THE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
The proposal identifies where to focus housing, employment, commercial development and public improvements. Each chapter sets out the responsible parties, decisions, costs and constraints needed to move from a concept to a funded project.
INITIAL PRIORITIES
The plan concentrates early investment in existing commercial districts, reusable buildings and neighborhoods with service capacity. It pairs those projects with action on rail delays, safer crossings and park access. Bend provides inspiration for an active community; Roseburg’s own households, employers, rivers and infrastructure must determine the scale and form of development.
The proposal starts with the places and needs residents already recognize: downtown storefronts, busy shopping corridors, housing near services, interrupted rail crossings and gaps between homes and parks. The chapters below explain the recommended changes, where they could happen, and the work needed to turn them into funded projects.
Greater Roseburg Tomorrow is an independent community proposal. The maps and cost ranges give people something specific to discuss; official approvals and funding decisions remain with the relevant public bodies and property owners.
An agreed description of the region, with a public account of service costs and the contributions already made by residents, users and districts.
Proposed participants: City, County and partner governments with providers and residents.
Three to five nearby buildings with willing owners, priced reuse options, prospective tenants and a clear approval process.
Proposed participants: Willing property owners, City reviewers and qualified developers/operators.
An understandable comparison of property conditions, permitted uses, access, costs, competing businesses and operating economics.
Proposed participants: Owners, operators, planners and independent technical advisers.
The 52-page study and 10-page concept atlas preserve the November 8, 2026 research baseline. Later additions are documented on the Updates page and linked current chapters. The research page explains the sources and limits of the estimates.
RELIABLE TRIPS, SAFER CONNECTIONS
The transport program begins with measurable problems: rail closure duration, queues, difficult crossings and gaps between transit stops and destinations. Targeted signal and access work can be assessed alongside larger network changes. A bridge or underpass requires a public comparison of locations, benefits, engineering constraints and cost.
Record gate-down times, queues and simultaneous closures, then agree on operational changes with the railroad and road agencies.
A shared record of rail closures is the first requirement for choosing an effective intervention. The study should measure gate-down time, queue length and combinations of closures that affect emergency access, work trips and appointments. Those findings would guide operating changes and identify where a bridge or underpass warrants further investigation.
The Oregon Department of Transportation’s crossing inventory identifies the locations and road authorities. Current operating conditions still need to be measured at each crossing.
Residents’ reports establish a concern to investigate; this plan does not yet have a verified count of how many closures occur each day.
Start in first 100 days; operational actions in months 4–24.
A jointly appointed transportation lead from Roseburg and Douglas County. These are proposed responsibilities; participation would need to be agreed.
Others to involve: ODOT Rail and highway staff · Central Oregon & Pacific Railroad (CORP) · Fire and emergency medical services · School transportation · Umpqua Public Transportation District.
These early estimates are in 2026 dollars. Several projects share the same overall allowance, so the amounts below are not added together.
Allowance for the complete first-100-day professional work program
The initial professional work would cover the regional baseline, early business and property reviews, and other preparation. No transport-only share has yet been assigned.
Included in the planning and delivery budget; this is not an additional transportation allocation.
Allowance for study and preliminary design
A preliminary allowance for comparing city crossing alternatives and developing an initial design. A defined professional scope is needed before procurement.
Included within the $80–180 million long-term rail program.
Evaluate Garden Valley, Stewart Parkway and downtown alternatives for reliable access, engineering feasibility and cost.
Garden Valley, Stewart Parkway and the downtown crossings have different access needs and physical constraints. A public alternatives study should compare a bridge or underpass with operational and network improvements. The assessment must include nearby homes and businesses, river conditions, airport compatibility and emergency routes before selecting a location.
The City’s Transportation System Plan contains earlier alternatives that can inform the comparison. Their engineering and costs would need to be updated.
On November 6, 2026, Douglas County announced up to $1,763,336 in federal funds for a separate study and preliminary engineering at Old Highway 99 near Wilbur. The estimated $2,204,171 study and development cost includes a County match. That award does not fund construction or resolve the crossings in downtown Roseburg.
Study/preliminary design in years 1–3; construction in years 5–10 only if justified and funded.
A partnership of Roseburg, Douglas County and the Oregon Department of Transportation. These are proposed responsibilities; participation would need to be agreed.
Others to involve: Central Oregon & Pacific Railroad · FAA/airport staff where relevant · Federal Railroad Administration · Affected owners · Emergency services · Historic/environmental reviewers.
These early estimates are in 2026 dollars. Several projects share the same overall allowance, so the amounts below are not added together.
Allowance for study and preliminary design
A preliminary allowance for comparing city crossing alternatives and developing an initial design. A defined professional scope is needed before procurement.
Included within the $80–180 million long-term rail program.
Allowance for one feasible project
An initial allowance for one feasible crossing project, before a site-specific engineering estimate.
Included within the $80–180 million rail program, together with study and design costs.
Allowance over twenty years
A twenty-year allowance for planning and a major crossing project, with a second considered only if a separate case supports it.
Included in the $400–830 million shared infrastructure and civic subtotal.
Coordinate targeted road improvements along Garden Valley, Stewart, Harvard, Diamond Lake and North Stephens.
The corridor program combines signal coordination with access management and pedestrian crossing improvements. Garden Valley and Stewart serve shopping and the proposed fitness club; Harvard connects neighborhoods and parks; Diamond Lake and North Stephens serve homes, services and jobs. Larger extensions should be compared with these targeted improvements using current traffic and cost evidence.
Existing City and Oregon Department of Transportation studies already account for regional commuters. This proposal would carry that work into a coordinated list of improvements.
The OR 138E corridor has a design-concept process underway. Earlier transportation plans also identify Stewart connections, an Edenbower extension and a west-side Harvard–Charter Oaks bridge concept. Those ideas require current review before any construction decision.
Quick operational work in years 1–2; scoped corridor projects in years 2–7.
City of Roseburg Public Works with the responsible County/ODOT road authority. These are proposed responsibilities; participation would need to be agreed.
Others to involve: Businesses and property owners · Umpqua Public Transportation District · Emergency services · Community development staff.
These early estimates are in 2026 dollars. Several projects share the same overall allowance, so the amounts below are not added together.
Allowance for selected corridors over twenty years
A preliminary allowance for selected corridor improvements and access to transit, walking and cycling. Individual road and service projects still need a priced scope.
Walking and cycling costs are shared with the parks budget and must be counted once.
Study journeys from Green, Winston, Winchester, Wilbur, Sutherlin and other communities, including travel outside office hours.
Regional transport planning should cover the complete journey: service hours, interchange, accessible stops and the final walk to work or an appointment. The study includes shift workers and residents traveling from surrounding communities. Ground connections to Eugene and Medford airports should be compared with the cost and demand case for expanded local aviation.
Regional service changes would need to be developed with Umpqua Public Transportation District using current demand, timetable and cost information. No new route or frequency has been agreed.
Winchester Elementary at 217 Pioneer Way is one identified destination. The routes serving it would need to reflect current attendance and campus-access arrangements.
Service/demand audit in year 1; limited funded pilots in years 1–3; expand from results.
Umpqua Public Transportation District, working with Douglas County and willing participating cities. These are proposed responsibilities; participation would need to be agreed.
Others to involve: Employers · Schools and Umpqua Community College · Health providers · Airport ground-transport operators · Residents of unincorporated communities.
These early estimates are in 2026 dollars. Several projects share the same overall allowance, so the amounts below are not added together.
Allowance for selected corridors over twenty years
A preliminary allowance for selected corridor improvements and access to transit, walking and cycling. Individual road and service projects still need a priced scope.
Walking and cycling costs are shared with the parks budget and must be counted once.
PUT THE RIGHT USES IN THE RIGHT PLACES
Eight planning areas organize the proposed investment. Downtown is the focus for building reuse, independent businesses and upper-floor homes. Stewart Parkway and Garden Valley are the focus for larger retail and fitness proposals. Housing should follow verified service capacity and connect to daily needs. The district recommendations below remain subject to owner participation, public review and project-specific funding.
Jackson and Main streets, around the Douglas, Oak, Cass and Lane blocks
Concentrate the first downtown projects in a group of neighboring buildings around Jackson and Main. A bakery, independent shops, restaurants and suitable upper-floor homes would support activity across the day. A children’s discovery or maker studio is another proposed use where an appropriate building and operator are available. The cluster should connect directly to nearby public spaces.
The first buildings should be chosen for their combination of willing owners, viable tenants and affordable rehabilitation. A small, visible cluster would make a stronger start than scattered projects that leave long inactive stretches between them.
