2013, 12-03 Study SessionAGENDA
SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL
STUDY SESSION FORMAT
Tuesday, December 3, 2013
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
11707 East Sprague Avenue, First Floor
(Please Silence Your Cell Phones During the Meeting)
DISCUSSION LEADER SUBJECT /ACTIVITY GOAL
6:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
1. Mike Basinger Historic Preservation & Special Evaluations
2. Eric Guth
3. Mike Stone
4. Mike Jackson
5. Cary Driskell
6. Mayor Towey
Contract Updates: (a) Sweeping; and
(b) Street and Stormwater Maintenance
Parks and Recreation Master Plan
Draft Legislative Agenda
Argonne Road Project, Public Use
And Necessity
Advance Agenda
Discussion /Information
Discussion /Information
Discussion /Information
Discussion /Information
Discussion /Information
Discussion /Information
7. Information Only (will not be reported or discussed): Public Works Monthly Report
8. Mayor Towey Council Check in Discussion /Information
9. Mike Jackson City Manager Comments Discussion /Information
ADJOURN
Note: Unless otherwise noted above, there will be no public comments at Council Study Sessions. However, Council always reserves the
right to request information from the public and staff as appropriate. During meetings held by the City of Spokane Valley Council, the
Council reserves the right to take "action" on any item listed or subsequently added to the agenda. The term "action" means to deliberate,
discuss, review, consider, evaluate, or make a collective positive or negative decision. NOTICE: Individuals planning to attend the meeting
who require special assistance to accommodate physical, hearing, or other impairments, please contact the City Clerk at (509) 921 -1000 as soon
as possible so that arrangements may be made.
Study Session Agenda, December 3, 2013 Page 1 of 1
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: December 3, 2013 Department Director Approval:
Item: Check all that apply: ❑ Consent ❑ Old business ❑ New business ❑ Public Hearing
❑ Information ® Admin. Report ❑ Pending Legislation
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Historic Preservation and Special Evaluations
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: The Growth Management Act (GMA) RCW 36.70A.020
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: None
The Growth Management Act calls on counties and cities to identify and encourage the preservation
of lands, sites, and structures that have historical or archaeological significance. The act does not
require a separate historic preservation element; rather it states that counties and cities must be
guided by the historic preservation goal in their comprehensive plan.
The Land Use element of the City's Comprehensive Plan discusses historical and cultural resources.
The plan identifies that cultural resources include structures and landscapes engineered and built by
man. These resources can include buildings, structures, districts, objects, and landscapes of historic
sig nificance.
Currently, the City of Spokane Valley does not have a Historic Preservation program in place to
recognize, protect, enhance and preserve buildings, districts, objects, sites and structures of historic
sig nificance.
Establishing a historic preservation program can make it possible to offer historic building
rehabilitation projects assistance, ranging from state and federal financial incentives to special
consideration with building and zoning codes.
To pursue an in -house historic preservation program the City would need to become a Certified Local
Government (CLG) allowing the City to receive technical assistance, apply for special grant funding,
and comment on federal and state historic preservation actions.
The process for becoming a CLG would require:
the passage of a historic preservation ordinance,
creating a City Historic Preservation Commission responsible for the preservation and
protection of the City's historic, architectural, and archaeological resources as well as
reviewing nominations to the national register of historic places and applications for design
review and special valuation, and,
creation and maintenance of a system for the survey and inventory of local historic resources.
Another option, if the City of Spokane is amenable, could be to develop a partnership or Interlocal
Agreement with the City of Spokane's Historic Preservation Office to offer historic preservation
services.
Currently, the City of Spokane provides historic preservation services to Spokane County through an
interlocal agreement. The Interlocal agreement stipulates that the County pay $5000.00 to assist in
funding the City's Department of Historic Preservation.
At the City of Spokane, a full time staff person is dedicated to providing historic preservation services.
Page 1 of 2
OPTIONS: Discussion only
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: N/A
BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: N/A
STAFF CONTACT: Mike Basinger, AICP, Senior Planner
Page2of2
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: December 3, 2013 Department Director Approval:
Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing
❑ information ® admin. Report ❑ pending legislation ['executive session
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Street Sweeping Contract Renewal — AAA Sweeping
GOVERNING LEGISLATION:
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Street Sweeping Contract Approval on March 3, 2007
and Contract renewal in 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013.
BACKGROUND:
The City conducted an RFP process in March 2007. In April 2007, the Council awarded the
contract to AAA Sweeping.
This is the final year of this contract, and staff plans to put this contract out for public bids in
2014 for calendar year 2015 and beyond. Staff is beginning to develop an RFP to solicit bids for
a new contract that will begin in 2015.
The existing contract was for one year with seven one -year renewal options which may be
exercised by the City. AAA Sweeping provided a good level of service during 2007, 2008, 2009,
2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013. The 2013 contract amount was approved at $490,199.94. The
2014 contract will be the seventh of seven possible option years and the total contract amount
will stay the same at $490,199.94, which has remained the same amount since 2009.
Public Works staff has negotiated a 0.89% increase to the contract hourly rates with AAA
Sweeping. The negotiated increase is based on health insurance rates increasing by about 25%
and prevailing wages increases ranging from 1.52% to 2.02 %. This adjustment is provided for
within the contract as long as the Contractor's request does not exceed the CPI -U or a
maximum of 3% annually, whichever is less. The CPI -U for October (released 11/15/13) is
.96 %. Staff is comfortable with keeping the total contract amount the same as the past five
years.
OPTIONS: Place this contract on the December 17th meeting as a Motion Consideration, or
provide staff with further direction.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION:
BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The contract will be funded by the approved 2014 budget.
STAFF CONTACT: Eric Guth
ATTACHMENTS: 2014 option year contract
SioltArie�
•Valiey
December 26, 2013
AAA Sweeping, LLC
PO Box 624
Veradale, WA 99037
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
CARY P. DRISKELL - CITY ATTORNEY
ERIK J. LAMB - DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY
11707 East Sprague Ave., Suite 103 • Spokane Valley, WA 99206
509.720.5105 • Fax: 509.688.0299 • cityattorney@spokanevalley.org
Re: Implementation of 2014 option year, Agreement for Street Sweeping Services, 07-
021, executed March 13, 2007
Dear Mr. Sargent:
The City executed a contract for provision of Street Sweeping Services on March 13,
2007 by and between the City of Spokane Valley, hereinafter "City ", and AAA
Sweeping, LLC, hereinafter "Contractor" and jointly referred to as "Parties."
The Request for Proposal states that it was for one year, with seven optional one -year
terms possible if the parties mutually agree to exercise the options each year. This is the
seventh of seven possible option years that can be exercised and runs through December
31, 2014.
The City would like to exercise the 2014 option year of the Agreement. The
Compensation as outlined in Exhibit A, 2014 Cost Proposal, includes the labor and
material cost negotiated and shall not exceed $490,199.94. The history of the annual
renewals is set forth as follows:
Original contract amount .$ 473,687.00
2008 Renewal $ 479,717.02
2009 Renewal $ 490,199.94
2010 Renewal $ 490,199.94
2011 Renewal $ 490,199.94
2012 Renewal $ 490,199.94
2013 Renewal $ 490,199.94
2014 Renewal $ 490,199.94
All of the other contract provisions contained in the original agreement are in place and
will remain unchanged in exercising this option year.
If you are in agreement with exercising the 2014 option year, please sign below to
acknowledge the receipt and concurrence to perform the 2014 option year. Please return
two copies to the City for execution, along with current insurance information. A fully
executed original copy will be mailed to you for your files.
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY AAA SWEEPING, LLC
Mike Jackson, City Manager
ATTEST:
Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Name
Title
Office of the City Attorney
Exhibit A - 2014 Cost Proposal
2014 Street Sweeping Contract
Contractor : AAA Sweeping
Item
Task
Unit
Price
1
Mechanical Sweeper
Hours
$151.57
2
Kick /Angle Brooms
Hours
$111.00
3
Regenerative Air Sweeper
Hours
$151.57
4
Water Truck
Hours
$112.65
5
Dump Truck /End Truck
Hours
$112.65
6
Loader
Hours
$111.00
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: December 3, 2013 Department Director Approval:
Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing
❑ information ® admin. Report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Street and Stormwater Maintenance Contract Renewal — Poe
Asphalt Inc.
GOVERNING LEGISLATION:
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Street and Stormwater Maintenance Contract Approval on
April 24, 2007, Contract Renewals in 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013.
BACKGROUND:
The City conducted an RFP process in March 2007. In April 2007, the Council awarded the contract to
the lowest qualified bidder, which was Poe Asphalt Paving.
This is the final year of this contract, and staff plans to put this contract out for public bids in 2014 for a
calendar year in 2015 and beyond. Staff, along with consultants is developing an RFP to solicit bids for
this new contract that will begin in 2015.
The existing contract was for one year with seven one -year renewal options which may be exercised by
the City. This contract is a Cost Plus contract, meaning the City pays all direct costs plus a pre -
negotiated overhead and profit percentage. There is a 22% OH & P on Direct Costs and 8% OH & P on
Subcontractors. These percentages have remained the same throughout this contract.
The 2014 total contract amount will stay the same as 2013, $1,506,663 which includes $1,366,663 in
Street and Stormwater Maintenance and $140,000 in snow removal.
Poe Asphalt Paving has provided a satisfactory level of service during all previous contract years. In light
of their performance, staff discussed renewal of the contract and negotiated the 2014 option year.
Public Works staff has negotiated a 2014 contract renewal which resulted in a 0% increase in equipment
rates, 0% increase in material coats and a 1.61% increase to the hourly labor rates. This increase in the
Hourly Labor rates is due to union contracts that represent Poe Asphalt's employees. The labor is
approximately 15% of the overall contract costs.
This contract adjustment is provided for within the contract under section 1.11.3 Compensation, which
allows the contractor to request an adjustment in unit rates annually for the following 12 months, and
these price adjustments, shall be negotiated with city staff. Staff reviewed and discussed these changes
with Poe Asphalt, and is recommending renewal of their contract for 2014 with these requested changes.
OPTIONS: Place this contract on the December 17th meeting as a Motion Consideration, or provide
staff with further direction
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION:
BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The contract will be funded by the approved 2014 budget.
STAFF CONTACT: Eric Guth
ATTACHMENTS: 2014 Draft Option Year Contract
SioltArie�
•Valiey
December 26, 2013
Poe Asphalt Paving, Inc.
2732 North Beck Road
Post Falls, ID 83854
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
CARY P. DRISKELL - CITY ATTORNEY
ERIK J. LAMB - DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY
11707 East Sprague Ave., Suite 103 • Spokane Valley, WA 99206
509.720.5105 • Fax: 509.688.0299 • cityattorney@spokanevalley.org
Re: Implementation of 2014 option year - Agreement for Street and Stormwater
Maintenance and Repair Services, executed May 11, 2007
Dear Mr. Griffith:
The City executed a contract for provision of Street and Stormwater Maintenance and
Repair Services on May 11, 2007 by and between the City of Spokane Valley, hereinafter
"City" and Poe Asphalt Paving, Inc., hereinafter "Contractor" and jointly referred to as
"Parties."
