00 (P)
Acquisition/Development
C-24
Eagle Road Park
20.00 (P)
Acquisition/Development
TOTAL
297:00
Existing Acres = 77.00 Acres
Proposed Acres = 220.00 Acres
2. Specific Improvements:
Proposed McMillan Road Park Site C-1
This proposed park site is located in the northwestern corner
of the planning area and is intended to serve all of the area
between McDermott Road, Blackcat Road, Chinden Road
and Nine Mile Drain. The best location is along the north
side of McMillan Road.
Because this park will serve a somewhat smaller area, the site
could be as small as 20 acres. It is anticipated that this park
site will also serve residents to the west and north who are
not part of the city.
Please refer to the Design and Development Policies for
Community Parks for the appropriate land use, site selection, and
design/development criteria.
Chapterl- Park Land Recommendations Page 1-11
Meridian Comprehensive Parks and Recreation System Pan 2001
Proposed Ten Mile Road Park Site C-2
This proposed park site is designed to serve most of the
northern sections of the city between Chinden Road and Ten
Mile Creek. The ideal location is along Ten Mile Road.
Due to the large area it must serve, this park site should be
no smaller than 30 acres. As with the proposed McMillan
Road Park, this site will also serve unincorporated areas to
the north.
Please refer to the Design and Development Policies for
Community Parks for the appropriate land use, site selection, and
design/development criteria.
Proposed North Meridian Park Site C-3
The northeastern section of the planning area will be served
by this proposed park site. The best location is along the east
•- side of Meridian Road. Because the existing Meridian
Community Park site is located nearby, the proposed park
site should be equally located between Chinden Road and
McMillan Road.
Please refer to the Design and Development Policies for
Community Parks for the appropriate land use, site selection, and
design/development criteria.
Proposed Blackcat Road Park
Site G5
This proposed park site is found on the west side of the
planning area and should be located between Nine Mile
Drain and Ten Mile Creek. Because Fuller Park is in the
same general area, only about 20 acres is needed for the
proposed Blackcat Park site.
Please refer to the Design and Development Policies for
Community Parks for the appropriate land use, site selection, and
design/development criteria.
Tully Park Site C-7
This existing site is located directly east of Linden Road
between Ustick Road and Fairview Avenue. Five Mile Creek
Pathway borders the property on the north and 8`h Street Park
is found at the southeast corner.
Chapter 2 - Park Land Recommendations Page Z-13
Meridian Comprehensive Parks and Recreation System Plan
2001
This park was recently developed and includes two youth
baseball fields, a soccer field, one large picnic shelter, one
small shelter and playground. This park represents the type
proposed in the Community Park system. The only
improvements needed in this park are more trees. A
skateboard area is being considered for this park.
Proposed Fairview Avenue Park Site C-1 1
This proposed park site is intended to serve the central
eastern portion of the planning area. An ideal location lies
off Eagle Road, just south of the school district property.
Please refer to the Design and Development Policies for
Community Parks for the appropriate land use, site selection, and
design/development criteria.
FullerParkSite C-12
This existing park site is owned by the West Ada Recreation
District and is located south of Cherry Lane in the middle of
a residential neighborhood. It borders Five Mile Creek on
the south. Facilities include three baseball fields, picnic
facilities, a walking path, restrooms and large open grass
areas.
While this site is owned by Western Ada Recreation District,
it does provide recreational facilities and open space for the
community. No recommendations are made for this park
site.
Proposed Meridian Junior High School Park Site C-13'
A major park offering a wide variety of recreational
opportunities is needed in the central existing portion of the
city. The only site for potential use are the grounds of
Meridian Junior High School.
It is recommended that the city work with the school district
to develop formal sport fields and passive recreation uses on
the school playground.
Proposed Franklin Road Park Site C-17
The proposed Franklin Road Park is proposed to serve the
southwestern corner of the community. An ideal location is
at the intersection of Franklin Road and Blackcat Road.
Because some of the land in this area will be non-residential
a smaller park site of 25 acres is recommended.
Chapter 2 - Park Land Recommendations Page 2-14
Meridian Comprehensive Parks and Mecreation System Plan
2001
Please refer to the Design and Development Policies for
Community Parks for the appropriate land use, site selection, and
design/development criteria.
Storey Park Site C-18
This existing site is located near the entrance of the city and
east of Meridian Road. Four public uses are found in the
immediate area. They include Storey Park, an outdoor
swimming pool owned by the Western Ada Recreation
District, the Chamber of Commerce building and the
Meridian Speedway.
Access to the park site is poor and the parking lot tends to
divide the area. The swimming pool appears to be part of
Storey Park because there is no physical separation between
the two properties. The park also looks out on the back of
the raceway. Approximately five (5) acres at the back of the
park is undeveloped and used by the Speedway.
Because of these problems, a master plan should be
developed for this site that addresses these features. In the
long run, the city should attempt to acquire more land to the
south.
Proposed Overland Road Park Site C-20
This proposed par site is intended to serve the area south of
Overland Road. Much of this land is made up of 1-2 acre
parcels. Because of this, it is doubtful if this area will ever
achieve a standard residential density. Because of this, a
smaller park site is possible.
Please refer to the Design and Development Policies for
Community Parks for the appropriate land use, site selection, and
design/development criteria.
Bear Creek Park Site C-21
This existing undeveloped site contains 19 acres of land and
is found between Victory Road and Amity Road. Once
developed, it will serve the area south of Five Mile Creek
between Locust Grove Road and Linden Road.
Please refer to the Design and Development Policies for
Community Parks for the appropriate land use, site selection, and
design/development criteria.
Chapter 2 - Pork Land Recommendations Page 2-1 S
Meridian ComprelwnslvePvks and Recreation System Ran 2001
Proposed Locust Grove Park Site C-23
This proposed park site is intended to serve the most south
westerly portion of the community. An ideal location is at
northwest corner of the intersection of Amity Road and
Meridian Road.