Rehabilitation costs can be difficult to predict. Existing tenants and attainable homes should be considered early so improvements bring more life to downtown without casually displacing the people already there.
Willing property owners · Roseburg Community Development · Historic Resource Review Commission · Building officials · Downtown businesses · Qualified rehabilitation developers
The established shopping corridor and its large commercial buildings
Use the established shopping corridor for the proposed premium fitness club, specialty grocery search and additional food and retail businesses. Assess reusable buildings first. Coordinate crossings, shared entrances, loading and paths between properties so access improvements serve the district as a whole.
A business should advance when the operator, building and customer demand fit one another. The next step is to compare occupancy and conversion costs with the prices and sales the business could realistically achieve.
Additional choice is valuable, but some spending will shift between local businesses. Recruitment and any public support should respond to a demonstrated gap and a sound operating plan.
Property owners and leasing agents · Qualified operators · Roseburg planning and public works · ODOT where state facilities are affected
Land added to the urban growth boundary, with each parcel’s current status to be confirmed
Plan housing of varied sizes with connected streets, public paths and nearby play space from the first occupied phase. Assess small daily-service businesses where the adopted plan and zoning allow them, or through an evidence-supported change. Infrastructure capacity and the cost of extensions must determine the first developable area.
The first neighborhood phase should be the one that can receive dependable services at an achievable cost. That choice needs a clear agreement on any off-site upgrades.
Being inside an urban growth boundary does not make land ready to build on. Utility extensions and access can change the cost of an otherwise attractive site substantially.
Roseburg and Douglas County · Affected owners and utility providers · Developers · Fire/EMS · Relevant school district
Eastside opportunities, including the published Rifle Range inventory property R40164
Investigate eastside housing and compatible daily services alongside the OR 138E planning work. The Rifle Range property is a candidate for assessment, with land-use designations, access and service conditions to resolve before any residential program is treated as feasible.
A housing proposal should proceed only if it can receive the required approvals, work financially and preserve sufficient land for the region’s employment needs.
The published inventory identifies 11.43 acres, but neither that acreage nor the Mixed Use zoning establishes approval for homes. The comprehensive plan and site conditions still matter.
Roseburg Community Development · Property owner · Housing developer · Utility providers · ODOT
Carnes, Cannon and Austin roads and the surrounding established neighborhoods
Strengthen Green’s existing centers, add housing where services support it and connect homes, schools and parks. The Ray’s center at 4601 Carnes is an initial location for complementary small businesses. A joint service review should establish how current providers can deliver the first improvements and how costs will be shared.
The immediate question is which improvements existing providers can deliver together. Annexation should be evaluated only for a defined area where it improves the service and financial outcome.
Green already has businesses, homes and a grocer. New investment should make those places more useful and accessible while responding to needs residents actually identify.
Douglas County · Affected water and sanitary providers · Roseburg where services are shared · Residents · Owners and local operators
Existing neighborhoods and routes to education, employment and services
Focus on smaller housing additions in established areas and practical connections to Umpqua Community College, jobs and transit. Evaluate actual parcels against utility capacity, river conditions and airport constraints. The first phase should reduce a documented access or housing gap without depending on unpriced infrastructure extensions.
The best first phase would make daily trips easier while using infrastructure that can support it. A service agreement may be enough to move that work forward.
River and airport constraints can reduce usable land. A modest project with dependable services may be more practical than a broad expansion requiring costly new infrastructure.
Douglas County · UCC · Roseburg where relevant · Utility and transit providers · Residents and landowners
Industrial and compatible commercial land with practical access to utilities
Protect suitable employment land around Airport–Edenbower and other serviced sites. Match credible employer expansions with power, water, freight access and training capacity. Aviation compatibility must guide uses near the airport, and entertainment or housing conversions require an explicit assessment of the employment land they would remove.
The first investments should remove a specific obstacle for a credible employer expansion, ideally on land that already has most of the infrastructure it needs.
Using scarce employment land for housing or entertainment has a long-term cost. Each conversion should be weighed against the jobs and business activity the site could otherwise support.
Roseburg and Douglas County · Airport management · UEDP · CCD · Employers · Utility providers
Drain, Yoncalla, Sutherlin, Oakland, Winston, Myrtle Creek, Tri-City, Riddle, Canyonville and rural service centers
Support locally selected projects in established town centers: reusable business premises, cottages, duplexes and small apartments, school routes and park access. Each participating community should identify its first project and the assistance it needs. The regional partnership can coordinate expertise and funding applications while local decisions remain with the responsible governments.
Each community should be able to name a first project and the help required to make it possible. That could be a building conversion, a housing phase, a park entrance or a missing sidewalk.
Roseburg can host major regional destinations while surrounding towns remain strong places to live. Local decisions and community identity should remain with the people who live there.
Participating city governments · Douglas County for unincorporated areas · Residents · Schools · Owners and businesses
Three lines on a map can describe different things: the city boundary, the urban growth boundary and a utility’s service area. The urban growth boundary identifies land intended to accommodate urban development over time; it does not itself bring every property into the city or approve construction. A useful annexation proposal would explain exactly which land is affected, what services would change and what residents would pay.
| Approach | Areas to consider | Decision test |
|---|---|---|
| Investigate first | Urban islands, compact edges and serviceable land already within the UGB | Can the city provide appropriate services efficiently, with a positive long-term fiscal case and a lawful path? |
| Coordinate as a neighborhood | Charter Oaks | A neighborhood plan would establish the current parcel status, the order of street and utility construction, and the obligations of each provider and developer. |
| Compare alternatives | Selected contiguous urban parcels in Green and Winchester | Compare annexation with service agreements, including residents' interests, taxes/fees, inherited liabilities and affected districts. |
| Keep as regional partners | Existing separate municipalities including Winston, Sutherlin, Oakland, Drain, Yoncalla and Myrtle Creek | These communities would remain regional partners through shared projects and agreements; this plan does not propose their annexation into Roseburg. |
| Defer broad urban expansion | Rural Garden Valley, Melrose, Lookingglass, rural Dixonville, Wilbur and toward Glide | Protect working lands and river corridors. Reconsider only when documented urban need, law and feasible services support it. |
HOUSING AND NEIGHBORHOODS
The housing proposal includes first apartments, family homes, smaller homes near services and housing affordable to people with limited incomes. New construction and repairs to existing homes are both needed. Streets, utilities and parks belong in the same project budget, with delivery paced to demonstrated demand and construction capacity.
| Household income | Allocated homes | What would make these homes possible |
|---|---|---|
| 0–30% of area median income | 1,372 | Deeply affordable and supportive homes with durable operating and service support. |
| 31–60% | 1,083 | Affordable rental/ownership partnerships with sound subsidy and debt underwriting. |
| 61–80% | 640 | Smaller homes and workforce options priced against local earnings. |
| 81–120% | 913 | Attainable market and mixed-income housing with efficient land and infrastructure. |
| Above 120% | 1,899 | Market homes in varied sizes; part of a balanced housing program. |
Income bands are measured against area median income, the midpoint household income used by housing programs. The mix below comes from the state allocation.
Small apartments above shops could put more residents within walking distance of food, services and events. Buildings would need to meet safety and accessibility requirements at rents that support their conversion.
A mix of family homes and smaller homes could share connected streets, parks and walking routes. Construction would follow a clear plan for utilities, access and approvals.
Housing with compatible neighborhood services is worth investigating here. The first question is whether the land-use designations can support it without weakening the supply of employment land.
Smaller additions within established neighborhoods could provide family-sized homes and compact options near existing services, wherever utilities and access can support them.
Cottages, duplexes, townhouses and small apartments could help more people live near local shops, schools and parks, where the community’s rules and site conditions allow them.
The 5,907-home figure applies to Roseburg’s urban growth boundary. A complete regional housing program would also account for the needs and allocations of participating communities. Those totals cannot be derived by multiplying the city figure by the wider population.
The first housing phases should combine available service capacity, a workable approval process and homes priced for the people expected to live in them. Developers, utilities and housing partners would need to show how both construction and ongoing support will be funded.
The number of homes is only one measure of success. Affordability, location, condition and access to daily life matter too, and each project needs a complete budget for infrastructure and any continuing services.
EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSEHOLD INCOMES
The employment strategy starts with existing firms that have credible expansion plans, then targets businesses whose needs fit the available workforce and land. Training should connect to verified vacancies. These five sectors provide a focused basis for employer conversations and site assessments; any resulting commitments must be established directly with the organizations involved.
Medical employment areas, VA connections and UCC
A stronger route into health careers would connect local training with clinical placements and real vacancies. Employer partnerships could also address practical barriers such as housing, childcare and transport that make it difficult to complete training or stay in a job.