The Request for Proposal states that it was for one year, with seven optional one -year
terms possible if the parties mutually agree to exercise the options each year. This is the
seventh of seven possible option years that can be exercised and runs through December
31, 2014.
The City would like to exercise the 2014 option year of the Agreement. The
Compensation as outlined in Exhibit A, 2014 Cost Proposal, includes the labor and
material cost negotiated and shall not exceed $1,506,663. The contract includes
$1,366,663 for Street & Stormwater Maintenance and $140,000 for snow removal
operations (See Exhibit B — Scope of Work). The history of the annual renewals is set
forth as follows:
Original contract amount .$ 1,175,119.00
2008 Renewal $ 1,475,119.00
2009 Renewal $ 1,175,119.00
2010 Renewal $ 1,375,119.00
2011 Renewal $ 1,545,119.00
2012 Renewal $ 1,685,119.00
2013 Renewal $ 1,506,663.00
2014 Renewal $ 1,506,663.00
This contract option year will use the Asphalt Cost Price Adjustment per WSDOT Spec
5 -04.5. The Contractor shall provide the cost adjustment for asphalt prices monthly and
include this information with each monthly invoice.
All of the other contract provisions contained in the original agreement are in place and
will remain unchanged in exercising this option year.
If you are in agreement with exercising the 2014 option year, please sign below to
acknowledge the receipt and concurrence to perform the 2014 option year. Please return
two copies to the City for execution, along with current insurance information. A fully
executed original copy will be mailed to you for your files.
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY POE ASPHALT PAVING, INC.
Mike Jackson, City Manager
ATTEST:
Name
Title
Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Office of the City Attorney
Exhibit "A"
2014 Cost Proposal
Street Maintenance
Labor
2014 100 % wages
hourly overtime
Superintendent
Foreman
Operator
Teamster
Laborer
$ 47.85 $ 65.40
$ 47.85 $ 65.40
$ 46.14 $ 62.86
$ 44.24 $ 58.80
$ 40.88 $ 56,01
2014
Snow Operations - 90% wages
Labor hourly overtime
Operator
Teamster
Laborer
$ 42.74 $ 57.76
$ 41.93 $ 54.81
$ 38.11 $ 51.86
Equipment
2014
Costs
20 super dump
22 end dump
23 super dump
24 super dump
25 super dump
26 super dump
27 super dump
28 super dump
29 end dump
40 end dump
43 Tractor
70 utility trailer
75 Lowbed trailer
132 trailer
134 trailer
135 trailer
145 tilt trailer
149 trailer
115 4 axle pup
187 4 axle pup
188 4 axle pup
189 4 axle pup
202 f450 1 ton
205 f550 tack truck
225 f450 dump truck
81.47
60.72
81.47
81.47
81.47
81.47
81.47
81.47
60.72
60.72
60.72
15.94
37.44
15.94
15.94
15.94
26.57
15.94
21.25
21.25
21.25
21.25
27.07
50.00
50.00
Material
2014
Costs
1/2" PG 64 -28 50 gyro
1/2" PG 70 -28 75 gyro
1/2" PG 70 -28 100 gyro
Top Course 5/8"
$ 52.00
$ 52.50
$ 51.50
$ 6.30
* Price adjustment based on ESDOT 5- 04.4.OPT2.GR5
Overhead & Profit fee
2014
Costs
Direct costs
Subcontractors
22%
8%
Equipment
2014
Costs
247 f550 1 ton
253 water truck 220 gal
259 water truck 4000 gal
273 service truck
275 service truck
316 pickup
319 pickup
402 dd34 roller
406 dd34 roller
410 dd110 roller
413 dd110 roller
420 hahm roller
421 plate wacker
461 grade roller
512 roadtec paver
524 blawknox 5510 paver
713 cat 160 blade
718 huber
722 skiploader
926 tack trailer
930 cimline crack/joint sealer
947 20" saw
27.07
50.00
60.72
39.47
39,47
16.19
16.19
44.78
44.78
75.00
75.00
75.00
5.36
55.15
$ 185.00
$ 185.00
$ 86.53
$ 55.66
$ 50.60
$ 16.19
$ 85.00
$ 26.57
EXHIBIT B
Scope of Services — Winter Snow Operations
City of Spokane Valley — Public Works Department
General
The services will consist of snow removal and deicing application as directed by the City using City
owned equipment, materials and maintenance facility. The contractor will provide qualified operators
on a 24 hour /7 days per week on -call basis.
Equipment
The City maintenance facility is located at 17002 E. Euclid, Spokane Valley, WA.
Equipment List:
5 Single axle plow /sander trucks
1 Tandem axle plow /sander truck
3 Single axle plow /deicer trucks
1 F550 Deicer truck
1 Backhoe
All equipment used in winter snow operations will be stored and readied for use at the maintenance
facility unless otherwise directed by the City.
Staffing
The contractor will provide qualified operators for each type of equipment the City owns. The
contractor will provide a minimum of 15 operators to cover 24 hour operations if directed by the City.
The contractor shall submit the list of drivers for approval by the City. The contractor may add or
subtract drivers from the list at any time by notifying the City.
The City recommends that the operators attend the yearly pre- season meeting to be set up by City Staff
each year before plowing operations begin. Training may be required as directed by City Staff.
Call to begin work
City staff shall contact drivers directly from the driver list submitted by the contractor.
Plowing Routes
City staff shall direct all winter maintenance operations. Snow plowing priority routes and other
information is available on the City's website. The yearly snow plan and routes are subject to change at
any time by City Staff.
Cost of Work
The cost of this contract shall be in accordance with the Street and Stormwater Maintenance Contract.
Snow removal operations will be paid at the 90% rates as approved by contractor's union. The City
agrees to pay all direct costs plus an overhead and profit percentage of 22% on direct costs, and 8%
overhead and profit on subcontractors.
Training requested by the City shall be set up and paid for by the City. Each operator attending training
will be paid at the 90% Snow Removal Rates.
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: December 3, 2013
Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business
❑ information ® admin. report
Department Director Approval:
❑ new business ❑ public hearing
❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Parks & Recreation Master Plan Update
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: N/A
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: The City Council adopted the original Parks &
Recreation Plan by resolution on April 25, 2006.
BACKGROUND: The draft update of the 2006 Parks and Recreation Master Plan is complete.
This update is intended to supplement and update the 2006 plan. While it functions as a "stand-
alone" document, it cross - references and draws from that 2006 plan. Where conditions have
materially changed, however, the plan provides detailed explanations of the changes and offers
updated recommendations and implementation measures accordingly.
Public involvement is always a crucial step in comprehensive parks and recreation planning,
ensuring that the community has an effective voice in shaping the plan and that the needs
expressed in the plan and included in the implementation program accurately reflect community
desires. This updated plan includes an extensive public engagement effort, basing its
recommendations on exhaustive stakeholder interviews, a statistically valid telephone survey,
and two public meetings.
Staff will be following up the discussion from November 19 providing an overview of the draft
plan update, seeking input and comments from the City Council. Staff is anticipating bringing
the draft plan update back on December 10 for a resolution to adopt.
OPTIONS: 1) Suggest changes to the plan update, or 2) Provide additional direction to staff.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Seeking City Council consensus to bring forward a
resolution to adopt the Parks & Recreation Master Plan Update on December 10, 2013.
BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: N/A
STAFF CONTACT: Michael D. Stone, CPRP. Director of Parks and Recreation
ATTACHMENTS: Draft Park & Recreation Master Plan Update
2013 Update to the City of Spokane Valley
Parks and Recreation Master Plan
Acknowledgements
City Council
Tom Towey, Mayor
Gary Schimmels, Deputy Mayor
Dean Grafos
Chuck Hafner
Rod Higgins
Ben Wick
Arne Woodard
Executiv
Mike Jackson, City Manager
Parks and Recreation Department
Mike Stone, Director
Patty Bischoff, Administrative Assistant
Parks and Recreation Staff
Prepared By:
Studio Cascade, Inc.
MT - LA
429 E. Sprague
Spokane, WA 99202
(509) 835 -3770
www.studiocascade.com
Special thanks to all the community members who participated in the telephone survey and the
public outreach events.
Page 12
Table of Contents
Chapter 1.0: Introduction 6
1.1 Public Involvement 6
1.2 Report Organization 6
1.3 Goals, Policies and Objectives 7
Chapter 2.0: Planning Context 12
2.1 Regional Context 12
2.2 Planning Area 13
2.3 Demographic Characteristics 13
2.4 Land Use 16
2.5 Housing 16
2.6 Population Growth 17
Chapter 3.0: Existing Parks and Facilities 18
3.1 Park Land Definitions 18
3.2 Park Land Inventory 19
Chapter 4.0: Existing Operations 24
4.1 Organizational Structure 24
4.2 Staffing Levels 26
4.3 Revenues and Expenditures 27
4.4 Maintenance Operations 29
4.5 Recreation Participation 29
Chapter 5.0: Needs Assessment 30
5.1 Stakeholder Interviews 30
5.2 Household Recreation Survey 31
5.3 Public Workshop 33
5.4 Summary of Park Land Needs 36
5.5 Summary of Recreation Facility Needs 42
Page 1 3
Chapter 6.0: Recommendations 43
6.1 Park Plan Concept 43
6.2 Park Layout Plan 44
6.3 Park and Facility Recommendations 47
6.4 Trails, Pathways and Bikeways 55
6.5 Recreation Programs and Services 57
6.6 Administration and Management 59
6.7 Maintenance 61
6.8 River Access 62
Chapter 7.0: Aquatic Facilities 63
7.1 Aquatic Facility Background 63
Chapter 8.0: Implementation 65
8.1 Funding Sources 65
8.2 Capital Projects 68
8.3 Preliminary Project Priorities 70
8.4 Basis for Estimating Costs 70
8.5 Capital Costs 71
8.6 Current Funding Availability 71
8.7 Financing Strategy 71
Appendix 73
A. Telephone Survey Report
Table of Tables
Table 2 -1: Age Group by Percentage of Population 14
Table 2 -2: Income Characteristics for Selected Geographies 15
Table 2 -3: Top 5 Industry Sectors for Workers and Residents 15
Table 2 -4: Ethnic Group by Percentage of Population 15
Table 2 -5: Housing Affordability 17
Table 2 -6: Population Since Spokane Valley's Incorporation 17
Table 3 -1: Count and Acres of Park Facilities by Park Type 20
Table 3 -2: Summary of Park Facility Inventory 22
Table 4 -1: Existing and Historic Park and Recreation Staffing Levels 26
Table 4 -2: Budget Allocation 2003 -2013 27
Table 4 -3: Park and Recreation Division Budget Breakdown 28
Table 4 -4: Cost per Capita and Percent of Revenue Generated 29
Table 5 -1: Park Visits by Study Area 32
Table 5 -2: Future Park Land Demand at Adopted Level of Service 39
Table 5 -3: Proposed Acres Needed by Park Type 39
Table 5 -4: Summary of Recreation Facility Needs 42
Page 1 4
Table 7 -1: Existing Aquatic Facilities in Spokane Valley 63
Table 8 -1: Parks and Recreation Capital Project List 68
Table 8 -2: Summary of Probable Costs for Recommended Improvements 71
Table 8 -3: Funding Allocations for Parks, Years 2013 -2018 71
Table 8 -4: Summary of Funding and Expenditures 6 -year Capital Improvement Plan 72
Table of Figures
Figure 2 -A: Regional Context 12
Figure 2 -B: City of Spokane Valley Planning Area 13
Figure 3 -A: Park Inventory Map 21
Figure 4 -A: Simplified Organization Chart for the City of Spokane Valley 25
Figure 4 -B: Organization Chart for the Parks and Recreation Department 26
Figure 5 -A: Survey Study Area 31
Figure 5 -B: Results From Public Workshop 1 35
Figure 5 -C: Park Service Areas for Spokane Valley Parks 38
Figure 5 -D: Park Priority Areas as Indicated From Workshop 2 41
Figure 6 -A: 2013 Proposed Park Layout Plan 46
Page 1 5
Chapter 1.0: Introduction
This plan update is intended to supplement the 2006 City of Spokane Valley Parks and
Recreation Plan, reflecting changes in the community since that plan's adoption. The
update is structured in a manner similar to the original plan, facilitating reference between
the old and new. Chapter topics and section numbering all match, with only those sections
requiring amendment included in this update.