Please refer to the Design and Development Policies for
Community Parks for the appropriate land use, site selection, and
design/development criteria.
Proposed Eagle Road Park Site C-24
This proposed park site is intended to serve the most south
easterly portion of the community. An ideal location is off
Eagle Road, midway between Victory Road and Amity Road.
—' Please refer to the Design and Development Policies for
Community Parks for the appropriate land use, site selection, and
design/development criteria.
r
r
r�
Chapter - Park Land Recommendations Page Z - I6
Meridian Comprelvl7slve Parks and Recreation System Flan
2001
Z.Z. 4 L9RGE URBAN PARKS Large Urban Parks are major parks serving the entire community.
When Meridian Community Park is developed, it will meet this
definition. They are often similar to a community park except they
are usually larger in size and provide more facilities. Depending
upon their location and setting, they may be passive in nature or
designed to accommodate large groups in a structured setting. As
a result, they require more in terms of support facilities, parking,
etc. They should be designed to serve the entire community.
A. Existing /nuento�y.-
1. Existing Conditions: Currently, there is one large urban park
in Meridian. It is :
Meridian Community Park 56.0 Acres
B. Design and Deve%pment
Po&_Ies1 1. General Land Use Guidelines:
a. The large urban park should be designed to serve both local as
well as community -wide needs.
2. Site Selection Criteria:
a. Minimum size should be approximately 50 acres.
b. Depending upon the setting, a majority of the site should be
developed and maintained.
c. The site should have full access on at least two sides of the
park. Streets on all sides of the park are preferred. At least
one side of the park should have access from a collector or
arterial street.
d. To separate adjacent homes for the park, public streets, canals,
drainage channels or trails should border the park property.
3. Design and Development Standards:
a. Appropriate facilities include:
• Sport fields
• Tennis courts
• Sand or grass volleyball courts
• Open multi -use grass areas
• Children's playground
• Restrooms
• Skateboard park area
• Large picnic areas
• Group picnic areas and shelters
• Individual picnic sites
• Trails and pathways
• Indoor recreation facilities
• Aquatic facilities (indoor and outdoor)
• Site amenities (picnic tables, benches, bike racks,
drinking fountains, trash receptacles, etc.)
Chapter 1- Park Land Recommendations Page 1-17
Meridian Comprehensive Parks and Recreation System Plan
C. Recommendations
PWirIA
b. Parking requirements are dependent on facilities provided.
They require five spaces per acre of active use area. For sport
fields, they require 50 spaces per field. On -street parking
should be discouraged.
c. Permanent restrooms are appropriate for this type of park but
should be located in areas highly visible and near public
streets.
1. Summary of Recommendations:
Table 2.5
Summary of Large Urban Park Recommendations
Meridian Planning Area
Existing Acres = 0.00 Acres
Proposed Acres = 56.00 Acres
2. Specific Improvements:
Meridian Community Park Site W-4
This site was recently purchased by the city with the
intention of it becoming primarily a sports field complex.
However, there is also the need to provide passive and local
facilities as well. Because of its central location and size (56
acres) this is also a good park site for specialized recreation
facilities such as a special playground, large group picnic
areas, or other unique features. This park can expect to
attract large volumes of traffic and thus should have direct
street access on "3-4" sides.
A master plan has been completed for this site but space
should be reserved for these added facilities.
Chapter 2 - Park Land RecommendGons Page 2-I8
Medd/an Compl-ehens/ue Parks and Recreation System Plan 2001
2.2.5 SPEC/AL USE Definition: Special use areas are miscellaneous public recreation
A/TEAS areas or land occupied by a specialized facility. Some of the uses that
fall into this classification include single purpose sites, sport field
complexes, or sites occupied by recreation buildings, swimming pools,
flower gardens, and architectural features.
A. Existing Inventory., 1. Existing Conditions: Currently, there are three special use
areas in the Meridian area. They are:
Generation Plaza (City) 0.1 Acres
_ City Hall Park (City) 0.2 Acres
Outdoor Pool (Recreation District) 1.0 Acres
B. Design and Development 1. General Land Use Guidelines:
Policies
a. Dependent on the type of facilities proposed.
2. Site Selection Criteria:
a. Prior to the addition of any special use area, the city
should prepare a detailed feasibility and cost/benefit
analysis for each proposed site being considered.
b. Size and location of facility will be dependent upon the
function of the facility considered.
3. Design and Development Standards:
a. Design criteria will depend upon the facilities and
activities proposed.
b. Parking requirements: dependent upon the activities
offered.
C. Recommendations 1. Summary of Recommendations:
r Table 2.5
Summary of Special Use Area Recommendations
Meridian Planning Area
ProposedPark Number Site Existing (E) Action
JP) Acres
SU -14 Generation Plaza 0.25 (E) No Change
SU -15 City Hall Park 0.20 (E) No Change
No Number Outdoor Swimming Pool 1.00 (E) No Change
1.45
Existing Acres = 0.00 Acres
Proposed Acres = 56.00 Acres
Chapter 2 - Park Land Recommendations Page 2-I9
Mel-idian Compl-ehenslve Parks and Recl-eavon System Plan 2001
Z.Z.6 OPENSPACE Definition: Natural open space is defined as undeveloped land
AREAS primarily left in its natural environment with recreation uses as a
secondary objective. it is usually owned or managed by a
governmental agency and may or may not have public access. This
type of land often includes wetlands, environmentally sensitive areas,
wildlife habitats, and stream, canal and drainage corridors.
A. Existing/nVentoiy.' 1. Existing Conditions: Currently, there are three major drains
passing through Meridian in a southeast to northwest fashion.