Mercy · Veterans Affairs · Aviva · Umpqua Health · Umpqua Community College
Which roles have verified hiring demand, and what blocks students or workers from filling them?
Completed training, filled positions, retention and wages.
Existing industrial sites and compatible Airport–Edenbower land
The region can build on manufacturing, forestry and wood-products experience by helping firms modernize and expand. Suitable premises, reliable utilities and apprenticeships linked to actual openings would turn that ambition into an offer employers can evaluate.
Existing manufacturers · Umpqua Community College · Umpqua Economic Development Partnership · CCD Business Development Corporation
Which employer has a credible expansion plan that a specific site or workforce investment can unlock?
Net retained/added permanent jobs, wages, capital placed and employer survival.
Downtown and connected commercial buildings
Smaller technology and professional firms could bring year-round payroll to downtown and other connected commercial buildings. The useful offer is straightforward: dependable internet, workspaces of different sizes, access to talent and a place employees enjoy spending time.
Local firms · Property owners · Umpqua Economic Development Partnership · Umpqua Community College
Can several firms commit to space and hiring at rents that support the building?
Occupied space, year-round payroll and locally retained jobs.
Appropriate serviced commercial/industrial land throughout the corridor
Food producers and outdoor businesses could use appropriate commercial and industrial space to make, service or distribute products. Shared production facilities would make sense only where paying customers, a capable operator and a practical distribution plan support them.
Local producers · Existing businesses · CCD Business Development Corporation · Umpqua Economic Development Partnership
What demonstrated customer demand and distribution channel supports the facility?
Sales beyond the region, business survival and jobs with advancement.
Downtown, riverfront, established attractions and partner-town centers
Dining, events and recreation can give residents and visitors more reasons to spend time across the region. The priority would be experiences that complement existing attractions, encourage repeat visits and support employment through quieter seasons as well as busy weekends.
Existing attractions · Hospitality operators · Local businesses · Community event organizers
Which offer adds weekday or off-season spending and can operate without a permanent unpriced subsidy?
Repeat visits, year-round jobs and actual operating performance.
A proposed entrepreneur commons would combine coffee, work and study space, meetings and structured business support in a suitable reused downtown building. Roseburg already has advising, pitch events and coworking; a modest pilot should test which additional access, hours and services people will use and pay for.
Explore the entrepreneur commonsRetail recruitment also needs evidence of the purchases households make outside the study region. The local-economy chapter explains how to investigate those trips, distinguish business sales from public revenue and test coordinated evening activity with willing operators.
Measure the spending opportunityTry the illustrative spending calculatorPlan a useful evening offerUmpqua Community College announced a $21.5 million Welcome Center and Medical Careers Hub, with completion scheduled for December 2026 and an early-2027 opening. The announcement also describes an Advanced Manufacturing & Forestry Hub. Those investments give employers and educators a concrete starting point for training partnerships; each partnership would need to match the facilities’ confirmed opening dates and capacity.
Proposed coordination: Umpqua Economic Development Partnership and CCD Business Development Corporation could coordinate this work with employers, Umpqua Community College and participating governments. Their participation would need to be agreed.
PARKS, TRAILS AND LOCAL CONNECTIONS
The parks and trails program connects existing destinations through missing path segments, accessible entrances and safer crossings. Local routes should serve school trips, errands and recreation in Roseburg and partner communities. Shade, working restrooms, seating and funded maintenance are part of the same investment.
Link Stewart, River Front, Gaddis and Fir Grove through clearer entrances, accessible paths and useful amenities.
The proposed river-park program improves access to places already in use. Priorities include path gaps, crossings, dependable restrooms, shade and seating, with an inclusive playground and stronger connections toward downtown for assessment. Each capital project needs an identified maintenance responsibility so facilities remain usable after opening.
City maps and the 2023 cycling inventory show the existing paths and park facilities. A current walk-through would identify surface, entrance and accessibility problems that need attention.
A September 2026 City packet proposed an expanded Stewart, Gaddis and Umpqua Greenway planning scope, with a $289,020 professional-services proposal and expected completion in fall 2027. Additional work should fit the scope and milestones ultimately agreed by the City.
Repairs/access audit immediately; plan-coordinated first packages years 1–3.
City parks and public works teams. These are proposed responsibilities; participation would need to be agreed.
Others to involve: Parks commission/master-plan team · Disability access advisers · Families/teenagers · Nearby residents · ODOT/CORP at rail interfaces.
These early estimates are in 2026 dollars. Several projects share the same overall allowance, so the amounts below are not added together.
Allowance over twenty years
A preliminary twenty-year allowance for selected parks, trails, play spaces and community recreation. Each project needs its own design and operating plan.
Play areas and a discovery studio would be selected within this amount. The gym and large family center are counted in commercial development.
Initial play, shade and access improvements
An initial allowance for an inclusive play area, shade and access improvements selected through the Stewart Park planning process.
Included within the $50–100 million parks budget.
Allowance over ten years
A ten-year scenario for approximately 15–25 miles of short connections and retrofits, plus 25–40 improved crossings. The mix of treatments will determine how much can be delivered.
Included across the streets and parks budgets, after accounting for completed and already funded work.
Annual cost once the network is established
An annual allowance for inspection, sweeping, vegetation, drainage, lighting, markings and resurfacing as the network grows.
Part of recurring operations rather than construction. It must be reconciled within the broader $15–30 million annual public and service scenario.
Complete short walking and cycling gaps between parks, shopping and the proposed fitness and retail locations.
The Newton Creek, Duck Pond and Garden Valley proposals focus on routes that connect actual entrances. A continuous path must work through driveways and crossings as well as within parks. Short gaps, direct storefront access and useful bicycle parking should be evaluated together, so a completed segment supports an entire trip.
The published Bike Routes Plan includes concepts for the Newton Creek, Duck Pond, Garden Valley and Fir Grove connections. They identify possibilities; current completion, property rights and engineering still need confirmation.
The YMCA, parks, shops and existing paths already provide reasons to make these trips. The proposed premium gym would be an additional destination if the building and operator case succeeds.
Feasibility/access agreements years 1–2; short links years 1–5; complex gaps later.
City Public Works and Parks. These are proposed responsibilities; participation would need to be agreed.
Others to involve: Property owners/operators · VA if its alternative is considered · School district · Oregon Department of Transportation · YMCA.
These early estimates are in 2026 dollars. Several projects share the same overall allowance, so the amounts below are not added together.
Allowance over ten years
A ten-year scenario for approximately 15–25 miles of short connections and retrofits, plus 25–40 improved crossings. The mix of treatments will determine how much can be delivered.
Included across the streets and parks budgets, after accounting for completed and already funded work.
Annual cost once the network is established
An annual allowance for inspection, sweeping, vegetation, drainage, lighting, markings and resurfacing as the network grows.
Part of recurring operations rather than construction. It must be reconciled within the broader $15–30 million annual public and service scenario.
Coordinate Charter Oaks connections, Diamond Lake crossings and potential Sunshine Park activities with neighborhood development.
Charter Oaks should receive connected streets, public paths and play space alongside its first housing phases. Eastside links need coordination with the Diamond Lake corridor and a review of cycling skills and nature-play opportunities at Sunshine Park. Access, maintenance and connections beyond each development boundary belong in the initial design and funding agreements.
Sunshine Park has trails, sports fields and natural areas. A continuous protected connection from downtown has not been established in this research.
The Charter Oaks urban growth boundary changes provide a planning context. Later approvals, utilities, annexation where needed and public-path arrangements remain separate steps.
With housing/service approvals; targeted eastside links years 2–10.
City Community Development/Public Works with developers and relevant road/service authorities. These are proposed responsibilities; participation would need to be agreed.
Others to involve: Parks staff · Oregon Department of Transportation · County · Utilities · School district · Affected owners.
These early estimates are in 2026 dollars. Several projects share the same overall allowance, so the amounts below are not added together.
Allowance over ten years
A ten-year scenario for approximately 15–25 miles of short connections and retrofits, plus 25–40 improved crossings. The mix of treatments will determine how much can be delivered.
Included across the streets and parks budgets, after accounting for completed and already funded work.
Initial cycling-skills and nature-play improvements
An initial allowance for cycling skills and nature-play facilities at Sunshine Park, subject to park planning and site conditions.
Included in the parks budget; the road approach would be counted separately within the walking and cycling program.
Allowance over twenty years
A preliminary twenty-year allowance for selected parks, trails, play spaces and community recreation. Each project needs its own design and operating plan.
Play areas and a discovery studio would be selected within this amount. The gym and large family center are counted in commercial development.
Connect schools, grocery services and parks through the agencies already responsible for local roads and public spaces.