Since adopting the 2006 plan, the City of Spokane Valley has continued to focus on its core
beliefs and values. This focus has resulted in the implementation of several projects
identified in the 2006 plan as well as other community improvements. The planning
context for this update is a bit different than when the 2006 plan was prepared, reflecting
shifts in community priorities.
1.1 Public Involvement
Public involvement is a crucial step in comprehensive parks and recreation planning,
ensuring that the community has an effective voice in shaping the plan and that the needs
expressed in the plan and included in the implementation program accurately reflect
community desires. The 2006 plan included an extensive public engagement effort, and
this update does as well, basing its recommendations on exhaustive stakeholder
interviews, a statistically valid telephone survey, and two public meetings.
In addition, this plan's methodology was configured to link public facility improvements to
public demand at the neighborhood level. By developing a geographic information systems
(GIS) model, this process is able to localize demand and facility improvements to serve
individual neighborhoods based on survey responses. This adds another dimension to the
public involvement component, tying public responses directly to neighborhood -level
improvements.
1.2 Report Organization
This parks and recreation plan update is intended to supplement and update the 2006 plan.
While it functions as a "stand- alone" document, it cross - references and draws from that
2006 plan. This update includes by reference those portions of the 2006 plan that still
apply. Where conditions have materially changed, however, this plan provides detailed
explanations of the changes and offers updated recommendations and implementation
measures accordingly.
The update's structure mirrors the 2006 plan, with chapters and sections as in the original
document. It is configured this way to aid in cross - referencing and to ensure continued
compliance with the Recreation and Conservation Office's (RCO) planning guidelines.
Chapter 1 - Introduction
Chapter 2 - Planning Context
Chapter 3 - Existing Parks Facilities
Page 16
Chapter 4 - Existing Operations
Chapter 5 - Needs Assessment
Chapter 6 - Recommendations
Chapter 7 - Aquatic Facilities
Chapter 8 - Implementation
1.3 Goals, Policies and Objectives
Spokane Valley's parks and recreation goals, policies and objectives remain relatively
unchanged from the 2006 plan. However, there are some modifications worth noting,
particularly regarding the priority attached to land acquisition and developing parks
facilities to accommodate needs of user groups such as skateboarders, off -leash pet park
users, disc golf course, sand court volleyball to name a few. Other modifications to the
goals, policies and objectives reflect the City's changing comprehensive planning
environment since the 2006 plan's adoption.
The goals are statements about Spokane Valley's desired future. These goals are supported
by policies that guide plan implementation and objectives that provide realistic, achievable,
and measurable steps toward reaching the goals. Together, the goals, policies, and
objectives can be used to help measure the plan's success.
Goal 1: To develop a balanced, diverse, and accessible park and recreation system
that meets the specific needs of the residents of Spokane Valley.
Policy 1 -A: The City of Spokane Valley will endeavor to provide park land and recreation
facilities equitably throughout the city at conveniently located and easily
accessible sites.
Objective 1 -A (1): Prioritize the acquisition and development of parks and recreation
facilities that contribute to community identity and community
pride in Spokane Valley.
Objective 1 -A (2): Consider all options, including partnerships and collaborations, to
acquire and develop neighborhood parks and community parks in
unserved or underserved areas, as identified in the Recreation
Needs Assessment.
Objective 1 -A (3): Establish and regularly update a comprehensive inventory of
existing parks and recreation resources.
Objective 1 -A (4): Develop a park and open space acquisition program to take
advantage of present opportunities to meet future needs.
Policy 1 -B: The City of Spokane Valley will attempt to provide equitable and diverse
recreation opportunities and activities for the benefit of Spokane Valley
residents and visitors to our community.
Objective 1 -B (1): In the near term, offer a limited recreation program that builds
public interest and support.
Page 17
Objective 1 -B (2): In the long term, offer comprehensive program services to all ages,
abilities, and economic and cultural backgrounds.
Objective 1 -B (3): Adapt programming to meet community needs and desires as
identified through community questionnaires, focus group
meetings, and public meeting processes.
Objective 1 -B (4): Periodically and systematically monitor, evaluate, and revise
existing programs and services to ensure quality programming.
Objective 1 -B (5): Identify anticipated service areas (neighborhood, community, city-
wide, regional) for future parks and recreation programs to
equitably serve all users.
Objective 1 -B (6): Maximize the use of existing facilities and programs to support local
needs, while encouraging tourism and regional use.
Policy 1 -C: The City of Spokane Valley will work to provide facility types to address
changing parks and recreation demands.
Policy 1 -D: The City will periodically evaluate future need and locations for park land,
acquiring land as opportunity arises and necessity indicates.
Objective 1 -D (1): Match increase in park land inventory with expected population
increases.
Objective 1 -D (2): Locate park land within convenient access of neighborhoods.
Goal 2: To maintain and manage the appropriate social, cultural, physical, and
natural resources required to maintain and improve the quality of life in
Spokane Valley.
Policy 2 -A: The City of Spokane Valley will strive to design and maintain parks and
recreation amenities and facilities in a safe, attractive manner, to contribute to
the health, safety, and welfare of the community.
Objective 2 -A (1): Adopt and utilize Design Guidelines for site selection and
development in the acquisition and /or development of parks
within each park classification.
Objective 2 -A (2): Prioritize the renovation and upgrade of existing facilities to
improve site safety and encourage facility use.
Objective 2 -A (3): Periodically assess the condition of park amenities and facilities.
Objective 2 -A (4): Establish a program and budget for addressing deferred
maintenance.
Objective 2 -A (5): Embrace environmentally sound practices as natural resource
stewards.
Policy 2 -B: The City of Spokane Valley will work to define and standardize maintenance
procedures for park land.
Page 18
Objective 2 -B (1): Establish minimum maintenance standards for the park system and
establish a goal for minimum maintenance cost per acre.
Objective 2 -B (2): Explore creative and cost - effective ways of providing high - quality
facility management and maintenance.
Policy 2 -C: The City of Spokane Valley will seek to acquire park land with unique natural
features or significant natural resources in order to protect or preserve them
for present and future generations.
Objective 2 -C (1): Seek to acquire riparian corridors where feasible to protect these
natural resources and to offer potential sites for trail development.
Objective 2 -C (2): Develop effective natural resource management plans for
significant natural areas within parks and other City -owned or
controlled lands to identify management priorities and to guide
development and restoration decisions.
Objective 2 -C (3): Directly and /or cooperatively acquire and protect land within the
flood zone of the Spokane River and other drainage corridors. Plan
parks and recreation facilities and public access to these areas
where appropriate.
Objective 2 -C (4): Prioritize critical natural resource areas within Spokane Valley,
including wetland areas, fish and wildlife habitat areas,
floodways /floodplains, and geologic hazard areas.
Goal 3: To coordinate parks and recreation planning, services, and development to
provide the highest level of service in a cost - efficient and fiscally responsible
way.
Policy 3 -A: Generally, the City will not duplicate service nor compete with private
organizations in the delivery of parks and recreation services, unless other
service providers are not meeting the unique and specific needs of Spokane
Valley residents.
Policy 3 -B: The City of Spokane Valley will continue to foster cooperative development of
parks and recreation resources and the provision of services through private
and public collaborations.
Objective 3 -B (1): Work closely with the City Manager, City Council, and other City
departments to achieve mutually beneficial objectives.
Objective 3 -B (2): Work in cooperation with governmental agencies, educational
institutions, private and regional recreation organizations, and
citizen interest groups to maximize the provision of parks and
services.
Objective 3 -B (3): Pursue partnerships as a key means for leveraging resources to
meet community needs for park land, sports facilities, and services,
while minimizing duplications of effort.
Page 19
Goal 4: Spokane Valley will continue efforts to provide an efficient level of parks and
recreation services based on current financial resources and the ability of
residents to pay for those services
Policy 4 -A: The City of Spokane Valley will strive to provide facilities, programs, and
qualified personnel in a fiscally responsible and cost effective manner.
Objective 4 -A (1): Pursue cost sharing and cost recovery mechanisms where
appropriate.
Objective 4 -A (2): Weigh the costs and benefits of Departmental services and facilities
to assist in decision - making regarding programming and facility
development.
Objective 4 -A (3): Establish equitable fee structures for facilities and programs to help
ensure the long -term maintenance and operation of facilities while
ensuring affordability.
Objective 4 -A (4): Establish more revenue - generating programs to increase program
funding and to help fund or subsidize other programs and services.
Objective 4 -A (5): Offer programs at a range of costs (free, low -cost, full price) and
implement other strategies to ensure program affordability, while
meeting city financial goals.
Objective 4 -A (6): Explore new program offerings without expecting them to be self -
supporting.
Policy 4 -B: The City of Spokane Valley will strive to provide the highest level of service
possible within identified budget parameters.
Policy 4 -C: The City of Spokane Valley will periodically update and revise the Master Plan to
meet changing fiscal conditions.