These include:
Ten Mile Creek 6.7 lineal miles
Five Mile Creek 7.8 lineal miles
Nine Mile Drain 8.5 lineal miles
B. Design and Development 1. General Land Use Guidelines:
Policies
a. An open space system may be small individual parcels or
parcels combined to create a long continuous linear
pattern such as along a canal or drainage way. These
lands are suitable for minimal wildlife habitat, trail
corridors, or the preservation of environmentally
sensitive lands. For Meridian, these lands will only
minimally serve to create a sense of seclusion or
separation of neighborhoods.
b. Natural open space should be properly managed and
maintained.
c. Natural open space may be owned and managed by the
city of Meridian or other responsible party approved by
the city.
2. Site Selection Criteria:
a. Emphasis on acquisition should be for those areas
— offering unique features or trail opportunities.
b. An analysis should be made to determine if unique
qualities and conditions exist that warrant the acquisition
and/or preservation of this type of land.
c. Prohibiting urban development should not be a reason
for acquiring natural open space.
3. Design and Development Standards:
a. Natural open space areas should be primarily used for
passive and trail related activities. Maintenance levels
should reflect the character of natural open space.
Chapter - Pik Land Recommendations Page 2-20
Meridian Comprehensive Parks and Recreation System Plan
2001
b. Encourage passive recreation uses that are compatible
with the preservation of the natural areas. Where
feasible, public access and use of these areas via trails
should be permitted, but sensitive areas should be
protected from degradation and overuse.
c. Improvements should be kept to a minimum, with the
natural environment, interpretive, and educational
features emphasized. Such improvements should be
limited to the following, although other uses or sites
may permit more intensive development.
• Pathways
• Seating
• Informational/Directional Signs
• Viewing Areas
d. Parking should be limited to parks and trailheads and at
a size the area can accommodate.
The location and construction of trails and other
features should avoid canal or stream banks, significant
plant populations, and other sensitive features, while
maintaining an acceptable experience and adhering to
the trail development guidelines. In addition, there
may be certain sensitive areas where recreation
activities, even low impact activities, should not be
permitted.
f. Non-native plant species should be removed and
native indigenous species re -introduced in open space
areas. Steps should be taken to eliminate non-native
plant invasion.
4. Management Policies
a. If no specific management practice is currently
developed, the policy should be the accepted standard of
state and federal agencies.
b. Additions to the open space system should include a
report documenting management recommendations
specific to that site as well as impact on overall
management resources.
Policies should be developed for assessing responsibility
for vegetation encroachment onto private property. In
general, control of invasive plant materials should be the
responsibility of the adjacent property owner. If plants
originate from private property and inhabit an open
space area, or originate in the open space area, it will be
the homeowner's responsibility to remedy the problem
or shoulder the burden of cost.
07apter2 - Park Land Recommendation Page 2-2/
Meridian Comprehensive Parks and Recreation System Plan
Recommendations' 1. Summary of Recommendations:
Table 2.6
Summary of Open Space Recommendations
Meridian Planning Area
W&A
NumberSite Site
Existing (E)
...
(P) Acres
Action
OS -9 Five Mile Creek Greenway IPI
37.80
Trail development
OS -16 Ten Mile Creek Greenway IPI
32.50
Trail development
OS -19 Nine Mile Drain Greenway IPI
41.20
Trail development
TOTAL`111.�50,
Note: acres based on an average width of 40 feet
Existing Acres - 0.00 Acres
Proposed Acres = 1 11.50 Acres
Chaoter2 - Park Land Recommendations Page 212
CHAPTER 3 -FACILITY RECOMMENDATIONS
Contents:
• Pathway/Trails
• Indoor Community Center
• Sport Fields
• Specialized Recreational Facilities
3.1 INTRODUCTION This section of the Action Plan discusses recommendations for
specific recreational facilities. These recommendations are
divided into the following categories:
.. Pathways and Trails 3-1
Community Center 3-6
Sport Fields 3-7
Specialized Recreational Facilities 3-9
3.2 TRAILS AND Definition: Trails and pathways are designed to provide walking,
PATHWAYS bicycling and other non -motorized recreational opportunities. By
providing linkages to other areas and facilities, they can provide non-
vehicular options for travel throughout the community. Trails can be
,.._ designed for single or multiple types of users. The trails and pathways
emphasized here are those that are recreational and multiple use in
nature. Bike routes with more emphasis on transportation are not
included in this definition.
Trails may be either unsurfaced or treated with a variety of hard
surfacing materials including concrete or asphalt. Unsurfaced trails
may be left in their natural condition or supplemented with gravel,
bark chips, sand, or other material. Surfacing will be dependent on
the soil type, type of use, and amount of use.
Chapter 3 - F cllity Recommendations Page 3- l
Meridian Comprehensive P7rks and Mecreation System P/an
A. Existing/nventoiy.- 1. Existing Conditions: Excluding pathways in existing parks,
there are two off-street pathways in Meridian. They include:
Fothergil Pathway 900 lineal feet
Five Mile Creek Pathway 5,280 lineal feet
B. Design 7na(Deve%pment 1. General Land Use Guidelines:
Policies
a. The following rationale and guidelines, site selection
criteria, and development standards apply to trails and
pathways that are recreational in nature. Policies related
to pathways that are primarily transportation oriented are
not covered here.
b. Trails designated in the Trails Plan found in the
Comprehensive Parks and Recreation System Plan shall
be defined as the "Trail Network". All policies listed
below apply to this network.
Trails that follow along canals, stream corridors and
drainage ways provide natural linkages from urban
development to recreational areas. Trails located parallel
to these amenities provide connections with natural areas
that are desired by citizens. In addition, trails in these
locations minimize the loss of land for development at
urban densities compared to situations where trails might
need to bisect developable lands.
d. Stream and canal corridors provide essential ecological
functions that need protection from the impacts of
development and human activity as these streams travel
through urban areas.
e. Trails should be planned, sized, designed, and located to
minimize their impacts on stream or canal corridors and
to minimize the impacts of unplanned access in and near
these waterways. Where adequate land is available,
multi-purpose trails running parallel to the waterway
should generally be sited at least 15 feet from the top of
bank.
f. The city will only accept trail segments that are part of
the proposed trails Network and shown on the Trails
Plan.
g. Developers should be encouraged to provide and build
pathways and trails within their proposed developments
to link with the city's overall trail system.
h. Trails easements, dedications, and development need to
occur prior to or at the time of development.