The Green and Winston program would identify routes shared by school trips, grocery errands and park visits. Sidewalk gaps and difficult crossings are the first candidates for investment. Existing road and park agencies can coordinate that work through service agreements while any separate boundary questions are evaluated.
Douglas County has documented completed Carnes frontage work near Green Elementary. New spending should address the remaining gaps.
Winston’s Safe Routes to School plan documents a grant for the McGovern area; its current completion status needs confirmation. Happy Valley, Riverbend and Community Park are existing destinations around which further connections can be planned.
Audit/repairs year 1; awarded work and gaps years 1–5.
Douglas County for Green road/park scope; City of Winston for City scope, subject to road jurisdiction. These are proposed responsibilities; participation would need to be agreed.
Others to involve: School districts · County Parks · ODOT at state highways · Residents/businesses · Transit district.
These early estimates are in 2026 dollars. Several projects share the same overall allowance, so the amounts below are not added together.
Allowance over ten years
A ten-year scenario for approximately 15–25 miles of short connections and retrofits, plus 25–40 improved crossings. The mix of treatments will determine how much can be delivered.
Included across the streets and parks budgets, after accounting for completed and already funded work.
One selected local play and access project
An allowance for one defined local play and access improvement in Green, Winston or Myrtle Creek/Tri-City, selected according to current need.
A selected project within the parks budget; this amount is not automatically allocated to every community.
Annual cost once the network is established
An annual allowance for inspection, sweeping, vegetation, drainage, lighting, markings and resurfacing as the network grows.
Part of recurring operations rather than construction. It must be reconciled within the broader $15–30 million annual public and service scenario.
Connect neighborhoods and schools to Red Rock Trail, Ford’s Pond and local town-center loops.
Sutherlin’s Red Rock Trail and Ford’s Pond are starting destinations for a more accessible local network. In Oakland, compact streets provide the basis for a loop through the town center. The first phase should address approaches and crossings; longer connections require separate engineering and land-access review.
Sutherlin identifies an existing paved Red Rock Trail of approximately 1.3 miles and completed perimeter-path and amenity work at Ford’s Pond.
Central Avenue crossings were programmed for fall 2026, and Oakland’s earlier plan described Cypress work as funded or underway. A current review would establish what is complete and which gaps remain.
Audit and short gaps years 1–3; network extensions years 3–7; structures only after feasibility.
Cities of Sutherlin and Oakland for their jurisdictions. These are proposed responsibilities; participation would need to be agreed.
Others to involve: School districts · County/ODOT road owners · Park users · Affected landowners.
These early estimates are in 2026 dollars. Several projects share the same overall allowance, so the amounts below are not added together.
Allowance over ten years
A ten-year scenario for approximately 15–25 miles of short connections and retrofits, plus 25–40 improved crossings. The mix of treatments will determine how much can be delivered.
Included across the streets and parks budgets, after accounting for completed and already funded work.
Allowance over twenty years
A preliminary twenty-year allowance for selected parks, trails, play spaces and community recreation. Each project needs its own design and operating plan.
Play areas and a discovery studio would be selected within this amount. The gym and large family center are counted in commercial development.
Annual cost once the network is established
An annual allowance for inspection, sweeping, vegetation, drainage, lighting, markings and resurfacing as the network grows.
Part of recurring operations rather than construction. It must be reconciled within the broader $15–30 million annual public and service scenario.
Build locally selected route packages around Anna Drain Park and Yoncalla’s school and Main Street connections.
Drain and Yoncalla are included as places for local investment within the regional proposal. In Drain, street and rail-crossing work should be coordinated with the Anna Drain Park project. In Yoncalla, the initial assessment covers the First–Birch–Fifth school route and Main Street connections. Each town should select the first gaps to address.
Drain’s Safe Routes to School plan identifies school routes and rail crossings that need attention. Anna Drain Park also has an improvement program, with the research identifying grants of $996,415 from Oregon Parks and Recreation and $50,000 from the Ford Foundation. New work should fit the projects actually being delivered.
Yoncalla’s school campuses and community center at 400 Main Street are identified destinations. The public entrance and approach to the Williams Road park still need local confirmation.
Coordinate funded work now; short links and crossing packages years 1–5.
Cities of Drain and Yoncalla with the relevant road owners. These are proposed responsibilities; participation would need to be agreed.
Others to involve: School districts · ODOT/CORP where applicable · County · Park project teams · Local residents.
These early estimates are in 2026 dollars. Several projects share the same overall allowance, so the amounts below are not added together.
Allowance over ten years
A ten-year scenario for approximately 15–25 miles of short connections and retrofits, plus 25–40 improved crossings. The mix of treatments will determine how much can be delivered.
Included across the streets and parks budgets, after accounting for completed and already funded work.
Allowance over twenty years
A preliminary twenty-year allowance for selected parks, trails, play spaces and community recreation. Each project needs its own design and operating plan.
Play areas and a discovery studio would be selected within this amount. The gym and large family center are counted in commercial development.
Annual cost once the network is established
An annual allowance for inspection, sweeping, vegetation, drainage, lighting, markings and resurfacing as the network grows.
Part of recurring operations rather than construction. It must be reconciled within the broader $15–30 million annual public and service scenario.
Prioritize Myrtle Creek school crossings, Millsite and Evergreen parks, and Chadwick’s link to Old Pacific services.
This route package starts with the streets residents already use between school, shops and parks. The work includes continuous sidewalks and safer crossings in Myrtle Creek, plus the connection between Chadwick and Old Pacific services in Tri-City. Proposed neighborhood play space should follow a current inventory of facilities and access gaps.
The Safe Routes to School plan identifies crossing and freight conflicts around the schools and Division corridor. A field review would show what has changed since that plan.
Evergreen and Millsite are established parks, but a continuous separated connection between them has not been verified. An older plan identified a Tri-City park shortfall; a current inventory is needed before deciding whether a new site is warranted.
Audit/design year 1; priority gaps years 1–5; extensions years 3–7.
City of Myrtle Creek and Douglas County for Tri-City, according to road/park jurisdiction. These are proposed responsibilities; participation would need to be agreed.
Others to involve: South Umpqua School District · Oregon Department of Transportation · Residents · Freight/business operators.
These early estimates are in 2026 dollars. Several projects share the same overall allowance, so the amounts below are not added together.
Allowance over ten years
A ten-year scenario for approximately 15–25 miles of short connections and retrofits, plus 25–40 improved crossings. The mix of treatments will determine how much can be delivered.
Included across the streets and parks budgets, after accounting for completed and already funded work.
One selected local play and access project
An allowance for one defined local play and access improvement in Green, Winston or Myrtle Creek/Tri-City, selected according to current need.
A selected project within the parks budget; this amount is not automatically allocated to every community.
Annual cost once the network is established
An annual allowance for inspection, sweeping, vegetation, drainage, lighting, markings and resurfacing as the network grows.
Part of recurring operations rather than construction. It must be reconciled within the broader $15–30 million annual public and service scenario.
Address gaps between schools, shops, community facilities and parks while maintaining completed improvements.
Riddle’s schools, shops, park and community center provide destinations for a local walking circuit. Canyonville’s completed Main Street investment offers a starting point for links toward downtown and Pioneer Park. A potential Stanton Park route needs its own bridge, crossing and road-safety assessment before it is promoted as usable.
Riddle’s schools and community center provide established destinations for a local route. Park entrances and accessibility need a current review.
County Public Works reported completion of Canyonville’s 0.65-mile Main Street project on January 26, 2026, with a $3,306,114 construction contract. That completed work is a starting point for further links.
Stanton Park rehabilitation was reported complete in September 2026. A comfortable route from town is a separate project to assess.
Audit and repair now; short connections years 1–5; Stanton connection only after study.
Cities of Riddle and Canyonville, with County/ODOT for their facilities. These are proposed responsibilities; participation would need to be agreed.
Others to involve: School districts · County Parks/Public Works · Community-center operators · Families and accessibility advisers.
These early estimates are in 2026 dollars. Several projects share the same overall allowance, so the amounts below are not added together.
Allowance over ten years
A ten-year scenario for approximately 15–25 miles of short connections and retrofits, plus 25–40 improved crossings. The mix of treatments will determine how much can be delivered.
Included across the streets and parks budgets, after accounting for completed and already funded work.
Allowance over twenty years
A preliminary twenty-year allowance for selected parks, trails, play spaces and community recreation. Each project needs its own design and operating plan.
Play areas and a discovery studio would be selected within this amount. The gym and large family center are counted in commercial development.
Annual cost once the network is established
An annual allowance for inspection, sweeping, vegetation, drainage, lighting, markings and resurfacing as the network grows.