Objective 4 -C (1): Identify funding options for all proposed projects.
Objective 4 -C (2): Make fiscally reasonable recommendations for the development of
facilities and services that reflect community desires and needs.
Policy 4 -D: Encourage the acquisition, maintenance, and preservation of public art that
inspires and enriches citizens of Spokane Valley.
Objective 4 -D (1): Identify public art opportunities that highlight the cultural and
historical connections of Spokane Valley through local history,
environmental systems and visual symbols.
Objective 4 -D (2): Reflect community identify using public art to create unique
community places, define or re- define public spaces, or suggest
experiences that evoke a strong sense of orientation.
Objective 4 -D (3): Use public art to create visible landmarks and artistic points of
reference. These projects should serve as a source of community
pride and reinforce and further define community identify.
Page 110
Objective 4 -D (4): Encourage public art in private development by providing
incentives to include works of art in private development.
Objective 4 -D (5): Utilize public art in Spokane Valley to attract visitors to the City.
Page 111
Chapter 2.0: Planning Context
This chapter provides a profile of Spokane Valley, Washington, in the planning context of
parks, recreation facilities, and programs. This profile includes a description of the region,
planning area and subareas, natural resources, climate, demographics, land use, housing,
and population projections.
Key Findings
The following key findings emerged from an evaluation of the planning context:
• Several natural resource areas in Spokane Valley are important for recreation.
These lands may be environmentally sensitive and have limited development
potential, but they are often conducive to park, open space, and recreation uses. The
most notable natural resource in the city is the Spokane River and its adjoining
riparian corridor and flood zone.
• Spokane Valley has a four - season climate that supports diverse recreation
opportunities year- round. Indoor and outdoor facilities should be considered to
take advantage of this climate.
• Spokane Valley is the tenth largest city in Washington and the second largest in
Spokane County, with an estimated 2012 population of 90,550.
• Demographic characteristics often provide insights regarding recreation demand,
interests, and participation. Since Spokane Valley was incorporated in 2003, there is
no specific historical data to illustrate demographic variations. However, population
characteristics for the area can be derived
from regional population statistics.
• Based on the assumptions developed in
Spokane Valley's Comprehensive Plan, the
build -out population (year 2033) is expected
to reach over 105,668 people within the
current city limits.
2.1 Regional Context
The City of Spokane Valley is located near the eastern
border of the State of Washington in an inland valley
that stretches from the west plains in Eastern
Washington, eastward through Spokane and Spokane
Valley to Post Falls and Coeur d'Alene, Idaho.
Spokane Valley is located in the heart of Spokane
County. In general, the City is bordered on the west
by the City of Spokane and on the east by
unincorporated Spokane County, with the newly
formed City of Liberty Lake nearby. The City is
located approximately 15 miles west of the Idaho
CANADA
UNITED
City of Spokane Valley
Gry al Spokare
Figure 2 -A: Regional Coiiexi
Page 112
border and 110 miles south of the Canadian border. Figure 2 -A illustrates this regional
context.
2.2 Planning Area
The planning area for the Spokane Valley Parks and Recreation Plan includes land within
the city limits plus land within the City's urban growth area (UGA) (Figure 2 -B). The City of
Spokane Valley encompasses roughly 38.5 square miles (24,640 acres) and generally
follows the boundaries described below:
• North: the City is bounded by the Town of Millwood, the Spokane River, and
Swanson Avenue /Foster Road.
• East: Spokane Valley is bordered by Hodges Road, with the City of Liberty Lake
nearby.
• South: the City has an irregular boundary on the south but generally following a
north - easterly direction from south of 32nd Avenue in the vicinity of Ponderosa and
Painted Hills area to 8th Avenue near the Liberty Lake City boundary.
• West: Havana Street is the primary divider on the western side of the City.
Figure 2 -B: City of Spokane Valley Planning Area
2.3 Demographic Characteristics
Demographic characteristics often provide insight assessing recreation needs. Spokane
Valley residents are the people who will use Spokane Valley parks and recreation facilities
most often; as such, the residents of Spokane Valley serve as the foundation for parks and
Page 113
facility demands. Factors such as age and income significantly affect the level of
participation and overall interest in recreational activities. Employment, education, and
ethnicity also play a role.
Age is an important factor in outdoor recreation. Generally as people age, their
participation in outdoor activities declines, with the highest participation rates occurring in
children. In general, the older the person, the less they participate in active and /or
competitive recreation activities. Children and young adults tend to favor active and /or
competitive recreation activities; these activities include basketball, baseball, soccer, and
swimming. Emerging trends have been toward non - competitive extreme sports, including
skateboarding, in -line skating, mountain biking and rock climbing. Older adults tend to
have a more passive interest in recreation programs and participate in parent /child
activities or spend time as a spectator at youth events.
As of 2010, Spokane Valley had an estimated population of 89,755. More than one - quarter
(26.6 percent) of Spokane Valley's population is under the age of 20 and 26 percent are 55
or older. While the under 20 population is generally in line with similarly sized cities, the
over 55 population is higher than comparable cities, which may indicate participation rates
are lower than comparable cities in Washington. Table 2 -1 compares similarly sized cities
with Spokane Valley across four broad age groups: less than 20 years of age, between ages
20 -34, between ages 35 -54, and over age 55.
Table 2 -1: Age Group by r-- - - - - -` ge of Population
Total
Population
Percent 20 and Percent 20 -34 Percent 35 -54 Percent 55
younger and older
Yakima
Kennewick
Federal Way
91,067
73,917
89,306
31.4
31
28.4
21.7
22.2
21.7
23.8
25.1
28.4
23.2
21.7
21.5
Spokane
Valley
89,755
26.6 20.7
26.7 26.2
Renton
Everett
Bellingham
90,927
103,019
80,885
25.4
25.4
21.9
24.2
25.4
32.5
29.9
28.3
21.4
20.5
20.8
24.0
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census (totals may not equal 100 due to rounding)
Income levels also reveal important recreational participation characteristics. In general,
the higher income groups tend to participate in outdoor recreation. Higher incomes also
tend to participate in more expensive types of recreation. Lower income groups may rely
on subsidized programs or free facilities, such as play areas, trails, and non - scheduled
sports fields. Table 2 -2 compares median (the middle) and mean (the average) incomes for
both households and families. Households include all people occupying a housing unit;
whereas, families consist of a householder and one or more people who are related by
birth, marriage, or adoption; thus there are more households than families.
Page 114
Table 2 -2: Income Characti
phies
Median HH Mean HH Median Family Mean Family
Income Income Income Income
Renton
Bellingham
Federal Way
Kennewick
Spokane Valley
Everett
Yakima
62,800
42,892
51,687
51,730
46,209
46,257
36,873
77,317
59,224
67,104
60,174
53,310
61,985
49,570
69,077
67,595
64,911
57,691
55,076
50,798
45,073
85,906
79,982
75,931
67,559
62,236
69,439
56,948
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011 American Community Survey
There are 39,426 employed residents and 49,060 jobs in the City of Spokane Valley, close to
12,000 of the 49,060 jobs are held by people living within the City of Spokane Valley. This
means that close to 27,000 Spokane Valley residents work outside the City and there are
more jobs in the City than there are employees.
An analysis of employment in the City of Spokane Valley reveals the largest class of
employment is "Retail Trade" followed by "Manufacturing." However, the largest class of
employment for residents is "Health Care and Social Services" followed by "Retail Trade."
Table 2 -3 compares the top five industry sectors for workers (jobs in the City) to the top
five industry sectors for residents (jobs held by residents).
Table 2 -3: To. 5 Industr Secto ,. an
Top 5 Industry Sectors for Workers Top 5 Industry Sectors for Residents
Retail Trade
Manufacturing
Health Care and Social Services
Accommodation and Food Service
Administration and Support, Waste
Management
22.3% Health Care and Social Services
14.8% Retail Trade
14.5% Manufacturing
7.6% Education Services
7.4% Accommodation and Food Service
16.7%
14.5%
9.3%
8.4%
8.4%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, OnTheMap Application and LEHD Origin- Destination Employment Statistics
(Beginning of Quarter Employment, 2nd Quarter of 2002 - 2010).
Ethnicity also influences participation rates in outdoor recreation. Participation in outdoor
activities is significantly higher among Caucasians than any other ethnicity. Of those that
identify with one race in Spokane Valley, over 90 percent identified themselves as White;
1 percent as Black or African American; 1 percent as American Indian and Alaska Native;
and almost 2 percent as Asian, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander. Five percent
identified themselves as Hispanic; people of Hispanic origin may be of any race. Table 2 -4
compares different ethnicities as a percentage of population.
Table 2 -4: Ethnic Group by Percentage of Population
White
Black or American Asian Hispanic
African Indian and
American Alaska Native
Bellingham
Everett
84.9
1.3
1.3
5.1
7
74.6
4.1
1.4
7.8
14.2
Page 115
Federal Way 57.5 9.7 0.9 14.2 16.2
Kennewick 78.5 1.7 0.8 2.4 24.2
Renton 54.6 10.6 0.7 21.2 13.1
Spokane 90.9 1.1 1.2 1.7 4.6
Valley
Yakima 67.1 1.7 2 1.5 41.3
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census (totals may not equal 100 due to rounding)
2.4 Land Use
Land use plays an important role in the location, distribution, and availability of park and
recreational facilities; for example, residential areas need nearby parks to serve the people
who live in each neighborhood. Generally, the denser the neighborhood the more park land
is needed. Industrial areas may need open space or natural area buffers and parks for
employee use during the day but less formal park space. Commercial areas are more likely
to require plazas and small areas for passive recreation.
Based on geographic information supplied by the City, the total land area, excluding right -
of -way, of the City of Spokane Valley is 20,086 acres. The majority of Spokane Valley is
zoned for residential use (62.34 percent) followed by industrial use (20.25 percent) and
finally mixed - use /commercial (15.27 percent). Since most of the developed land in the City
is classified residential, the proximity and location of parks and support facilities within
neighborhoods are important criteria to consider for park planning.
The challenge in developing a comprehensive park system in Spokane Valley is the lack of
totally vacant land. There are many partially developed sites (e.g., a house on a 1 -5 acre
lot), but few vacant parcels of eight acres or more in size. This land use pattern makes it
difficult to acquire larger sized parcels for park use.
2.5 Housing
In 2010, Spokane Valley had a total of 38,915 housing units, 4.8 percent of which were
vacant. Of the total housing units, 67 percent were single -unit structures, 25 percent were
in multi -unit structures, and 8 percent were mobile homes. Twenty -nine percent of the
housing units were built since 1990. Park service areas have a direct correlation to density;
the more dense the development, the smaller the service area because the number of
people potentially being served by a park increases. The City of Spokane Valley's parks will
generally have a larger service area because the majority of residential development is
lower density.