Chapter.3 - Foci/ityMecommendat/ons Page 31
Meridian Comprehensive Parks and Recreation System Plan
i. The Parks and Recreation Department should assume
responsibility for pathway maintenance only. Adjoining
property owners and/or homeowners association should
assume landscape maintenance of the remaining areas.
j. The city should be sensitive to private owners when trails
are proposed adjacent to private property.
2. Site Selection Criteria:
The primary purpose of recreation trails is to provide a
recreation experience. Transportation to other parts of
the community should be a secondary objective.
Wherever feasible, recreation pathways and trails should
be located off-street. However, streets can be used in
order to complete the connection, whenever needed.
b. Trails should be located and designed to provide a
diversity of challenges. Wherever possible, trails should
encourage accessibility, particularly within loop or
destination opportunities.
c. Trails should be developed throughout the community to
provide linkages to schools, parks, and other destination
points. Each proposed trail should be reviewed on a
case-by-case basis to determine if it should be part of the
city's trail network.
3. Design and Development Standards:
a. Two basic types of trails are proposed: Off-street Multi -
Purpose Trails and Off-street Hiking Trails. See item "e"
on the next page for design standards for each.
b. Trail alignments should take into account soil conditions,
slopes, surface drainage, and other physical limitations
that could increase construction and/or maintenance
costs.
c. Trails should be planned, sized, and designed for
multiple uses, except for dedicated nature trails, and/or
areas that cannot be developed to the standard necessary
to minimize potential user conflicts.
d. Centralized and effective staging areas should be
provided for trail access. They should include parking,
orientation and information, and any necessary
specialized unloading features. Primary trailheads
should have restrooms and trash receptacles; secondary
trailheads might only have some parking and signage.
Chapter - Faall,t,Recommendtions 1,7ge 3-3
Meridian Comprehensive Parks and Recreation System P/an
e. Trail widths and clearances:
Minimum
•
Off -Street
Type
Meridian Loop
12.65
PurposeStandard
I
Surfacing
Paved
Paved/Unpaved
Surface Width
10 feet
6 feet
Minimum R/W
30 feet -35 feet
25 feet
Vertical Clearance
10 feet
10 feet
Horizontal Clearance
2 feet
2 feet
Appropriate Use Walking, bicycling,
in-line skating
Hiking
In this plan, Recreational Trails and Pathways are
C. Recommendations, emphasized. The primary purpose of this trails system is to
provide recreational walking, bicycling, and hiking
opportunities. These same trails may also meet some
transportation needs as well.
The trails plan identifies the primary trails within the
community and is called the Trail Network. It is the Network
the city will be responsible for developing and maintaining.
In addition, it will be important to also create a secondary
trail system that connects to the Network. It will be up to the
development community to develop and maintain this
system. These trails should be located to minimize the
number of street crossings, limit crossings at street
intersections and provide direct access to the city's Trail
Network.
Table 3.1
Summary of Trail Recommendations
Meridian Planning Area
Trail
Number
Trail
Length (in I
Miles)
Type
T-1
Meridian Loop
12.65
Multi -Purpose Trail
T-2
Bear Creek Connection
1 06
Hiking Trail
T-3
Ridenbaugh Trail
11.34
Hiking Trail
T-4
Five Mile Creek Trail
7.75
Multi -Purpose Trail
T-5
Nine Mile Drain Trail
2.50
Hiking Trail
T-6
Ten Mile Creek Trail
7.57
Multi -Purpose Trail
T-7
Settlers Creek Trail
3.49
Hiking Trail
T-8
South Slough Trail
3.93
Hiking Trail
Total
50.29
Chapter 3 - F7clllty Aecommendtions Poge 3-4
7
0
I
r -t1 --- --a
LEGEND
Pl ly"Area (Alae of Imps
, yn^ PmPosad Open SPaoa
T-1
MWdat Loop
- City Lhft
T$
Beff OsekC wiaollon
Ckyof MmUm Pak Ballon and Open Space Areas
• o • Bdft Trak
TS
".._- R lenbllh Trd
I WWmAds C.* ak DMUls ds
^ `-' Pmpeaed OBStrW
Td
- ReMb QeskTns9
Roposed On -t Tsai
T-5
HBe CreekTm9
i OBia Pakv Pammilon end Open Spens Arms
-r` Roposed Conmd1y i'mm
TS
Tan Mie CreekTrei
_ Pubic Schools
T-7
...-:._°. Seklae Creek Tia!
PMae Schools
T-8
... South ShtO Tres
Nmoember_2001
TRAILS
PLAN
Meridian Comprehensive Parks and Recreation System Plan
3.3 COMMUMITY Input from the city staff, the Parks and Recreation
CENTER Commission and from the earlier Park and Recreation Plan
study, revealed interest and need for a community center to
conduct recreation classes, meet the need for meetings, and
large group gatherings. They revealed an interest for need of
an indoor facility. There was also some interest for the city
to provide its own indoor swimming pool and an ice rink.
More and more northwest communities are building
recreation centers because of the long winters and need to
provide community center activities during this period.
Nampa recently constructed a major facility that provides a
very wide range of facilities, including aquatics. If designed
correctly, recreation centers can offer a wide variety of
community and youth activities at a reasonable cost. To help
offset the operating costs, some recreation centers also
provide event space as well as areas for recreation. This
includes rooms for receptions, meetings, large group
gatherings and trade shows.