Part of recurring operations rather than construction. It must be reconciled within the broader $15–30 million annual public and service scenario.
Combine park access and recurring youth programs with operator-led attractions that add a distinct local offer.
The recreation program should serve households at several price points. Better park access, recurring outdoor events, youth activities and a downtown discovery studio sit alongside the major commercial attractions. Existing facilities belong in the delivery plan. New programs need capable operators, suitable premises and funding for continued operation.
River Forks is an existing County park with play, trails and river access. This research has not verified a continuous riverbank trail from downtown Roseburg to the park.
The YMCA, schools and other recreation providers already offer facilities that could support more shared use or programming. The premium gym and large family center have separate business cases and are counted in the commercial development budget.
Programming and site/operator work year 1; bounded upgrades years 1–5; larger independent concepts later.
Participating cities/County Parks and an accountable operator for each program. These are proposed responsibilities; participation would need to be agreed.
Others to involve: Schools and Umpqua Community College · Existing recreation providers · Downtown owners · Nonprofits · Sponsors · Residents.
These early estimates are in 2026 dollars. Several projects share the same overall allowance, so the amounts below are not added together.
Allowance over twenty years
A preliminary twenty-year allowance for selected parks, trails, play spaces and community recreation. Each project needs its own design and operating plan.
Play areas and a discovery studio would be selected within this amount. The gym and large family center are counted in commercial development.
Conversion and launch of a 12,000–18,000-square-foot space
An initial allowance to fit out and launch a 12,000–18,000-square-foot discovery and maker studio in a suitable building.
A possible allocation within the parks and recreation budget, subject to a building, operator and funding decision.
Selected upgrades for shared use
An allowance for selected shared-use improvements following a review of Stewart, YMCA, Umpqua Community College and school facilities.
Included in the parks and recreation budget. A new tournament complex would need a separate demand and operating case.
Annual cost of a regional event schedule
An annual assumption for a regional calendar of markets, family movie evenings and recurring affordable events.
Included in recurring services, separately from construction spending.
Prioritize usable connections, verify accessibility and assign maintenance responsibility before construction.
A completed segment has limited value if the next crossing or missing link prevents the trip. The program should select connections that reach a school, park or shop, inspect accessibility and resolve access rights. Each project needs a maintenance owner and an operating allowance for repairs, cleaning and vegetation work.
The research identifies 25 connections to investigate across the region. Some build on existing paths or published plans; others need an initial local assessment. They are not 25 approved construction projects.
Agency design guidance helps determine path width and crossing protection according to use, traffic speed and volume. Future grant opportunities must be checked when projects are ready to apply: the research noted that the next Oregon Community Paths competition was on hold and Safe Routes to School construction applications were anticipated in spring 2027 for 2028 awards.
Standards and ten-gap priority list in year 1; connected phases years 1–10; permanent care throughout.
Each road/park asset owner, coordinated through the proposed regional delivery compact. These are proposed responsibilities; participation would need to be agreed.
Others to involve: City/County/partner towns · Oregon Department of Transportation · Schools · Thrive Umpqua and Douglas Education Service District · Access advisers · Public works crews.
These early estimates are in 2026 dollars. Several projects share the same overall allowance, so the amounts below are not added together.
Allowance over ten years
A ten-year scenario for approximately 15–25 miles of short connections and retrofits, plus 25–40 improved crossings. The mix of treatments will determine how much can be delivered.
Included across the streets and parks budgets, after accounting for completed and already funded work.
Annual cost once the network is established
An annual allowance for inspection, sweeping, vegetation, drainage, lighting, markings and resurfacing as the network grows.
Part of recurring operations rather than construction. It must be reconciled within the broader $15–30 million annual public and service scenario.
Allowance over twenty years
A preliminary twenty-year allowance for selected parks, trails, play spaces and community recreation. Each project needs its own design and operating plan.
Play areas and a discovery studio would be selected within this amount. The gym and large family center are counted in commercial development.
REINVEST IN EXISTING SPORTS PARKS
The sports proposal pairs better playing surfaces with the facilities that make practices and game days work: reliable restrooms, shade, accessible seating and safe arrival routes. These three illustrations show the standard to work toward.
Make Micelli Park a priority for renewal. Restore the softball field and drainage, upgrade restrooms and add shaded seating. Connect the facilities with accessible paths and a clear, maintained route through the riverfront park.
The City’s park inventory describes approximately six acres along the South Umpqua River at 1498 SE Micelli Street, with a softball field, restrooms, open lawn, paved parking and access to Happy Tails Dog Park.
City park inventoryImprove field condition and the experience around the sidelines. A clear arrival route, accessible viewing areas, team shelters and convenient restrooms would serve players, caregivers and tournament visitors.
The Fir Grove section of Stewart Park already includes soccer fields, restrooms, parking and walking trails beside the river.
City park inventoryRetain the community ballpark character while improving seating, accessible routes, player facilities and concessions. Coordinate the work with existing operators so construction and maintenance fit the playing calendar.
Stewart Park’s established recreation facilities include ballfields and Roseburg American Legion Baseball, with paths and other park activities nearby.
City park inventoryKEEP THE IMPROVEMENTS IN GOOD CONDITION
Start with a joint condition assessment by parks staff, leagues and facility operators. Rank drainage, safety, accessibility and restroom needs first. Each approved phase should include construction costs, annual maintenance, replacement reserves and a schedule that protects community use.
Umpqua Valley Tennis Center reports that its outdoor court improvements were completed in 2026, including lighting, fencing, seating and entry access. The wider sports plan should coordinate with those improvements and direct new work to documented remaining needs.
Read the tennis center’s facility updateAI-generated renewal concepts, not photographs of current conditions or approved designs. Exact layouts, field surfaces, lighting, drainage and any work near waterways require site assessment and public review. Sources reviewed November 9, 2026.
The 25 route packages connect neighborhoods, schools, parks and services across the region. Some build on existing paths; others follow published plans or identify gaps for local study. Each entry identifies the connection, its source status and unresolved access conditions.
Timings are proposed periods after the work is funded. These descriptions are planning ideas, not directions for a currently continuous or protected route.
A family outing could move easily between Stewart, River Front, Gaddis and Fir Grove parks, with clear entrances from surrounding neighborhoods and businesses. The priority is to repair and complete short links, improve crossings and make the existing network easier to use.
Places along the connection: Stewart Park · River Front Park · Gaddis Park · Fir Grove Park
Where it stands: Existing paths and parks; access and maintenance improvements proposed.
New work would fit the City’s current Stewart, Gaddis and greenway planning. The immediate focus is on the missing connections and care that make existing places more useful.
The Newton Creek concepts could give nearby households a more comfortable route to Hucrest, the YMCA, Charles Gardiner Park and the Stewart shopping district. The proposal focuses on the short missing links between existing sections, beginning with ownership and engineering review.
Places along the connection: Hucrest Elementary, 1810 NW Kline · YMCA/Harvey · Charles Gardiner Park
Where it stands: Published path concepts; current completion and access rights need confirmation.
Creek setbacks, wetlands, crossings and ownership will determine the route. Any section on private land would need an agreed public right of access.
A continuous connection from Duck Pond and the I-5 path toward Garden Valley businesses could turn a workout and an errand into one walking or cycling trip. Driveway crossings and secure bicycle parking at business entrances are essential parts of the proposal.
Where it stands: Connection identified in transportation planning; design and agreements remain.
The public-road option would be compared with an alternative involving the Veterans Affairs campus, which would require agreement. Any connection to the proposed gym also depends on the business and property arrangements.
This proposal would improve walking and cycling along Harvard and separately address the south-bank gap between Fir Grove and Stewart. The goal is to connect neighborhood homes, shops and park entrances while giving particular attention to turning traffic at crossings.
Where it stands: Existing park connections with additional links proposed.
The school district plans to close Fir Grove Elementary after 2026–27; the park remains a destination for this proposal. Any riverbank connection would need to respect private ownership and floodplain requirements.
A park visit and a meal downtown should feel like parts of the same outing. Calmer streets, better crossings and clearer transitions between existing paths and streets could make the connections to Micelli and Templin more comfortable for families.
Where it stands: Existing parks and a mixture of paths and streets; improvements proposed.
Parts of the trip would remain on streets rather than a separate river trail. Changes at the railway would require approval from the railroad and the responsible transportation authorities.
The long-term aim is a comfortable route between eastside homes, daily services and Sunshine Park. Work would begin with the neighborhood links and crossings people need most, coordinated with planning for OR 138, then extend toward the park as suitable sections become feasible.
Where it stands: Existing park; a continuous protected connection remains to be studied.