Of the 37,045 occupied housing units, nearly 63 percent are owner occupied. The average
household size for owner - occupied unit is 2.38 and the average size of a renter occupied
unit is 2.5. Just over 82 percent of occupied housing units were moved into since 1990 and
the median price of a home is $180,400.
An important consideration for recreation participation is the percentage of household
income used to pay monthly costs: mortgage, real estate taxes, insurances, utilities, and
homeowner association fees. Knowing the percentage of monthly costs to income provides
Page 116
an indicator of housing affordability. In general, the more affordable a home, the more
income can be used for recreation. Government agencies generally define excessive costs as
those that exceed 30 percent of household income. Table 2 -5 provides a summary of
ownership and renter costs as a percentage of household income:
Table 2 -5: Housing Affordability
Selected Monthly Owner Cost as Gross Rent as a Percentage of
Percentage of Household Income Household Income
Estimate Percent Estimate Percent
Less than 20.0
percent
4,319
27.60
2,230
16.7
20.0 to 24.9 percent 2,265
25.0 to 29.9 percent 3,634
30.0 to 34.9 percent 1,771
35.0 percent or more 3,642
Total 15,631
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011 American Community Survey
14.50
23.20
11.30
23.30
2,365
1,129
1,018
6,639
13,444
17.60
8.40
7.60
49.80
2.6 Population Growth
The Washington State Office of Financial Management (OFM) forecasts population growth for all
cities and counties in the state. OFM's April 1, 2013 estimate for the City of Spokane Valley
is 91,490. According to the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan, the projected 2033
population for Spokane Valley is 105,668. On June 9, 2009, the Board of County
Commissioners approved via Resolution 09 -0531 a population allocation of 18,746 for
Spokane Valley planning purposes. The City's Land Capacity Analysis estimated a
population capacity of 16,493 leaving 2,253 people to be accommodated outside the City.
Table 2 -6 below shows the population estimate, population change and percent change
since the City's incorporation.
r]
Year
Estimate
Population Change Percent Change
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
82,985
83,436
84,465
86,601
87,894
88,513
88,969
89,755
90,110
90,550
91,490
x
451
1,029
2,136
1,293
619
456
786
355
440
940
x
0.54%
1.23%
2.53%
1.49%
0.70%
0.52%
0.88%
0.40%
0.49%
1.04%
Sources: Intercensal Estimates of April 1 Population and Housing, Washington State OFM
Page I 17
Chapter 3.0: Existing Parks and Facilities
Understanding the parks and recreation facilities inventory at the planning period's outset
is critical. The City of Spokane Valley is one of the primary providers of park and
recreational facilities in the City. Other public and private providers also contribute parks
and open space in the area. Three school districts (West Valley, Central Valley, and East
Valley) provide a variety of athletic facilities that contribute to the diversity of facilities
available in the City.
This chapter summarizes the proposed park classification system, along with key findings
regarding existing parks, open space, and recreation facilities. A complete inventory of park
land and recreation facilities in the Spokane Valley Planning Area was completed for this
process and is available from the Park and Recreation Department.
3.1 Park Land Definitions
In order to address specific planning needs for park, open space, and recreational areas,
park classifications have been proposed. Each park class provides a distinct type of
recreational opportunity. The ideal community park system is made up of several different
types or classifications of parks. The classification system proposed for Spokane Valley is as
follows:
• Neighborhood Parks: Neighborhood parks are designed primarily for non -
supervised, non - organized recreation activities. They are generally small in size
(about 3 -7 acres) and serve people living within approximately one -half mile of the
park. Since these parks are located within walking and bicycling distance of most
users, the activities they offer serve the entire neighborhood, including children.
Typical facilities found in a neighborhood park include: playgrounds, picnic areas,
trails, open grass areas for passive use, outdoor basketball courts, restrooms, picnic
shelters, and multi -use open grass areas for practice field sports.
• Community Parks: A community park is planned primarily to provide active and
structured recreation opportunities for young people and adults. Community park
facilities are designed for organized activities and sports, although individual and
family activities are also encouraged. Community parks can also provide indoor
facilities to meet a wider range of recreation interests. Community parks serve a
much larger area and offer more facilities. As a result, they require more support
facilities, such as parking, restrooms, and covered play areas. Community parks
usually have sport fields or similar facilities as the central focus of the park, and
range in size from about 10 to 30 acres. Their service area has roughly a 1 -2 mile
radius.
• Large Urban Parks: Large urban parks are parks designed to serve the entire
community. Generally, they provide a wide variety of specialized facilities, such as
Page 118
sports fields, indoor recreation areas, and large picnic areas. Due to their size and
facilities offered, they require more in terms of support facilities, such as parking,
restrooms, and play areas. Large urban parks usually exceed 40 acres in size and
should be designed to accommodate large numbers of people.
• Regional Parks: Regional parks are large recreation areas designed to serve an
entire region beyond the city limits. Often they are acquired to provide a specific
and sometimes unique recreation opportunity.
• Special Use Areas: Special use areas are sites often occupied by a specialized
recreation facility and can be a component of a park. Some uses that fall into this
category include waterfront parks, boat ramps, botanical gardens, community
gardens, single purpose sites used for a particular field sport, or sites occupied by
recreation buildings.
• Linear Parks: Linear parks are developed landscaped areas and other lands that
follow linear corridors such as rivers, creeks, abandoned railroad rights -of -way,
canals, power lines, and other elongated features. This type of park usually contains
trails, landscaped areas, viewpoints, and seating areas.
• Natural Open Space: Natural open space is defined as undeveloped land primarily
left in its natural form with recreation uses as a secondary objective. It is usually
owned or managed by a governmental agency and may or may not have public
access. This type of land may include wetlands, steep hillsides, or other similar
spaces. In some cases, environmentally sensitive areas are considered open space
and can include wildlife habitats, stream and creek corridors, or unique and /or
endangered plant species.
• Undeveloped Land: This land is undeveloped and has not yet been designated for a
specific park use.
3.2 Park Land Inventory
The City of Spokane Valley is joined by the State of Washington and Spokane County in
providing park land in the planning area. This section summarizes the park, open space,
and recreation areas provided by these entities. The park plan recognizes that there are
several park and open space sites located just outside the Urban Growth Area, such as the
Dishman Hills Natural Areas, and Iller Creek and Saltese Uplands Conservation Areas,
which provide nearby recreational opportunities for area residents.
In the fall of 2012, an assessment of the City's park facilities was completed based on a tour
of the individual park and conversations with Park staff. Table 3 -2, below, provides an at a
glance summary of Spokane Valley's park inventory. The table identifies the parks by type
and lists the facilities available at each park. This section provides an overview of the
existing inventory and summary of conditions in Spokane Valley Parks.
Page 119
3.2.1 Key Findings
• The parks system managed by Spokane Valley consists of active and passive
recreational areas. There are six neighborhood parks, two community parks, one
large urban park, three special use areas, two trails /linear parks, one natural area,
and two undeveloped sites in the parks system (see Table 3 -1). In total, there are
approximately 180.3 acres of park land.
• The City owns and operates three seasonal outdoor pools: Terrace View Pool, Park
Road Pool, and Valley Mission Pool. The City contracts with the Valley YMCA to
operate and maintain the pools. The pools were renovated in 2008 -2009.
• There are a number of County and State parks sites that either border the City or are
nearby. These nearby recreation resources are noted, and should be recognized as
contributing to the open space character of the community.
• In terms of overall design and site utilization, most of the parks provide a balance
between active use areas and general open space. However, several of the sites are
undeveloped and one (Castle Park) is only minimally developed.
• Accessibility and the lack of ADA access needs to be addressed where appropriate
for parks. The City should continue its efforts to provide sidewalks to park amenities
from parking areas, and providing accessible routes, ramps, or transfer stations
to /in playgrounds.
• Some play equipment and park furniture is reaching an age requiring specific
maintenance, replacement of wood components or the replacement of the structure.
Use of wood components on play structures, benches and safety surfacing
containment borders requires an annual commitment for review, maintenance and
replacement when necessary.
Table 3 -1: Count and Acres of Park Facilities by Park Type
Park Type Count Acres Current Ratio
(Acres per 1,000 People)
Community Park
Large Urban Park
Natural Area
Neighborhood Park
Special Use Area
Undeveloped Park
Grand Total
2
1
1
6
3
2
15
40.1
42.0
31.1
35.9
15.6
15.6
180.3*
0.44
0.44
0.34
0.40
0.19
0.17
1.99
* Total does not include Appleway Trail or Centennial Trail
Figure 3 -A indicates the current parks and recreational facilities inventory. Table 3 -2:
Summary of Park Facility Inventory lists these locations and the types of facilities and
services offered at each.
Page 120
Figure 3 -A: Park Inventory Map
Spokane Valley Parks
w City Limits 1 1 Other Parks
=Other Cities IIE DNR r
OCity of Spokane Valley Other Government Property
N=Spokane Valley Parks School Property
I
1 in = 1 miles
Miles N
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Source data as provided by the City of Spokane Valley, subject to revision
Page 121
Table 3 -2: Summary of Park Facility
Inventory
Nei • hborhood Park
N
',
q
-
a
CG
'�
.)
'ry
^'
o
LI
C.
cu ''
y
'� ''
(/7
O .�
R. c
g "
"d'
E 0L∎
"'
a
a'
7
O
y
i
tO
'
›.,
??
O 7
o u
(n
U
—
Id
Kati
c
co
sue.
-
7
m
w
'O
CO
a
a
-
u,
H
al
s,
a.
La'
p
C
a"ii
s,
Q'
g
.
m
m.
05
',.
—
9,
3
c
o.
s,.
iC
"
Z
E
�,
N 0,
\ E
-=
o
C
—
u
2
o
-°o
0
Lo
ay
=
t
-
^.
w
c
IN
a
g
w
s.
o
82.8 acres Park
....
Y
.
1
.
1
Y
1
14
......
Browns Park
8.2 acres
.
1
1
y.
4
1
1
Y
1
81
......
Castle Park
2.7 acres
....
Y
.....■.
Y
......
7eciff Park
4.7
4.7 accres
.
1
1.
Y
2.
1
1
1
Y
1
40
......
Greenacres Park
8.3 acres
2
S
Y
...
Y
2
Y
1
29
Y
.....One
Large and one small
shelter
Terrace View Park
9.2 acres
1
1
P
Y
1
1
1
Y
1
118
......
Pool, bathhouse,
horseshoe sit
Communi Parks
---_------_-_--
----
Sullivan Park
16.1 acres
....
Y
....
3
Y
1
151.
Y
.