Meridian is quickly growing to the point where the
population base may be large enough to support a
community center. Some potential spaces that could be
located in a facility include:
• Multi-purpose gymnasium (2 courts)
• Space for teen and senior activities
• Multi-purpose reception room
• Large and small meeting rooms
• Climbing wall
• Exercise and weight training room
• Running/walking track
• Support facilities
It may also be feasible to provide some indoor swimming
and children's water playground facilities as well. Due to the
cost to build and maintain this type of facility, the project
should be preceded by a feasibility study to identify the
specific need, develop a design program and forecast the
cost to build and maintain.
Chapter.3 - Faci/ityRecommendavons Page 3-6
Meridian Comprehensive Perks and Recreation System Plan
3.4 SPORTSF/ELDS Field sports are an important recreation activity in Meridian.
At the current time field sports are managed as follows:
Adult Softball
• Managed by the city
• Current Supply: 3 fields
• Current Need 5 fields
Youth Baseball
• Managed by PAL, Meridian Little League Association
• Current Supply: 5 fields
• Current Need 19 fields
Youth Soccer
• Managed by PAL, Capitol Youth Soccer Association
• Current Supply: no fields
• Current Need 8 fields
The above needs are based on normal amounts of league play
A. Mecommendations, and practice and reflect demand standards developed from cities
throughout the Northwest.
1. Sports Council: As the city grows and more teams are
formed, the city should take on a leadership role in
overseeing how the various fields are used. To manage such
a program and assure that all sports are equally represented,
a sports council should be formed representing the city, the
— School District and the various sport groups. Some of the
policies and responsibilities this sports council should
address include:
• Establish the amount of practice time and games permitted per
team per week
• Establish policies to protect fields from overuse
• Establish minimum design standards for game and practice
fields
• Turn field scheduling in the city (city and school fields) over to
a "scheduling czar" or a sports council.
• The city should be responsible for building the number of
fields based on its population base only. Each city in the
region should assume its own responsibility of meeting a share
of field needs.
The city should charge a minimum fee for field maintenance.
Increase the fee schedule for non-resident teams or mixed
resident teams.
"' Excludes temporary sod farm fields that are used for some PAL soccer programs.
Chapter 3 - Faci/ityMecommend lens Page.3-7
Meridian Comprehensive Parks andMecreation System P/an
2. Field Scheduling: One of the primary reasons for field
shortage is improper field scheduling. Often it is left to sport
representatives who want as much field time as they can get
and with school principals who do not understand how
much time is actually needed.
To balance need with actual amount of time needed, it is
recommended that a scheduling committee be formed made
up of a school district representative, a representative from
the city Parks and Recreation Department and one
representative each from youth soccer, baseball and adult
softball. Working as a group they should set up the field
schedules for the entire year.
3. Field Priority: As more sport fields are developed, it will
become difficult for the city to keep up with field
maintenance. Recognizing this, it is recommended that
fields be developed and maintained according to an
expected level and type of use. This is called a tiered field
system and is utilized as follows:
Level 1 Practice Fields: Locate these fields on school
playgrounds and some future community parks: Their quality of
development will be lower than the level 2 and 3 fields and
include the following design standards:
Backstops only for baseball fields
Open grass areas for soccer fields
Soccer fields may overlay other fields
Level 2 Game Fields: These are fields used for league play and
some limited practice. They will be located in future community
parks. Their quality of development should be higher than the
Level 1 fields and meet the following design standards:
• Backstops and outfield fencing for most baseball fields
• Multi -use fields for baseball and softball
• Open grass areas for soccer
• Most fields constructed in clusters
• Because of their location within neighborhoods, most fields
will not be lighted
• Restrooms will be provided within the community park but
most likely not within the complex of fields
Chapter3 - Faci6tyMecommendations page 3-8
Meridian Comprel7enslve Parks andRecre won System F/7n
3.5 SpEC/AL/ZED
RECREAT/ONAL
FAC/L/T/ES
Level 3 Tournament Fields: These are fields used for
tournament play and limited league play. Practice will not be
permitted on these fields. It is recommended that the fields at the
proposed Meridian Community Park (LU -4) be used for this
purpose. The quality of this complex should be high and meet the
following design standards:
• Backstops, foul line and outfield fencing required for all
baseball and softball fields
• Field lighting
• Dedicated fields for soccer, baseball, and softball
• Support facilities such as restrooms, concessions, etc.
The following are recommendations for special use recreational
facilities.
SKATE PARK AREA
In-line skating and in-line hockey have become popular
activities as well as a competitive sport. By giving the youth
a place to play rather than using the streets or other public
places, it relieves conflicts with the general public. The
difficulty is finding a place that will have local neighborhood
acceptance and one that is easy for the youth to reach.
A skate park should offer a wide range of youth activities, is
highly visible, and is easy for the youth to reach. A good
design program is a facility that contains:
• In-line skate area with jumps and ramps
• Possible half pipe
• In-line hockey rink
• A small shelter building
• Nearby restroom building
In an effort to geographically balance skate facilities within
the community, it is recommended that two sites be located.
The suggested sites are:
• Tully Park (Site C-7)
• Undesignated site south of the Freeway
GROUP PICNIC AREA
Currently, Meridian does not have any facilities that easily
accommodate large groups. Aside from meeting the need for
large groups, these types of facilities can also generate
revenue to help offset the park maintenance cost.
Chapter - FaalltyRecommendations Page 3-9
Meridian Comprehensive Parks dnd.Recreation System Plan
A group picnic area usually requires a large site in order for
the group area to be separated from the rest of the park. In
addition, support facilities and a sport field is also desirable.
While any community park will do, two suggested sites are
C-21 and LU -4. A group picnic area should contain one to
two large shelter buildings equipped with barbecues and an
outdoor patio area. In order to insure some privacy, this area
should be somewhat separated from the other parts of the
park by trees and landscaping.
ADVENTURE PLAYGROUND
Most of the children's playgrounds in Meridian are some-
what basic and designed to meet the local neighborhood
needs.