Traffic speeds, driveway movements, slopes, creek and floodplain conditions, and road jurisdiction will influence the final route.
New housing in Charter Oaks should include a connected street and path network, a nearby play space and safe access to daily destinations. Each approved phase would connect to existing roads and preserve useful future links so families are not left waiting for a later development to make the neighborhood work.
Where it stands: A proposed standard for new development; no specific path alignment selected.
Land inside the urban growth boundary still needs the relevant approvals, utilities and public-path arrangements. The first homes should work without relying on an unapproved river bridge.
River Forks could be easier to reach and enjoy, beginning with its entrance and nearby walking access. A longer, separated regional approach deserves study along actual road corridors, with traffic, bridge conditions and land rights assessed before a route is selected.
Where it stands: Existing County park; a regional connection is a longer-term study.
No continuous Roseburg-to-River Forks riverbank path has been verified. A route intended for families would need more protection than an ordinary rural road shoulder.
Green’s neighborhood network would connect homes and both elementary schools to daily shopping and Happy Valley Park. The first improvements would close sidewalk gaps and address crossings, building on the Carnes school frontage already completed.
Places along the connection: Green Elementary, 4498 SW Carnes · Sunnyslope Elementary, 2230 SW Cannon · Happy Valley Park, 100 Poteet
Where it stands: Existing road improvements, with remaining connections to assess.
Douglas County would lead work on its roads in unincorporated Green. Park approaches need their own review, and the project does not depend on annexation.
The McGovern-area school-route investment can become the foundation for a wider neighborhood network. After confirming what the existing grant delivered, the proposal would close the remaining links toward shops and the town loop, including the Lookingglass crossings at Cary, Brockway and Abraham.
Where it stands: A 2023 Safe Routes to School grant is documented; current completion needs confirmation.
The first review would distinguish completed and funded work from genuinely new improvements, so the same project is not paid for twice.
Safer Thompson crossings at Gregory and Darrell could help join schools with Riverbend Park. Connections through calmer neighborhood streets could continue toward Community Park and the community center, creating a useful local loop for an after-school trip or family walk.
Places along the connection: Winston Middle, 330 Thompson · Riverbend Park, 223 Thompson · Community Park, 440 SE Grape
Where it stands: Existing schools and parks; additional street and crossing improvements proposed.
Crossings of OR 42 and Main Street need careful design for traffic speed and turning movements. A line on the map alone cannot make those crossings comfortable.
The Red Rock Trail could serve more everyday trips with clearer links from its ends and nearby neighborhoods to downtown shops, civic services and Central Park. The first phase would build on the existing paved trail and the Central Avenue crossing work.
Places along the connection: Red Rock trail, South State–Nicholas Court · Festival Grounds · Central Park
Where it stands: Approximately 1.3 miles of existing paved trail; Central crossings were programmed for fall 2026.
A current review would confirm the pedestrian-beacon work at Mardonna and between Grant and Kruse before additional improvements are defined.
Continuous sidewalks, calmer cycling routes and safer crossings along West Sixth and East Fourth could link homes, schools and Hartley Park. The proposal would concentrate on the gaps that prevent residents from completing those trips comfortably today.
Where it stands: Connections identified in City transportation planning and June 2026 draft park recommendations.
Any new connecting street or path across private property would require the appropriate public process and land agreement.
Ford’s Pond already offers a paved park loop. Better approaches from southwest neighborhoods could help more residents make it part of everyday life. A connection for neighborhoods east of I-5, potentially involving an underpass, would be evaluated as a separate and more complex project.
Where it stands: Existing park loop; additional road approaches and an I-5 connection proposed.
An I-5 connection needs engineering, drainage and utility review, land rights and the necessary approvals. This proposal does not identify an existing public underpass path.
A comfortable connection from the Red Rock system toward Cooper Creek Reservoir could add a longer recreation option. The first steps would improve trailhead access and useful links from homes along public roads while the feasibility of a continuous route is assessed.
Where it stands: Existing reservoir recreation trails; the connection from town remains a study.
A creekside route would require public access rights and environmental review. No off-road alignment has been selected.
Accessible crossings and continuous sidewalks along Fifth could join the school campus with the Oak and Maple neighborhoods and downtown. A compact route on existing public streets would help make school, local errands and a walk around town easier to combine.
Where it stands: Existing school facilities and earlier route recommendations; current construction status needs review.
Cypress work was described as funded or underway in 2020 and should be checked first. A possible Ash Creek path from First to Eighth is a separate longer-term study.
The proposal would improve East B sidewalks, rail-crossing access and school crossings so the elementary and middle school have a more comfortable connection to downtown services. The named gaps provide a practical starting point for a first phase.
Places along the connection: North Douglas Elementary/Middle, 100 N School
Where it stands: Priorities identified in the April 2025 Safe Routes to School plan; delivery status needs confirmation.
Changes at the railway require rail-authority review. The route concerns the East A and East B streets serving this school and downtown area.
A safer route via Moreland could link the high school with Anna Drain Park and the park’s improvement and reading-walk work. The proposal includes missing sidewalks, the park-road crossing and protected passage where the route goes under the railway.
Places along the connection: North Douglas High, 305 S Main · Anna Drain Park
Where it stands: Existing destinations and park work, with route improvements proposed.
The undercrossing needs clearance and drainage assessment. The 2025 plan proposed reopening the covered bridge; its current status must be confirmed before it becomes part of a public route.
First, Birch and Fifth form a starting point for a route between the elementary and secondary schools. The proposal would fill sidewalk gaps, calm traffic and improve connections toward Main Street services and the community center, while assessing the Williams Road park approach with its operator.
Places along the connection: Elementary, 401 First · Middle/High, 292 Fifth · Community Center, 400 Main
Where it stands: A new connection proposal using identified streets and destinations.
Park entrances and public access still need local confirmation. School grounds cannot be assumed to provide a public shortcut, and a continuous protected loop has not yet been established.
Crossings at Rice and Spruce and at Division and Spruce would anchor a more useful neighborhood school network. Short connections along Johnson, Spruce and Neal could bring homes into that network, while the Division–Myrtle Road junction receives specific attention to freight movements.
Places along the connection: Coffenberry Middle, 591 NE Rice · Myrtle Creek Elementary
Where it stands: Priorities identified in the April 2022 Safe Routes to School plan; current delivery needs review.
Truck turns, visibility and crossing protection require engineering at Myrtle Road. The treatment needs to match the actual traffic conditions.
An accessible circuit could connect Millsite Park, downtown shops and Evergreen Park using existing streets and park paths. Better downtown crossings and links to the school-route network would make the trip useful for local errands as well as recreation.
Places along the connection: Millsite Park, 231 Volunteer · Evergreen Park · Downtown Main/Volunteer
Where it stands: Existing parks and streets; a more complete connection is proposed.
Evergreen’s entrance should be checked locally. A creekside path would only be included where public access is confirmed.
Safer school access along Chadwick and a protected connection toward Old Pacific services could make everyday trips easier. As housing is added, connected internal streets and a need-tested neighborhood play space could help create a stronger local center.
Places along the connection: Tri-City Elementary, 546 SW Chadwick
Where it stands: A school and public-road connection to assess, with a fresh park-access review needed.
Road jurisdiction and highway driveway conflicts need to be resolved. The older park inventory cannot establish what residents can access today.
Schools, Main Street shops, City Park and the community center could form a compact route for walking and low-speed cycling. The proposal would prioritize crossings and missing sidewalks around Park and First, making the destinations easier to reach from surrounding homes.
Places along the connection: Elementary, 463 Park · Junior/Senior High, 147 Main · Community Center, 123 Parkside · Riddle City Park
Where it stands: Existing destinations; a local street and access assessment is proposed.
Park entrances and accessibility need confirmation. Any freight street requires a treatment suited to its traffic, and no private cut-through is assumed.
The completed North Main school-route work gives Canyonville a strong starting point. Filling the remaining downtown-to-Pioneer Park sidewalk and crossing gaps could extend its value, while maintaining the new infrastructure and its connections to school, civic uses and businesses.
Places along the connection: Canyonville School, North Main · Pioneer Park, East Fourth/Canyon
Where it stands: North Main work reported complete in the 2026 acceptance record; further links proposed.
The creek footbridge and the actual park entrance need an accessibility check. Completed Main Street improvements are not new construction costs in this proposal.
Stanton Park’s improvements create a reason to examine better access from nearby homes and North Main. The study would focus on road approaches and crossings first, then determine whether families could reach the park on a suitably protected route.
Where it stands: Existing improved County park; the connection remains a study.
I-5, river and road crossings need specific assessment. No new bridge or guaranteed family cycling route has been selected.