Y
Gazebo, radio control car
area
Valley Mission Park 8z Pool
24 acres
1
1
P
Y
2
1
1
1
Y
2
341
.....
y
Pool, restroom,
e.uestrian arena
Lar • e Urban Parks
Mirabeau Point Park
(42.0 acres)
• Discovery Playground
• Mirabeau Meadows
• Mirabeau S • rin • s
S
Y
Y
4
Y
1
93
Y
Y
Y
2
Waterfall with pond,
dock, and viewing
platform
Stage
Trailhead
S 1 ecial Use Facilities
Place
13.6 acres
13.6
..........■
Y
410
...
1
..
54,000 sq. ft. multi use
buildin•
Park Road Pool
2.0 acres
...
P
......■
Y
101
......
Pool, bathhouse
Western Sullivan Parke Hall
..........■
Y
.......
Page 122
Baseball Fields
Softball Fields
Soccer Field
Open Play Areas
Tennis Courts
Playground Areas
Shelter Buildings
Picnic Areas
Restrooms
Parking Areas
Indoor Facilities
Art Installation
Equestrian Facility
Trails and Linear Parks
Centennial Trail
Appleway Trail (4.25 linear
miles)
Mural Open Space Areas
Myrtle Point Park
(31.1 acres)
Undeveloped Lands
Valley Mission Park South
(7.2 acres)
Balfour Park Extension
(8.4 acres)
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Centennial Trail Access,
Parking
Page 123
Chapter 4.0: Existing Operations
This chapter reviews the existing operations and management of the Spokane Valley Parks
and Recreation Department. The review includes an analysis of the Department's
organizational structure, staffing levels, and operations, including the operating budget,
revenue and expenditures, and maintenance costs. The chapter also discusses current
program participation.
Key Findings
The following key findings emerged from the analysis of parks and recreation operations
and management.
• The Parks and Recreation Department is composed of six divisions: Administration,
Park Maintenance, Recreation, Aquatics, Senior Center, and CenterPlace.
• As of 2013, the City budgeted for nine full -time positions: two in Administration,
one in Recreation, none in Aquatics (contracts with the private sector for aquatics),
none in Park Maintenance (contracts with private sector for maintenance), one in
Senior Center, and five in CenterPlace.
• In 2013, parks and recreation services accounted for 4% of the City's General Fund.
• The ratio of cost to revenue for parks and recreation services in Spokane Valley is
22 %.
• Spokane Valley annually spends approximately $5,905 per acre of developed park
land for maintenance.
Little in the way of Spokane Valley's parks operations has changed since the 2006 plan.
The department's organizational structure remains the same, as does its approach to
operating recreation programs and system maintenance.
4.1 Organizational Structure
The organizational structure of the Parks and Recreation Department, along with its
position within the government of the City of Spokane Valley, affects the management and
provision of parks and recreation services.
4.1.1 City Structure
In Spokane Valley, there are six separate departments that provide municipal services to
Spokane Valley residents: Executive and Legislative Support, Community Development,
Police, Public Works, Operations and Administration, and Parks and Recreation. Each of
these departments reports to the City Manager who in turn transmits information to the
Mayor and City Council and ultimately the citizens of the community. Currently, several
City services are contracted out to private businesses or agencies. These include street
maintenance, park maintenance, and aquatic operations. Figure 4 -A shows the
organizational structure of the City of Spokane Valley.
Page 124
Executive and
Legislative
Community
Development
Citizens of
Spokane Valley
City Council
City Manager
Public Works
Operations and
Administration
Figure 4 -A: Simplified Organization Chart for the City of Spokane Valley
Parks and
Recreation
Police
4.1.2 Parks and Recreation Department
Within the Parks and Recreation Department there are six primary areas of responsibility:
Park Administration, Park Maintenance, Recreation, Aquatics, Senior Center, and
CenterPlace. Each of these areas is managed and /or supervised by the Parks and
Recreation Director. Figure 4 -B shows the organization of the Parks and Recreation
Department.
• Park Administration: The Park Administration division is responsible for
implementing the City Council's goals and objectives for providing parks and
recreation services.
• Park Maintenance: This division is primarily responsible for monitoring the general
upkeep of parks and public areas throughout the City, consistent with the goals and
objectives set forth by the City Council. Currently, park maintenance services are
contracted with a private operator.
• Recreation: The Recreation Division is responsible for developing, coordinating and
facilitating the delivery of recreation services and programs within the City.
Currently, programs include a summer day camp, summer park program, youth
programming, preschool programming, adult dance classes, and limited special
events.
• Aquatics: This division is responsible for the operation and maintenance of the
City's three outdoor swimming pools. The City of Spokane Valley has contracted
with a private provider to operate and maintain the three pools since 2005.
Page 125
• Senior Center: The Senior Center Division is responsible for coordinating services at
the Spokane Valley Senior Center. The Senior Center programs and services were
moved from its original building to CenterPlace.
• CenterPlace: This division is responsible for the operation and management of
CenterPlace Regional Event Center.
Parks & Recreation
Director
Administative
Assistant
1 1
Park Maintenance
(Contract)
ecreation Divisio
Recreation
Coordinator
J
Aquatics Division
Senior Center
Division
Senior Center
Specialist
Figure 4 -B: Organization Chart for the Parks and Recreation Department
CenterPlace
Division
Customer Relations/
acilities Coordinato
Office Assistant I
Facilities Worker
Administrative
Assistant
Facilities Worker
4.2 Staffing Levels
In order to meet the demand for parks and recreation services, the City has budgeted for a
staff of nine full -time positions. Table 4 -1 below shows the number of employees (full -time
equivalents) since the City's incorporation in 2003.
Table 4 -1: Existing and Historic Park and Recreation Staffing Levels
Fiscal Year Total City (FTE)
Parks and Recreation Percentage of Park and
Department (FTE) Recreation FTE to Total
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
44.90
46.95
60.00
61.80
71.15
89.15
93.75
93.75
86.25
87.25
85.25
4.0
5.0
7.0
7.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
8.9%
10.6%
11.7%
11.3%
12.6%
10.0%
9.6%
9.6%
10.4%
10.3%
10.6%
Page 126
The table above illustrates a low ratio of employees for parks and recreation services. This
is primarily attributed to the lack of a developed recreation program and the fact that the
City contracts out park maintenance and aquatics operations.
Based on the 2013 adopted budget, the ratio of park and recreation FTEs to population is
one employee per 10,061 population. This is down slightly from 2007 where there was one
parks and recreation employee per 7,990 population.
In communities with an extensive park system and an established recreation program, it is
common to see a ratio of one parks and recreation employee to population in the 5,000-
7,000 range. However, the City of Spokane Valley continues its conservative approach to
adding staff while maintaining levels of service. Spokane Valley continues to have the
lowest employee count of any Washington city with a population of more than 50,000.
4.3 Revenues and Expenditures
Table 4 -2 shows the City's General Fund budget and the budget for parks and recreation
services. Generally, the parks and recreation budget has kept pace with the City budget as a
percentage of General Fund expenditures. It is expected that the parks and recreation
budget will continue to keep pace with General Fund expenditures.
Table 4 -2: Budget Allocation 2003 -2013
Year
City General Fund Parks and Recreation Percentage
Expenditures Budget of total (1)
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
(1) Percentage Based on Department Budget
1
13,892,900
25,804,125
27,187,186
29,885,641
31,549,504
32,705,058
49,288,955
54,540,850
36,925,086
35,196,500
42,967,741
921,770
1,601,780
1,932,186
1,862,966
2,086,186
2,644,420
2,812,040
2,926,033
2,813,412
2,915,206
2,655,343
6.6
6.2
7.1
6.2
6.6
8.1
5.7
5.4
7.6
8.3
6.2
..3.1 Departmental Expenditures
Table 4 -3 illustrates Departmental expenditures for each Division. In 2012 and 2013,
CenterPlace received close to a third of the Parks and Recreation budget. The expenditures
for Park Maintenance in 2012 reflect the construction of Greenacres Park. The various
budget allocations for the divisions appear to receive appropriate amount relative to
overall allocation of resources.
Page X27
Table 4 -3: Parks and Rer--
3reakdown
Division
2012 Percent 2013 Percent
Expenditures of Total Expenditures of Total
Park
Administration
Park Maintenance
Recreation
Aquatics
Senior Center
CenterPlace
Total
258,923
9%
270,717
10%
757,313
206,895
439,296
86,197
1,110,937
2,859,561
26%
7%
15%
3%
38%
789,000
224,999
485,600
88,143
796,884
2,655,343
29%
8%
18%
3%
32%
4.3.2 Department Revenues
Aside from local taxes (property tax, retails sales and use tax, excise tax), some parks and
recreation services can generate a considerable amount of revenue through fees and
charges associated with recreation programs and facility rentals.
In 2013, the City expects to generate $571,500 through recreation program fees, which
includes $215,000 through facility rentals, such as CenterPlace and $355,000 through
program fees, such as swimming pool fees. When compared to the total park's budget,
revenues from parks and recreation services in Spokane Valley account for approximately
22% of the total operating budget. Revenue sources for parks include:
• Park Administration can generate revenue through grants and donations. The
collection of park impact fees is also another possible source of revenue.
• Park Facilities can generate revenue through reservations and facility rentals.
However, at the present time, this potential is minimal due to the lack of facilities in
the existing parks.
• Recreation Programs can generate significant revenues from class fees and services.
Currently, this revenue source is limited due to the lack of classes offered. Currently
recreation programs recover 100% of their costs through registration fees.
• Aquatic operations generate minimal revenue through admission fees and swim
lessons. Revenues from this operation could be increased by adding facilities,
activities, and increased hours that generate more usage.
• Senior Center operations generate revenues from user fees associated with
programs and services.
• CenterPlace should continue to generate revenue through the rentals of space, lease
of space, and food services income.
One means of analyzing revenue production is to compare operating costs on a per capita
basis. The gross cost per capita is the total cost of the services divided by the number of
persons in the service area. However, this is not necessarily the true cost to the taxpayer
because it does not reflect the net cost after revenue is deducted. Table 4 -4 shows the cost
per capita for the parks and recreation system.
Page 128
Table 4 -4: Cost per Capita and Percent of Revenue Generat-
Year
Population Operating Gross Cost/ Net Cost/ Revenue Rate
Budget Capita Capita
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
86,601 1,862,966
87,894 2,086,186
88,513 2,644,420
88,969 2,812,040
89,755 2,926,033
90,110 2,813,412
90,550 2,915,206
91,490 2,655,343
21.51
23.74
29.88
31.61
32.60
31.22
32.19
29.02
17.52
19.10
24.15
25.85
25.36
25.06
25.90
22.77
18.5%
19.5%
19.2%
18.2%
22.2%
19.7%
19.6%
21.5%
4.4 Maintenance Operations
Spokane Valley contracts out the maintenance of its park facilities. In 2013, Spokane Valley
spent approximately $789,000 for the park maintenance, which equates to approximately
$5,905 per acre of developed park land.