It is recommended a major playground be developed in one
of the future parks that contains a wide variety of children's
play facilities and have all access and abilities. It should be
unique enough to warrant a drive across town to visit and
hold a child's attention for several hours. Any of the
proposed community parks will fit this need.
OUTDOOR WATER PLAYGROUND
A very popular, new type of outdoor water feature is an
outdoor water playground. The size can vary considerably
but usually contains water fountains, a small splash pool and
sometimes a water slide. Depending on their size they can
be managed either with guards, and charged a fee to use, or
not managed and visited like any other children's
playground.
The city could either develop one large facility and locate it
near the center of the city or develop two smaller ones at
either end of the city. Constructing one large one is more
efficient to operate but not as convenient to city residents.
OUTDOOR RECEPTION AREA
A facility not found in Meridian is a place for outdoor
wedding receptions and other large group gatherings. This
kind of space should be in high demand in Meridian and can
also be a source of revenue through its rentals. Often they
are developed in conjunction with a floral garden.
Almost any of the proposed community parks would fit this
need except for Meridian Community Park (LU -4) because of
the sport fields and expected amount of noise and activity at
the site.
Chapter 3 - Faci/ity1?ecommenaations Page 3-l0
Meridian Comprehensive Parks and Recreation System P/an
INDOOR ICE RINK
Ice skating has become more popular in the Northwest
during the last five years. If designed and programmed
correctly, this type of facility can provide a major recreation
opportunity at little cost to the city. As an option, the city
should consider adding an ice skating element to the
proposed community center.
Chapter 3 - Faalli vMecommendations P?ge .3-J 1
CHAPTER 4 - MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
Contents:
• Staffing Requirements
• Park Impact Fees
4.1 INTRODUCTION This chapter covers several operational issues related to improving
services. This includes analysis and recommendations for staffing
and a review of the park impact fee structure.
Currently, the Parks and Recreation Department maintains about
4.7 STAFFING 39 acres of park land, street medians, fire stations, City Hall
REQUIREMENTS landscaping and the Pine Street School. While it is difficult to
break out the cost of park maintenance only, the current cost is
about $387,135, which excludes the salary of the Parks and
Recreation Director.
If the $387,135 was divided by 39 acres, the annual cost per
acre to maintain the park system is about $9,927 per acre. This
amount is high when compared to other communities we have
studied. There are, however, several reasons why this number is
high.
First, the city has graduated from a small city with basically one
park to one of several large parks but continues to look at
operations as a small park system. An example is that the city
continues to mow the parks with small mowers. Purchasing a
large mower would eliminate one person from that position.
Chapter 4 - Admin/stration and Management Recommend7tions Page 4 - 1
Meridian comprehensive Parks and Recreation System Plan
2001
The second reason is that as the park system grows, the ratio of
park land per maintenance employee should go up because no
additional support and management personnel will be needed.
As a goal, the Maintenance Division should seek a maintenance
budget that reflects a cost of approximately $8,000 per
maintained acre.
Currently the Maintenance Division consists of the following
positions:
Table 4-1
Current Park Maintenance Staff
City of Meridian
Maintenance Level
Full-time Seasonal
Superintendent 1
Full Time Employees 4
7 month employees 2
4 month employees 2
Total equivalent full time employees: 6.83
This amounts to an existing ratio of 5.9 acres per maintenance
employee. Using the $8,000 per acre as the target amount to
pay for park maintenance, the recommended ratio is 7.9 acres
per employee. This is illustrated below.
Current ratio of acres per employee 5.9
Recommended ratio of acres per employee 7.9
While the recommended ratio of park land per employee is
higher than what now exists, the city should be able to maintain
its parks at a quality level. This standard, however, will require
approaching maintenance in a different fashion, developing
parks that are easy to maintain and using equipment that makes
maintenance more efficient.
The number of future employees will be based on how fast the
park system is developed. However, using the current ratio of
park land to population and applying to the growth forecasts, the
following maintenance staff needs are forecasted.
Current park maintenance staff 6.8 FTE's
Year 2002 needs 5.1 FTE's
Year 2010 needs 11.4 FTE's
Chapter 4-Administ1-,von and Management /Fecommend zIons Page 4 - 2
Meridian Comprehensive Parks and Recreation System Plan
2001
4.3 /MPACTFEES Impact fees are development fees charged to new homes built in
Meridian. As a rule, they are charged at the time of securing the
building permit. While the developer or builder pays this fee, it
is generally passed on to the homebuyer through the cost of the
house purchase. In theory, park impact fees are intended to pay
for the cost of all new park land acquisitions and development.
As a practical point, the fee rate imposed by a city seldom
reflects the true costs, which means existing residents must share
the cost through property taxes.
The current impact fee rate for parks is about $530 per single
family home and $407 per multi -family unit. It is our contention
that this rate does not reflect the true cost of developing the park
system of Meridian for the population growth.
The action required to develop the park system are summarized
in Table 5.3 and are estimated to be approximately
$41,997,000. Deducted from this amount should be $4.5
million for the cost of the recreation center. The total new
growth between the year 2000 and 2020 is forecasted at 37,800
-' persons, which reflects about 13,500 new households. If the
number of new households is divided by the cost to build the
park system, it amounts to $1,500 per household. It will be up
to the City Council to decide how much of the true cost should
be borne by new development.
Chapter 4 - Administration and Management Recommend pons Page 4 - 3
CHAPTER 5 -PROJECT FINANCING
Contents:
• Project Priorities
• Funding Sources
• Financing Strategy
• Project List
5. 1 INTRODUCTION This chapter of the Action Plan identifies a strategy for funding
park and facility improvements. This strategy identifies specific
actions that should occur as well as potential sources of
funding. The summary of this planning process is shown in the
6 -year Capital Facilities Plan identified in Table 5.2. Some of
these funding sources are new to the city whereas others have
been utilized in the past.