CONNECTIVITY THAT MATCHES REAL DEMAND
The airport program first evaluates improvements at the existing facility. Hangars, aviation businesses, infrastructure changes and scheduled passenger service have different customers and funding requirements. Each needs its own demand assessment before the region commits to expansion.
Assess hangars, aviation services and access before pursuing passenger-service or new-airport proposals.
The existing airport’s role includes opportunities to investigate business travel, medical and emergency functions, training and aviation employment. Demand-supported hangars, service businesses and access improvements form the initial program. Scheduled passenger service or a new airport requires a separate assessment of operators, passengers, airspace and long-term funding.
The City describes a runway about 5,000 feet long and 100 feet wide. Current operational records would guide any design work.
The airport master plan describes constraints involving I-5, the railway, arterial roads, terrain and aircraft approaches. No new airport site, airline service, passenger terminal or runway-extension project has been selected by this initiative.
Completion/demand audit now; viable hangar/support phases years 2–10; larger feasibility branch years 5–20 if warranted.
The City as airport sponsor, with airport management. These are proposed responsibilities; participation would need to be agreed.
Others to involve: Federal Aviation Administration · Oregon Department of Aviation · Aircraft/service operators · Employers · Oregon Department of Transportation · Central Oregon & Pacific Railroad · Affected owners.
These early estimates are in 2026 dollars. Several projects share the same overall allowance, so the amounts below are not added together.
Allowance over twenty years, after existing projects are accounted for
An allowance for additional general-aviation improvements once completed, funded and contracted work has been accounted for.
Included in the shared infrastructure and civic subtotal.
Allowance for a market, airspace and site study, if commissioned
A separate study would test passenger demand, operator interest, airspace and potential sites before any relocation or airline-service decision. No construction price has been established.
The study would be funded within planning allowances; any later construction decision would need its own fully reconciled budget.
PUBLIC PLACES THAT WORK FOR EVERYONE
Parks, trails and business entrances need clear access, dependable maintenance and a coordinated response to unsafe conditions. People living outside need accommodation, care and pathways to stable housing. The proposal assigns these related responsibilities to an accountable local response, with operating funding and measurable results.
Rent assistance, landlord mediation and help accessing benefits can be targeted to households at risk of losing their home. Better coordination when someone leaves a hospital or other institution would help reduce avoidable discharges into homelessness.
Track: Households that keep their housing, alongside the number entering homelessness.
A current needs assessment would establish which options are missing, including around-the-clock shelter, accessible accommodation, family placements, storage, medical respite and arrangements that can accommodate pets or couples appropriately.
Track: Suitable places offered and accepted, with unmet needs shown by accommodation type.
Landlord partnerships, rapid rehousing, rent assistance and permanent supportive housing would give people routes beyond a temporary bed. The support offered would need to fit the household and continue long enough to help the placement last.
Track: People moving into housing, their six- and twelve-month stability, and returns to homelessness.
Outreach workers need practical connections to qualified mental-health and substance-use providers, transport and continuing care. A referral is only useful if the person can reach a suitable service and follow through.
Track: Waiting time for appropriate care and continued engagement, using privacy-protecting reporting.
Public places need an ordinary, funded standard of care: usable restrooms, scheduled cleaning, repairs, accessible routes and a prompt response to hazards. Clear rules about conduct and use should be applied through lawful local procedures.
Track: Park condition, blocked routes, safety incidents, repair times and recurring problems.
The first task is to agree on a current picture with the providers doing the work: who needs help, what accommodation is available and where people get stuck. A countywide count taken on one night cannot answer those questions for every city or every type of need.
Service locations should be compared publicly for access to transport, care and work. Each would need a capable operator, a staffing budget and a neighborhood management agreement. A remote location that makes those connections harder would not deliver the outcome this plan seeks.
Organizations to invite include UCAN · Housing providers · Adapt and qualified health partners · VA · Douglas County · Participating municipalities · Relevant nonprofit operators.
City and County leaders would need to identify who coordinates the response and secure five-year operating commitments with participating providers. The public should be able to see the capacity gaps, who is responsible for each part and whether the response is improving both housing stability and public-space conditions.
Oregon law requires applicable rules on sitting, lying, sleeping or keeping warm and dry on public property to be objectively reasonable in their time, place and manner. Encampment removal also involves notice and property-handling requirements, with statutory exceptions. Local procedures would need legal review so the coordinated response works within current law.
The initial $20–40 million construction allowance covers shelter, navigation and care facilities. Permanent homes are counted in the housing budget. Staff, treatment and housing support need continuing funding beyond construction.
A PRACTICAL PATH FOR OLDER BUILDINGS
A building-by-building reuse program can establish which downtown properties are viable for shops, restaurants or housing and what work each requires. Roseburg’s code provides review routes for exterior changes, additions, new construction and demolition. The first assessment should combine condition, permitted use and rehabilitation cost so owners can evaluate a complete project.
The proposed pilot would focus on three to five nearby properties with owners willing to participate. Each would receive a practical assessment of possible uses, repair costs, rents and approvals. Public updates could explain what is moving forward and what is holding it back, without making unsupported claims about the safety of a private building.
Select the first three properties on owner participation, viable use and the prospect of a fully priced rehabilitation plan. The assessment should identify repairs, approvals, financing gaps and an operating use for each building.
Historic character can give downtown a distinctive identity, but character alone does not pay for serious structural work. The program would preserve what can work, identify where financing can close a gap, and use the proper review process when a different outcome is necessary.
Explore the downtown districtLEADERSHIP THAT TURNS PRIORITIES INTO RESULTS
A regional work program needs a named lead for each project, a decision schedule and a public budget. The proposed agreement brings shared priorities into one reporting system while preserving the legal authority of the elected bodies and agencies involved. Residents should be able to see delays, unresolved decisions and the party responsible for action.
Ask the city, county and participating communities to define a shared work program, responsibilities and funding. The study region is larger than the city electorate; surrounding residents need a formal place in regional planning through their own governments and agreed public participation.
Ask Community Development and the city manager for a written approval roadmap, consolidated review comments and a clear escalation route. Roseburg already has an online permitting portal. The next question is whether applicants receive timely, consistent decisions and can understand what is holding a project up.
Roseburg handles city land-use review; Douglas County provides building and electrical services in Roseburg. Utilities and highway access can involve other agencies. Ask for an early joint review of priority sites, with a named contact, studies, costs and sequence.
Ask elected leaders to set standards, fund the capacity to meet them and review quarterly results. The city manager supervises staff under the charter. A missed standard should lead to an explanation and corrective action through the responsible office.
An intergovernmental agreement does not automatically create a new taxing authority. Public decisions remain with the bodies or lawful entity authorized to make them.
| Role | Responsibility | Accountability |
|---|---|---|
| Elected councils, County commissioners and participating boards | Adopt policy, budgets and project agreements within their authority. | Public votes and clear funding/service commitments. |
| City manager and a named regional delivery director | Keep the shared project schedule current, resolve work that depends on several agencies, and bring clear choices to the people authorized to decide. | Quarterly reports on milestones, budget changes, unresolved risks and decisions requiring elected action. |
| Small technical delivery team | Bring planning, mapping, engineering, housing finance, grants and public participation together around the first projects. | A named person responsible for each project and public approval before its scope or budget grows. |
| UEDP, CCD, UCC and employers | Maintain the jobs, training and business-development pipeline. | Written employer commitments, real wages and actual jobs filled/retained. |
| Utilities, safety, housing and care operators | Confirm capacity and operate services within their responsibilities. | Funded staffing, maintenance and service agreements. |
| Residents, businesses and community working groups | Identify needs, compare alternatives and examine results. | Published input and documented agency responses. |
| Private investors and philanthropic partners | Supply conditional capital and expertise for defined purposes. | Disclosed interests, separate accounts and independent public decision-making. |
Roseburg's council appoints the city manager; the charter gives the manager executive responsibilities for staff, administration, budgets and contracts. Public policy and oversight remain with elected officials. A private sponsor cannot replace those authorities.