4.5 Recreation Participation
The City of Spokane Valley offers a number of recreation programs including: summer day
camp; preschool, school age, and adult programs; and special events like Haunted Pool and
Breakfast with Santa. In 2012, there were approximately 42,000 participants in the
programs offered. The majority of participants, 35,000, were recreation swim participants,
that is, people who paid for recreational swim time at one of the three pools.
There are 0.47 participants per capita for the City of Spokane Valley sponsored programs.
Typically, communities that offer a full range of programs and services have per capita
participation ranging from 2.5 to 4.0. The City of Spokane Valley's participation rate is low,
in part, based on the general policy that recreation programs offered by the City should
only fill the gap left by private organizations. For example, if little league is offered by a
private organization, then the City of Spokane Valley does not provide that program.
Page X29
Chapter 5.0: Needs Assessment
This chapter discusses the need for parks, facilities and other recreation services within the
city. It contains a summary of the findings from the household survey, the public visioning
workshop, focus group meetings, an earlier city -wide telephone survey, and an organized
sports questionnaire. From this information, Table 5 -1 summarizes park and facility needs.
A more detailed analysis of the survey process and results is found in Appendix A and the
quantification of park and facility needs in Discussion Paper #5 (Needs Assessment).
This plan update presents a current needs assessment based on the findings of the
community survey, discussions with stakeholders and results of public outreach.
5.1 Stakeholder Interviews
The update process started with several one -on -one interviews with a variety of
stakeholders and interest groups in Spokane Valley. Specific stakeholder groups included
school districts, trails groups, Spokane River Forum, private recreation program providers,
City staff, and the Police Department.
The following key findings emerged from the stakeholder interviews:
• Partnership - The City of Spokane Valley Parks and Recreation Department
maintains an excellent relationship with schools and private sports program
providers. The department should continue these mutually beneficial relationships
and work towards developing joint use agreements with the schools.
• Schools - School property, both gymnasiums and athletic fields, provide
opportunities for both formal (sports programs such as baseball) and informal
(enjoyment by neighbors). However, these sites are not always available for the
general public.
• Recreation Programs - The City's recreation program has limited offerings, due to
a lack of facilities and resources, but fills a niche. Opportunities likely exist for
expanded offerings for young children (3rd _ 6th grade) and introduction programs
(e.g. introduction to guitar, etc.).
• Spokane River - The Spokane River is an asset to the community and while there
are a number of access locations, additional access should be considered to realize
the full potential. Consideration for increased connectivity between parks via the
river and water trail is important.
• Neighborhood Parks - Providing park access to neighborhood kids on the block
should be the Parks Department's "highest calling." Ensuring that all areas of the
community have park land accessible should be an important priority.
• Economic Development - Access to parks or trails provides development and
investment incentives, and most people like to live and /or work near parks. The City
Page 130
should consider taking advantage of sports related tourism by providing
tournament quality facilities such as artificial turf and lighting. The City should also
consider creating a set of park sign standards to help "brand" the Parks and
Recreation Department.
• Facility Types - Generally the facility types available are adequate, yet some
facilities such as the horse arena at Valley Mission Park and the Western Dance Hall
may be under used and some modern facilities types like skate parks and pet parks
are unavailable. The City should consider new modern facility types and perhaps
repurposing older facility types.
• Acquisition - As the City becomes more urban, there will be an increased need for
park land especially to underserved areas. The amount of park land available is
inadequate to meet present and future needs especially as it relates to open space
and athletic fields.
5.2 Household Recreation Survey
A telephonic survey to determine the perceptions and recreation interests among
households within Spokane Valley was conducted during February 2013. Additionally,
those households that self - identified as having children between the ages of 10 and 18
years old were asked if those children would participate in an online survey. The results of
the online survey are not intended to be scientifically valid but instead to provide a sense of
the desires and perceptions of Spokane Valley's youth.
The survey had a sample of 360 households and had a margin error of +/- 5.15 percent,
which means, results have a ninety -five percent (95 %) chance of coming within +/- 5.15
percentage points of results that would have been obtained if all households within
Spokane Valley city limits had
been interviewed.
To help identify the specific
needs of different areas of the
City, the survey divided the
City into four study areas.
Figure 5 -A shows how the four
study areas were distributed
across the City. The study
areas were created by
aggregating Census blocks into
larger areas; the aggregation
was necessary in order to
achieve statistical validity at
the given sample size.
West Zone
• -3
North /northeast Zone _ -
4
Eas[/southeast Zone
•
Figure 5 -A: Survey Study Area
Table 5 -1 displays the
percentage of respondents
that visit certain parks by the study area in which they reside. In other words, of the 11
Page 131
percent of all respondents that visit Park Road Pool (in the West Study Area), 4 percent
reside in the South Central Zone. Cells where the number is blue and bold signify a
percentage that was higher than average, at the 95% confidence level. Cells where the
number is red and italicized indicate a percentage that was lower than average, at the 95%
confidence level.
Table 5 -1: Park Visits by Study Area
Residents of the east /southeast zone were more likely to visit parks outside their own
study area than residents of the other study areas. It should be noted that the parks they
visited: Terrace View, Mirabeau, and CenterPlace are situated more closely than the other
parks in the City. However, the number may also reflect the relative newness of Greenacres
Park which opened in June of 2012.
The survey with its questions and responses can be found in Appendix A. In addition to the
above, the key findings of the survey include:
• Half of respondents reported that they or members of their household had visited
Mirabeau Point Park.
• Parks managed by the Spokane Valley Parks and Recreation Department received
the highest mean satisfaction score in a series that asked respondents to rate the
parks, pools, CenterPlace, and recreation programs. Half of respondents rated it at
the top of the scale.
• Recreation programs received the lowest mean satisfaction score, though two in five
(40 %) respondents were unable or unwilling to rate them.
• Two in three respondents mentioned (unaided) that the areas managed by the
Spokane Valley Parks and Recreation Department were clean /well maintained.
Page 132
Stud Area of
Partici .ants' Residence
Parks Study
Area
Park
Total
/o
West
Zone
South
Central
Zone
North /North- East /South-
east Zone east Zone
Park Road
11%
'/0
4%
7%
6%
West
Edgecliff
5%
' 0
6%
2 %
2%
South Central
Terrace View
28%
8%
41%
17%
48%
Castle Park
1%
-
3%
-
-
Browns Park
6%
2%
19%
1 %
2%
M.
North/
Northeast
Mirabeau
48%
41%
41%
50%
60%
Valley Mission
39%
43%
32%
58%
23%
CenterPlace
29%
20%
12%
34%
51%
Sullivan
5%
4%
2%
6%
8%
Balfour
4%
4%
2%
7%
2%
Myrtle Point
1%
2%
-
1%
1%
East /Southeast
Greenacres
2%
1%
2%
1%
4%
Don't know
3%
3%
7%
-
- J
Residents of the east /southeast zone were more likely to visit parks outside their own
study area than residents of the other study areas. It should be noted that the parks they
visited: Terrace View, Mirabeau, and CenterPlace are situated more closely than the other
parks in the City. However, the number may also reflect the relative newness of Greenacres
Park which opened in June of 2012.
The survey with its questions and responses can be found in Appendix A. In addition to the
above, the key findings of the survey include:
• Half of respondents reported that they or members of their household had visited
Mirabeau Point Park.
• Parks managed by the Spokane Valley Parks and Recreation Department received
the highest mean satisfaction score in a series that asked respondents to rate the
parks, pools, CenterPlace, and recreation programs. Half of respondents rated it at
the top of the scale.
• Recreation programs received the lowest mean satisfaction score, though two in five
(40 %) respondents were unable or unwilling to rate them.
• Two in three respondents mentioned (unaided) that the areas managed by the
Spokane Valley Parks and Recreation Department were clean /well maintained.
Page 132
• When asked to rate a list of eleven possible new or current amenities that could be
increased, urban trails received the highest mean score. Sand volleyball courts
received the lowest mean score.
• Respondents were read a list of three possible objectives for the Spokane Valley
Parks and Recreation Department and asked to rate their importance. Less than
three tenths of a point separated the highest ranked (increase recreation programs)
from the lowest (purchase property for future parks). All fell just above the
midpoint of the scale.
5.3 Public Workshop
As part of the update process, the City conducted a public workshop at CenterPlace. The
purpose of the workshop was to gauge the applicability and value of existing and proposed
goals and policies for the parks plan, to identify proposed locations for four neighborhood
parks and one community park, identify desired facility types, identify the locations of
special "new" facility types (dog park, splash pads, and skate parks), and to prioritize
proposed improvement and park development.
In the first step of the workshop, participants were asked to rate on a scale of 1 through 5
(1 being least important and 5 being most important) the goals and policies from the 2006
Park and Recreation Plan and the goals and policies from the Park and Recreation chapter
of the 2006 Comprehensive Plan. The exercise generally found support for the goals and
policies presented. The key findings of the first step include:
• Parks and recreation facilities should be equitably distributed across the city and
provide diverse recreation opportunities.
• Park design should be flexible and be able to adapt to foreseeable changes in
recreating needs and /or desires.
• Participants did not place an emphasis on the policy to not duplicate services or not
compete with private organizations in the delivery of parks and recreation services.
• Participants identified the acquisition of park land with unique natural features or
natural resources as important.
The second step was to identify the location of four neighborhood parks and one
community park. The number of parks was determined using adopted levels of service and
population growth projection; section 5.4 provides a detailed description of the needs
analysis. Participants were provided a map and a guidebook. The guidebook described the
park types: typical size, facilities available, service area, and other assumptions. The
guidebook also included a list of park facilities: swimming pool, picnic shelter, and athletic
fields. Participants were asked to focus on the service areas instead of a specific location.
Neighborhood parks were given a service area of a half -mile radius and community parks
were given a service area of a two -mile radius.
Page 133
Figure 5 -B shows the results of the second step, identifying where parks were desired by
participants. The key findings of this step include:
• Provide new neighborhood parks in the north, southeast, and east areas of the City.
• Provide a new community park in the south portion of the City.
• Provide specialty park types (pet park, skate park) in existing facilities. Valley
Mission Park and /or Sullivan Park may have vacant or underused space for these
facilities.
• Consider using natural open space for a disc golf course.
Page X34
Figure 5 -B: Results from Public Workshop 1
Page 135
5.4 Summary of Park Land Needs
This section provides the Needs Assessment for the City of Spokane Valley. It provides the
information necessary to make informed decisions on how many acres of parks and
numbers of facilities are needed to meet current and future needs. These needs are based
on the vision set forth by the community and the demand for recreation opportunities
measured in various public involvement venues. However, not all needs can be or should
be provided by the City. Some community needs can be met by other agencies, schools, the
County, private organizations and public service organizations such as the YMCA. The
community needs identified in this chapter were used to develop recommendations for the
park system presented in Chapter 6.