5.2 PROJECT The following criteria are recommended for implementing
PRIORI TIES projects in the Capital Facilities Plan. These are not listed in
any priority.
• Acquisition of Park Land: Because of the high growth rate in
Meridian it will be important to acquire park land while it is
still available. The difficulty the city will face is finding
money in the short term to pay for this acquisition. While
Park Impact Fees are designed for this purpose, as a practical
point the fee schedule is not high enough to pay for all of the
acquisition and development costs. In addition, the money
comes in at the time of residential development, which is
usually too late to acquire the land in the vicinity.
• Development of Meridian Community Park (Site LU -4) This
site was recently acquired by the city and a master plan has
been approved. Due to the interest in this project, it should
also have a high priority.
Chapter 5 - Project Financing Page 5 - 1
Meridian Comprehensive Parks and Recreation System P/an 2001
• Development of New Parks: Developing new parks should
have a medium to low priority and reflect the rate of
community growth.
• Development of Sport Fields: Should be an on-going process
as new community parks are developed. This can be
accomplished through partnerships with the sports leagues.
5.3 FUND/NG
SOURCES
• Upgrade of Existing Parks: Capital money has already been
approved to upgrade Storey Park. This project plus other
existing park improvements should have a medium priority.
• Development of Trails: Trail development should have a
medium to high priority because of the interest in trails and the
fact that some opportunities now exist for trail development.
In many instances, developers will be required to complete
trail segment as part of the land development process.
• Development of Specialized Facilities: Development of
specialized facilities such as a skate park, indoor ice rink,
outdoor water playground, adventure playground and other
features should occur as community interests demonstrate the
support.
• Development of a Community Center: Provision of indoor
community space and a place for major indoor events should
have a medium priority.
The following are possible funding sources for the planning,
acquisition, development and maintenance of parks, open space,
and recreational areas.
1. Capital Facilities Fund: Many communities have a separate
budget item for major capital projects. It is usually called a
Capital Facilities Fund and reflects major capital expenditures
for the next six years. Meridian does not have this type of
Fund but looks at capital expenditures at each budget year.
2. General Obligation Bond: These are voter -approved bonds
with the assessment placed on real property. The money can
only be used for capital improvements and not maintenance.
This property tax is levied for a specified period of time
(usually 20-30 years) and then the city borrows against future
tax revenue to pay for the bonds. Passage requires a two-thirds
majority approval by the voters. One disadvantage of this type
of levy is the interest costs.
3. Serial Levy: A serial levy is a given tax amount levied on
property tax. It is different than a general obligation bond in
several ways: First, it only generates the amount of money
levied each year based on the set tax rate. Second it has a
limited life (1-2 years). Third, it only requires 50 percent
approval by the voters.
Chapter S - Project Financing Pa9 e S - 2
Meridian Comprehensive Parks and recreation System Flan 2001
4. Revenue Bonds: These bonds are sold and paid from the
revenue produced from the operation of a facility. This
approach requires voter approval.
5. HUD Block Grants: Grants from the Federal Department of
Housing and Urban Development are available for a wide
variety of projects. Most are distributed in the lower income
areas of the community. Grants can be up to 100% of project
cost. Only a few areas of the community would be eligible for
this grant program.
Park Impact Fees: Park Impact Fees are fees imposed on new
development caused by the impacts their project has on the
city's infrastructure. Park impact fees can only be used for
park land acquisition and/or development. Meridian has this
mechanism in place but the rate is quite low and does not
accurately reflect the true cost. The city's current rate is about
$530 per single family residence and $407 per multi -family
residence. An option to paying the fees is for the developer to
receive credit by building the park site or donating the land.
7. Certificates of Participation: This is a lease -purchase
approach where the city sells Certificates of Participation
(COP'S) to a lending institution. The city then pays the loan off
from revenue produced by the facility or from its general
operating budget. The lending institution holds title to the
property until the COPs are repaid. This procedure does not
require a vote of the public but is subject to court approval.
8. Donations: The donations of labor, land or cash by service
agencies, private groups, or individuals is a popular way to
raise small amounts of money for specific projects. Such
service agencies as the Kiwanis and Rotary, often fund small
projects such as playground improvements.
10. Exchange of Property: An exchange of property between a
private landowner and the city can occur. For example, the
city could exchange an unneeded water reservoir site for a
potential park site currently under private ownership.
11. Joint Public/Private Partnership: This concept is relatively
new to park and recreation agencies. The basic approach is for
a public agency to enter into a working agreement with a
quasi -public or private corporation to help fund, build, and/or
operate a public facility. Several options exist:
One option is for the city to enter into an agreement with a
private for-profit organization that would manage and/or build
a facility. The city benefits in that it does not front the cost of
construction and may receive a concession fee. The private
operator benefits because the land is free (usually leased by the
city for a nominal fee) and often can receive certain tax
benefits. While the city would give up certain responsibilities
or control, it is one way of obtaining public facilities at a lower
cost.
Chapter 5 - Project Financing Po9 e 5 -.3
Meridian comprehensIve Parks and Recreation System P/an 1001
A second option is for the city to partner with another public
_ agency, quasi -public agency or non-profit agency. An example
is for the city to enter into an operation agreement with the
Boys and Girls Club to operate a youth center. A similar
partnership is for the city and a private non-profit youth sport
group, such as the Police Activities League (PAL), to share in
the construction, operation and maintenance of sport fields.
12. General Fund: This fund accounts for revenues and
expenditures that result from ongoing operations of city
functions. The city currently funds some park development
through this fund.
13. Utility Fee: This is a tax on electric, water, telephone, gas and
cable TV services.
The cost to implement all of the recommendations in the Plan could
5.4 F//VANCING easily exceed $37 million. This is a significant amount although not
ST/?ATEar excessive considering this is the cost of ultimate development.
