Juneau Parks and Recreation

Comprehensive Plan

July, 1996

Introduction

A variety of processes were used to identify the recreation patterns and facility needs of Juneau residents, including the following:

• A random telephone survey of 400 Juneau households was conducted. (Summary this chapter. Copy of survey and results in Appendix III.)



• Four neighborhood meetings were held and public comment taken over the phone for those who could not attend. (Summary this chapter. Meeting notes in Appendix III.)



• Staff and Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee retreats were held to identify issues and a vision for the future.



• An inventory of existing areas, facilities, and programs, and identification of deficiencies were undertaken. (Summary in Chapter Four. Detailed listing in Appendix II.)



• Demographic data were collected and analyzed. (Summary in Chapter Two.)



• Visitation and participation numbers were compiled from Parks and Recreation programs, facilities and areas. (Detailed listing in Appendix II.)



• Land use designations and development patterns and projections were studied.



• Meetings were held with other agencies that provide recreation services in Juneau.



• Pertinent planning documents were reviewed for information or recommendations related to the provision of recreation services. (Summary this chapter.)

Community Scoping

Three techniques were used to elicit community input:

• A random telephone survey regarding recreation preferences, use of current offerings and desires for future Parks and Recreation Department (Department) endeavors was conducted in October 1995. Four hundred adults participated. The survey was done under the auspices of the McDowell Group.

• A survey was distributed to community groups involved in the provision or coordination of athletic or cultural pursuits to gain insight into their needs and plans.



• A series of four neighborhood meetings were held over a two week period in January, 1996. The meetings provided an opportunity to share survey data with interested residents and afforded staff more specific input on neighborhood concerns. Individuals who could not attend scheduled meetings contacted the Department directly with their suggestions and concerns.

Dialog between staff and the Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee (PRAC) and the planning team was ongoing, but input was specifically garnered at two retreats:

• A day-long staff retreat held in January, 1996, at which 25 full-time Department staff worked together to identify a vision for community recreation.



• A day-long PRAC retreat held in March, 1996, to address the PRAC's long-range planning issues.

Survey Summary

Survey results indicate that recreational activities are very important to Juneau residents' lifestyles. There is a high participation rate in organized programs, and intensive use of recreation facilities and parks.

• Respondents of 91% of households have used a park, beach, or wayside picnic area within the last year.



• Four out of five households (79%) have a household member who has participated in a Department activity or used a Department facility within the last year.



• Free time leisure activities were reported to be very important or important to the lifestyle of 370 out of 400 respondents (93%).



• Eighty-nine percent of all respondents believe that it is important to their household that the City and Borough of Juneau (CBJ) provide parks and recreation services.

A profile of the Juneau Parks and Recreation "customer" emerged from the survey. It was interesting to note that:

• Over half of the Juneau households are composed of families with dependent children.



• More than half of those surveyed indicated that they spend ten or more hours per week participating in leisure activities.
• 

Residents' five favorite leisure time activities consist of: hiking, fishing, reading, skiing, and running/jogging/walking. Bicycling, boating, hunting, watching TV, and gardening round out the top ten.

The survey queried residents about their priorities for facility maintenance and development, future services, and the amount of fiscal support they would be willing to provide for their top priority projects.

• When asked what the Department should spend most of its efforts on, 39% of households recommended maintenance of existing facilities. Twenty-six percent recommended developing new facilities as the highest priority.



• When asked (unprompted) if additional OUTDOOR facilities were to be developed what their top priorities would be, residents suggested a variety of projects: 18% of respondents recommended more walking/hiking trails be developed, 18% suggested more bicycle trails be constructed, and 6% suggested that lighted trails should be provided. Twelve percent suggested additional camping areas be developed and 12% indicated support for the construction of more sports fields. Eleven percent indicated that an outdoor ice rink was important.