Residents can bring these questions to public meetings, apply for commissions and consider running for an office for which they qualify. Candidates should have the same opportunity to explain how they would fund projects, include surrounding communities and report results. Eligibility and filing information is available from the relevant election office.
| The result that matters | What the public should see |
|---|---|
| Occupied homes | Completed and occupied homes by affordability band; show preservation separately. |
| Year-round jobs and wages | Net permanent jobs, filled positions and real wages; exclude temporary construction from the permanent target. |
| Commercial activity | Occupied storefronts and operator survival, not just lease announcements. |
| Housing stability | Durable exits from homelessness and six/twelve-month retention. |
| Public-space condition | Published inspection/repair measures and whether paths and entrances remain usable. |
| Delivery | Cost and schedule variance, unresolved decisions and responsible parties. |
| Growth accounting | Report annexations separately so boundary changes do not masquerade as economic improvement. |
WHAT IT WOULD TAKE TO PAY FOR THE WORK
Creating more homes, improving infrastructure and opening businesses would require many separate investments over many years. The initial twenty-year estimate is $2.4–4.5 billion in constant 2026 dollars, including private housing and business development as well as public work. It is a way to understand the scale of this Roseburg-centered proposal. Each project still needs a defined scope, independent cost estimate and funding decision, and the needs of the wider region must be reconciled before this can become a complete regional budget.
In constant 2026 dollars, including private homes and business properties alongside public infrastructure. Different projects would have different owners and funding sources.
Included in the total. Roads, utilities, parks and services each need their own approvals and funding. A full review of the wider region’s needs remains.
An initial scenario once the program is established, to be tested with service providers. It is separate from construction and excludes loan payments and ordinary private business expenses.
The first stage needs specific projects, reliable prices and a budget for ongoing care. Later projects would advance when their demand, approvals and financing are ready.
| Program | Low | High |
|---|---|---|
| Planning, central delivery and evaluation | $20M | $30M |
| Rail alternatives and one/two justified grade separations | $80M | $180M |
| Selected streets, transit access, walking and cycling | $50M | $100M |
| Shared water, sewer, stormwater and utility capacity | $80M | $150M |
| Parks, trails and selected family recreation projects | $50M | $100M |
| Shelter/navigation/care facilities, excluding permanent homes | $20M | $40M |
| Additional general-aviation airport improvements | $25M | $60M |
| Preparing employment sites and addressing contaminated land | $35M | $70M |
| Initial allowance for school, fire, emergency medical and other civic capacity | $40M | $100M |
| Shared infrastructure and civic subtotal | $400M | $830M |
| Housing: 5,907 homes, gross development costRoseburg UGB allocation only; includes development that might occur without this initiative. Preservation requires separate accounting. | $1,772M | $3,249M |
| Commercial/industrial buildings, fitout and opening reservesIncludes the gym and family-center concepts once. Expensive industrial production equipment is not assumed included. | $200M | $450M |
| Initial total estimate | $2,372M | $4,529M |
| Project | Initial allowance | Where it is counted |
|---|---|---|
| 48,000 sq ft gym conversion | $12M–$22MExcludes property acquisition, financing and major structural remediation; no pool in the opening concept. | Included in commercial/industrial portfolio. |
| 65,000 sq ft family-center concept | $30M–$50MIncludes land assumption, building, attractions and ramp-up allowance; financing/carry, escalation and exceptional off-site obligations need separate scope. | Included in commercial/industrial portfolio. |
| Regional walking/cycling program | $45M–$75MUse one project ledger; deduct completed or already-awarded work and do not add this range again. | Included in transport and parks lines. |
| Potential source | Use | Required decision |
|---|---|---|
| Developer equity and appropriate debt | Financially viable housing, commercial property and employer facilities. | Verify rents/sales, absorption, construction cost and completion funding. |
| Housing programs and tax-credit equity | Eligible affordable and supportive housing. | Underwrite affordability and ongoing service obligations project by project. |
| Transportation, rail and aviation grants | Eligible public infrastructure. | Secure actual awards and local match; a study award is not construction funding. |
| Utility charges, assessments and development agreements | Eligible and attributable infrastructure. | Check capacity, legal basis and household/business affordability. |
| Urban renewal/tax increment | Eligible work within an adopted plan. | Model actual increment and debt service conservatively. |
| Philanthropy and patient investment | Early risk, community facilities, gap funding and bounded operating support. | Separate grants from investments and disclose interests. |
| Voter-authorized funding where required | Defined public capital or service needs. | Publish household impact, benefit and long-term operating cost. |
The FY 2026–27 adopted budget lists about $32.6 million of General Fund revenue. Restricted funds, beginning balances and transfers in an all-funds budget are not unrestricted redevelopment money.
Oregon has no general sales tax. More retail spending does not automatically create a comparable City sales-tax revenue stream.
The Diamond Lake urban-renewal plan's $72.8 million maximum indebtedness is a plan limit, not available cash.
A detailed financial plan would show the cost of each service and project beside the funds available to pay for it. Existing contributions from city and county residents, districts, users and other funders must be included before any remaining gap is assigned.
This example shows a possible allocation. No sponsor has committed these funds.
| Purpose | Illustrative allocation |
|---|---|
| Launch planning and delivery | $5M |
| Revolving acquisition/options and predevelopment | $20M |
| Downtown and shared site/access improvements | $20M |
| Housing gap investment | $15M |
| Shelter/care capital | $10M |
| Parks and trails pilots | $10M |
| Workforce and childcare partnerships | $5M |
| Operating reserve/bridge support | $15M |
In this illustration, funding would be released in stages after the operator, public agreements, feasibility and ongoing costs are established. The amounts sit within the overall investment estimate. If a revolving fund reuses money repaid by a project, that reuse would be recorded separately from newly donated capital.
WHAT HAPPENS FIRST, AND WHAT FOLLOWS
How this stage would be funded: The website and initial community research can proceed before a separately funded professional development program exists.
What is needed before moving on: A useful first stage gives people a working way to participate and reports honestly on what their responses do and do not establish.
How this stage would be funded: This work is included in the proposed first-100-day professional preparation allowance.
What is needed before moving on: The program can move forward when responsibilities are clear and the initial professional work has an agreed scope and budget.
How this stage would be funded: This stage remains within the initial professional work program.
What is needed before moving on: Public findings should distinguish verified information from the questions that still need an answer.
How this stage would be funded: The full first-100-day formation and technical review is provisionally allowed $1–2 million. Its scope and professional fees must be priced before funding; this is separate from launching the civic website.
What is needed before moving on: Each selected project needs an accountable lead, credible demand and a public explanation of why it should advance or pause.
How this stage would be funded: The illustrative early phase allows $25–50 million in conditional commitments within the overall estimate. Actual spending would depend on project readiness and financing.
What is needed before moving on: Construction begins when approvals, defined costs, an operating plan and funding are in place.
How this stage would be funded: The earlier planning scenario allows $0.6–1.3 billion for this period, including roughly 1,500–1,865 homes. It illustrates a possible scale of development, not a forecast or funding commitment.
What is needed before moving on: Each expansion should reflect current demand, construction costs, affordability and the performance of earlier projects.
How this stage would be funded: Later phases would receive individual budgets within the updated regional plan.
What is needed before moving on: Expansion requires demonstrated demand, complete construction funding and a funded plan for operation and renewal.
How this stage would be funded: Costs and public finances would be reviewed annually as later projects are considered.
What is needed before moving on: Long-term success means places that remain useful and well maintained after construction ends.
Who will use it, how often, at what achievable price, and what already exists?
Who is accountable for daily performance, staffing and losses?
Are ownership, property rights, access, hazards and allowed use established?
Has the complete program been tested and independently priced?
Which public bodies decide, what process applies, and what remains unresolved?
Are all construction, financing and ramp-up sources committed?
Is there a credible five-year operating plan and long-term renewal model?
Are the costs, benefits, conflicts, affordability and displacement effects visible?
| Decision | Who would need to act | What residents would get |
|---|---|---|
| Agree on a regional planning and service baseline. | City, County and partner governments with providers and residents. | An agreed description of the region, with a public account of service costs and the contributions already made by residents, users and districts. |
| Choose a concentrated downtown pilot. | Willing property owners, City reviewers and qualified developers/operators. | Three to five nearby buildings with willing owners, priced reuse options, prospective tenants and a clear approval process. |
| Verify flagship and retail sites. | Owners, operators, planners and independent technical advisers. | An understandable comparison of property conditions, permitted uses, access, costs, competing businesses and operating economics. |
| Choose the first serviceable housing phases. | Planning departments, utilities, housing developers and financing partners. | The first housing phases with a practical mix of homes, enough usable land, utility capacity and clear responsibility for infrastructure and services. |
| Name the public-space and housing-response lead. | County/City, UCAN, care and housing partners. | A coordinated response showing missing capacity, operating responsibility, lawful procedures and results the public can track. |
| Adopt the delivery compact and scoreboard. | Participating elected bodies and managers. | A written agreement naming project leads, decision dates, funding responsibilities and a schedule for public progress reports. |
The 52-page study and 10-page concept atlas preserve the November 8, 2026 research baseline. Later additions are documented on the Updates page and linked current chapters. The research page explains the sources and limits of the estimates.