Financing the entire $37 million at one time is nearly impossible. In
_ addition, many of the projects are not needed at this time. As a result,
for budgeting purposes, a short term (six years) financing strategy is
proposed. This strategy is presented as the Capital Improvement Plan
(CIP). This plan lists projects in priority with their funding source.
The proposed CIP is intended to meet the immediate park and
recreation needs of the community based on a pay-as-you-go basis. It
should be noted that this strategy will not meet the longer term park
acquisition needs and some park sites may never be acquired.
The funding sources include money from a number of local sources
including impact fees. Some consideration should be given to raising
the impact fee schedule approximately 38 percent. This will raise the
single-family house rate from $530 to $730 and the multi -family rate
from $407 to $562. The additional $200 per single family home would
raise an additional $155,000 annually in revenues or $930,000 over
six years.
Due to the small amount of the funding program and the extreme need
to purchase park property, it is recommended that the city purchase
several of the park sites over time. While this is obligating future
budgets to pay off the purchase, it is the only option available to assure
that park land will be available for future residents.
�' Chapter 5 - Protect Financing Page S - 4
Meridian Comprehensive Parks and Recreation System Flan
Fund//79 .SOU/'ces
Expenditures
2001
Table 5.1
Six -Year Funding Program - Capital Improvement Plan
City of Meridian
Table 5.2
Six -Year Expenditure Plan - Capital Improvement Plan
City of Meridian
Funding.
Impact Fees
$2,400,000
General Fund
$2,400,000
Grants
S500,000
Donations
$1, 435, 000
C-5
Blackcat Road Park (proposed) <29 acres
OS 15,000/acre>
Total Funding Sources
$6,735,000
Table 5.2
Six -Year Expenditure Plan - Capital Improvement Plan
City of Meridian
chapter 5 - Project Financing Page 5 - 5
Land Acquisition
C-2
Ten Mile Road Park (proposed) <30 acres
0 $ 20, 000/acre>
$900,000
C-5
Blackcat Road Park (proposed) <29 acres
OS 15,000/acre>
$435,000
C-23
Locust Grove Park (proposed) <PAL>
$0
C-24
Eagle Road Park (proposed) <20 acres
0$25,000/acre>
$500,000
Subtotal
$1,835,000
New Park Development
C-2
Ten Mile Road Park (proposed) (Phase 1)
<30 acres 0$6,000/acre>
$180,000
LU -4
Meridian Community Park <35 acres
0$80,000/acre>
$2,800,000
C-5
Blackcat Road Park (proposed)
(Design/Utilities Only)
$125,000
C-21
Bear Creek Park (Final Phase)
$300,000
C-23
Locust Grove Park (proposed)
(Design/Utilities Only)
$150,000
C-24
Eagle Road Park (proposed) (Phase 1) <20
acres 0$6,000/acre>
$120,000
Subtotal
$3,675,000
Park Renovation
C-18
Storey Park (Phase II)
$115,000
N-8
8' Street Park
$65,000
OS -9
Five Mile Creek Pathway
$95,000
Subtotal
$275,000
Miscellaneous Projects
-
Recreation Facility
$500,000
LU -4
Adventure Playground
$450,000
Subtotal
$950,000
TOTAL 6 -YEAR PACKAGE
$6,735,000 '
chapter 5 - Project Financing Page 5 - 5
Meridian Comprehensive Parks and MecreVon System P/7n 2001
S,5 PPOJECTL/ST A list of all projects listed in the Plan are shown below.
Table 5.3
All Projects to Complete the Plan
City of Meridian
Chapter 5 - Project Financing Page 5 - 6
Facility
M
0-
•
Mini Parks
M-10
Tammy Street Park
Neighborhood Parks
N-6
Chateau Park
X
X
N-8
8' Street Park
X
N-22
Thousand Springs Park (P)
X
X
X
Community Parks
C-1
McMillan Road Park (P)
X
X
X
C-2
Ten Mile Road Park (P)
X
X
X
C-3
North Meridian Park (P)
X
X
X
C-5
Blackcat Road Park (P)
X
X
X
C-7
f Tully Park
X
C-1 1
Fairview Avenue Park (P)
X
X
X
C-12
Fuller Park
C-13
Meridian Jr. High Park
X
X
C-17
Franklin Road Park (P)
X
X
X
C-18
Storey Park
X
X X
C-20
Overland Road Park (P)
X
X
X
C-21
Bear Creek Park
X
X
C-23
Locust Grove Park (P)
X
X
X
C-24
I Eagle Road Park (P)
X
X
X
Large Urban Parks
LU -4
Meridian Community Park
X
Special Use Areas
SU -14
Generation Plaza
SU -15
City Hall Park
—
Outdoor Swimming Pool
Open Space
OS -9
Five Mile Creek Greenway
X
OS -16
Ten Mile Creek Greenway
X
OS -19
Nine Mile Drain Greenway
X
Chapter 5 - Project Financing Page 5 - 6
Meridian Comprehensive Parks and Recreation System Flan
2001
(P) = Proposed
Chapter 5 - Project F/nancing Page 5 - 7
C U
Trail Systems
T-1
Meridian Loop (P)
X
X
T-2
Bear Creek Connection (P)
X
X
T-3
Ridenbaugh Trail (P)
X
X
T-4
Five Mile Creek Trail (P)
X
X
T-5
Nine Mile Drain Trail
X
X
T-6
Ten Mile Creek Trail
X
X
T-7
Settlers Creek Trail
X
X
T-8
South Slough Trail
X
X
Specialized Facilities
Sports Field Complex (1)
X
Skate Park #I
X
X
Skate Park #2
X
X
Group Picnic Area (1)
X
Adventure Playground (1)
X
Water Playground (1)
X
Outdoor Reception Area (1)
X
Recreation Center
X
X
(P) = Proposed
Chapter 5 - Project F/nancing Page 5 - 7