• When asked (unprompted) if additional INDOOR facilities were to be developed what their top priorities would be, responses were more consistent. Thirty nine percent stated that an indoor ice skating rink should be developed, followed by 29% that would like to see a pool constructed in the Mendenhall Valley. Construction of a multi-purpose recreation facility received 15% support. Similar facilities such as a gym for indoor sports, and a gym for exercise machines/weights were tallied separately and also indicate a desire for a multi-purpose indoor recreation facility.

• Over half (56%) of households indicated that they would pay $40 or more annually in support of their top priority project.

The most popular recreation activities are primarily outdoor recreation oriented, although no specific outdoor facility need appeared to be dominant. Development of trails for hiking and biking, and lighting new or existing trails were mentioned most frequently in the survey as a priority for outdoor facilities. This makes sense given that four out of the five favorite activities indicated in the survey results may involve trail use.

The public response was more specific regarding the need for indoor facilities. An indoor skating rink, a Mendenhall Valley swimming pool, and a multi-purpose recreational facility that includes a gymnasium, were the most frequently mentioned. The concept of a Mendenhall Valley multi-

purpose recreation facility (including an indoor ice skating rink) received support from 64% of households in the April, 1995 CBJ Budget Survey performed by the Juneau League of Women Voters for the CBJ Assembly.

Workshop Summary

Four neighborhood meetings were held in January, 1996. Meetings were held in several locations so that specific information regarding that area could be collected. A total of 40 people attended the meetings, and several people called to contribute their ideas. Feedback from the public at the meetings varied widely from site specific to policy recommendations.

Generally comments can be categorized as follows:

1. There is a need for a variety of park and trail types, from developed recreation areas to semi-primitive natural parks;

2. There is a need for additional facilities and services for youth;

3. There is a need for more unstructured open space and play areas near neighborhoods; and

4. There is a need for better planning and management of tourism.

Variety of park and trail types. Those that participated in the process were supportive of natural parks and a CBJ trail system. They would like to see a variety of park and trail types offered in each geographic area, from easy to challenging, primitive to developed, with interconnecting networks through neighborhoods leading to natural environments. Many commented that identifying funding for trail maintenance was a priority but varied on the preferred methodology.

Additional facilities and services for youth. Meeting attendees felt that the CBJ is not accommodating all youth that need to participate in Department programs. Adding sports fields was suggested frequently, but needs for ice skating, roller skating, skateboard and roller blading facilities were also frequently cited.

Neighborhood parks and play areas. Parents expressed concern that there are not enough open areas in neighborhoods for children to engage in informal recreational activities. Many neighborhoods are losing open lots to development which will aggravate the situation.

Suggestions were made to enlist the help of citizens who live close to park areas by establishing "Friends of ----- Park" groups. Providing toilet facilities for park areas that are used year-round, particularly by young children, was recommended.

Planning. Residents expressed concern that the CBJ plan ahead to assure that adequate facilities and park areas are available for the public. They want the Department to take the lead in coordinating the development of indoor facilities. There is a strong interest in management of natural parks resources to insure there will always be places where residents can go that are not commercially used. The need for better planning at several locations was mentioned frequently. Some areas were mentioned specifically and often enough to merit mention. These include the North Douglas area from Fish Creek to Hilda Point, lands further out the road at Amalga Harbor and Point Bridget, and the Auke Lake area.

Planning Document Review

An important element of this planning effort was the review of other documents that might have a bearing on the recommendations made in this plan. Pertinent documents were consulted including: various land management documents of the CBJ, specific management plans for park areas, transportation planning documents, the CBJ Land Use Code, planning documents by other agencies such as the U.S. Forest Service, Alaska State Parks, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, various trails plans, school facility studies, the airport plan, and harbors and docks studies.

This planning effort occurred along a parallel timeline with the Community Development Department's update of the CBJ Comprehensive Plan. The timing was fortunate as it allows consistency between the two plans in mapping, land use definitions, and parks and recreation recommendations.