5.4.1 Methodology
Developing a statement of needs for parks and open space areas depends on localized
values, availability of land, financial resources, and desired service levels. To determine
specific park land needs for the Spokane Valley Planning Area, several analytical methods
were used. These include:
• Recreation demand (measured through public involvement activities)
• National trends and standards
• Land availability
• Geographical deficiencies for parks and open space areas
• Adopted level of service
In synthesizing this information, the adopted level of service standard is the main driver for
determining how much park land the City will need in the future, and the other
components help determine what types of park facilities are desired, available, and needed.
Using the adopted level of service in the comprehensive plan, the analysis determines the
amount of park land needed in 2033. The year 2033 was chosen because it represents the
most recently adopted population projection available at the time this plan was produced.
The analysis then establishes a demand need for park types; the demand need is expressed
as a percentage of the overall need for park land. The percentage of park land devoted to a
park type was determined based on local conditions, national trends, and land availability.
5.4.2 Adopted Level of Service Standards
The City's Comprehensive Plan Policy CFP -2.1 adopts 1.92 acres per 1,000 residents as the
minimum level of service for parks. In order to maintain consistency with the adopted
comprehensive plan, this update to the Parks plan does not change the adopted level of
service standard.
The following service areas were used to help calculate park needs:
• Neighborhood Parks - Service area of 1/2 -mile radius
• Community Parks - Service area of two -mile radius
Page 136
• Special Use Area - No service area recommended as people will generally travel as
far as needed to use the facilities.
• Large Urban Park - Within 30 minutes by personal vehicle for cities of 25,000 to
250,000
• Natural Open Space - No service area recommended.
Figure 5 -C shows the service areas for the existing Neighborhood and Community Parks as
identified above. For those park lands that do not have a recommended service area:
Special Use, Large Urban Park, and Natural Open Space only the names and location are
provided.
Page 137
--fl—
ged-00001111
PU-
L I IIIMEMMMWIMIWraillIl
f
=NM
IN-■=0 0. . :l-
c 11.14F
"°1,141.11111.P1111111Eril allow
i1IrImo
_
AIL to
N1■�
r Jar
■ii
f
t
Spokane Valley Parks
--
P8 •b�
oener
r.i.pnvornom van
w
6.5 1.5
Miles
Figure 5 -C: Park Service Areas for Spokane Valley Parks
Page 138
5.4.3 Summary of Park Land Needs
Table 5 -2 shows that the City of Spokane Valley will need an additional 41.58 acres of park
land by 2033 to accommodate projected population at the currently adopted level of
service. The following terms are used in the analysis:
• Adopted LOS is the level of service standard adopted by the City of Spokane Valley
for park land. It is expressed as a ratio of acres per 1,000 people.
• 2033 Project Population is the adopted population projection for Spokane Valley
found in section 2.4 of the Comprehensive Plan.
• Total Need (year 2033) is the number of acres of park land that will be needed to
serve the City's residents in 2033. It is determined by multiplying the adopted LOS
by the quotient of the projected population divided by 1,000.
• Existing Park Land is the total designated park land with the City of Spokane Valley
and includes undeveloped park land but does not include park land or open spaces
owned by other agencies or land devoted to special facilities.
• Net Need (year 2033) is the amount of park acres that will be needed at build -out
after subtracting the existing park land.
Table 5 -2: Future Park Land Demand at Adopted Level of Service
Adopted LOS 2033 Projected Total Need
(ac /1,000 Population (2033)
residents
Existing Park Land
Net Need
(2033)
1.92
105,668
202.88
164.70
38.18
While Table 5 -2 shows an overall park land need of 38.18 acres, it does not help identify
the type of park land needed. Table 5 -3 shows how the needed acreage would be allocated
to each park type.
Table 5 -3: Proposed Acres Needy Park Type
Park Type
Existing Acres Existing Ratio
Park Land Need
at Existing
Ratios in 2033
Proposed Ratio
Park Land at
Proposed Ratio
in 2033
Community
Park
40.1
25%
9.54
30%
11.45
Large Urban
Park
42.0
24%
9.16
10%
3.81
Neighborhood
Park
35.9 22% 8.39 40% 15.27
Special Use
Area
15.6 10% 3.81 5% 1.91
Natural Open
Space
31.1 19% 7.25 15% 5.73
Total 164.7 100% 38.15 100% 38.17
Page 139
The analysis shows a need for additional park land in all categories, particularly for
neighborhood and community parks. However, while the strict mathematical calculation
captures the minimum park land needed at the adopted level of service, the City should
consider the following in its acquisition considerations.
• The mathematical calculation does not account for barriers to access, that is, how
residents access the park system. In other words, barriers like major arterials or
the river do not play a role in the calculation but do affect how people get to the
park and often act as a barrier to access.
• The mathematical calculation only accounts for the need across the 20 -year
planning horizon. While this is suitable for planning purposes, it does not account
for how available land will be in the future as more people move to Spokane Valley.
This means, as more people move to the area, the harder it becomes to compile
property of sufficient size to create viable park space.
In conclusion, while the mathematical calculation provides the minimum amount of
additional park land needed to serve future residents, it may be necessary to acquire more
park land to provide better accessibility and take advantage of land acquisition
opportunities.
Figure 5 -D illustrates the priority locations for parks as identified by the public using the
forecast need. Meeting park needs in some of these areas may be difficult because of the
lack of available land. Chapter Six addresses this issue and suggests ways those needs
might be met.
Page 140
Figure 5 -D: Park Priority Areas as Indicated from Workshop 2
Page 141
5.5 Summary of Recreation Facility Needs
Similar to the discussion of park land needs, community needs for recreation facilities such
as sport fields, trails, etc., are described in terms of an existing ratio and suggested demand
standard based on an adopted level of service.
5.5.1 Methodology
The need for sport fields, pools, and trails was calculated using a similar analytical
approach used to calculate park land needs, that is, the number of facilities per a given set
of people. While this update used the ratios adopted in the 2006 Park Plan, it recognizes
that Spokane Valley is not an isolated provider of field space within the region; in fact,
based on stakeholder interviews, sports teams more typically use Spokane County facilities
such as Plante's Ferry Sports Stadium or school facilities. However, it is still important to
gauge demand so that as new facilities are built, sports fields can be considered in their
design.
For most sports in Spokane Valley, teams come from both within and outside the city limits.
As a result, it is difficult to determine the exact number of players or teams generated
within the community. The assessment of need presented in this section is for Spokane
Valley only, as if the City was completely separated from other communities. In this
manner, facility needs are forecasted based on the demand created by city residents only.
Table 5 -4 summarizes the existing and future needs for recreation facilities. These needs
are based on an adopted level of service standard previously described.
Table 5 -4: Summary of Recreation Facility Needs
Recreation Facility
Existing Total 2006 Demand Net Need Year Net Need Year
Facilities Standard 1 2012 2033 2
Baseball Fields
Softball Fields (4)
70 (3) 1,200 5 18
26 1,300 44 55
Soccer Fields (5) 83 1,900 -35(7) -27(7)
Pathways and Trails (6) 10.8 0.38 24 29
(1) Demand standard adopted in the 2006 Park and Recreation Plan expressed as the number of people
served per facility
(2) Based on forecasted 2033 population of 105,668 persons
(3) Includes 12 adult and 4 youth fields, along with 54 multi -use fields.
(4) The overall need presented in this table for softball fields may not be as great as the table indicates
because it is anticipated that much of the adult softball program is played at County sites.
(5) Includes 29 fields, along with 54 multi -use fields.
(6) Includes the Centennial Trail and 2 miles of Appleway Trail from Evergreen Road to University Road
(7) Negative number indicates a surplus; in this case, there is a surplus of 27 soccer fields.
Some of these multi -use fields should be considered for upgrades, and others that are
unused may be considered to address the shortage of softball fields.
Currently the City does not have some of the recreation resources found in many
communities such as recreation centers, indoor aquatic facilities, teen centers, arts center
and a comprehensive range of recreation programs. The development of these types of
facilities and services will generate more interest and participation in recreation activities.
Page 142
Chapter 6.0: Recommendations
Many of the plan update's recommendations carry forward from the 2006 plan, but there is
now an increased emphasis on the acquisition of land to accommodate anticipated future
parks and recreation demand.
This chapter provides recommendations for developing and managing a parks and
recreation program in the City of Spokane Valley. These recommendations were developed
from staff input, public input, a community survey, and a comprehensive analysis of park
land conditions and current maintenance operations.
Recommendations are organized into the following sections:
• Section 6.1 includes a summary of the planning concept that underlies the proposed
recommendations.
• Section 6.2 presents park facility strategic plan, identifying priority park areas.
• Section 6.3 presents the recommendations for parks.
• Section 6.4 provides the trails plan and recommendations for trails, pathways, and
bikeways.
• Section 6.5 offers recommendations for recreation programs and services.
• Section 6.6 summarizes recommendations for administration and management of a
parks and recreation program.
• Section 6.7 presents recommendations for park maintenance.
• Section 6.8 presents the recommendations for river access.
6.1 Park Plan Concept
Spokane Valley inherited its park system from Spokane County. That system consists of
neighborhood parks, community parks, special use areas, and larger day -use parks. The
ideal park system for Spokane Valley should be one made up of a hierarchy of various park
types, each offering certain types of recreation and /or open space opportunities.
Separately, each park type may serve a primary function, but collectively, they will meet
the needs of the entire community. By recognizing this concept, Spokane Valley can
develop an efficient, cost effective, and comprehensive park system.
The basic concept of the park system for Spokane Valley is to provide park and open space
areas within convenient walking distance of most neighborhoods. In order to achieve this
goal, a total of six additional parks - five neighborhood parks and one community park - are
needed by 2033 to meet the forecast population growth. The plan also suggests these parks
be supplemented with other recreational resources, such as special use sites like skate
parks, off -leash dog parks, and disc golf courses. Additionally, some parks may contain
sports fields to meet projected demand.
Page 143
Figure 6 -A identifies the general areas where additional parks should be located.
Generalized areas for park sites were used because the majority of the community is
already developed making specific site location a challenge. Acquiring and developing park
land will continue to be a challenge in the future. The focus should be in the areas identified
in Figure 6 -A. To achieve its goal of acquiring park land, the City of Spokane Valley should
consider the following:
• Formalize partnerships with the school districts to provide playground and park
amenities that can be available to residents during non - school hours. Depending
upon the level of development proposed, the concept may mean that the City would
assist in funding improvements and maintenance of the outdoor play areas.
• Work Planning and Zoning to permit reduced lot sizes and compensate with
additional park space. This concept is often used under the provisions of a Planned
Unit Development (PUD).
• Be aggressive in pursuing the acquisition of park land as the availability of
undeveloped property continues to shrink.
• Continue to seek grants, private land donations, or property swaps.
• Finally, consider implementing the existing parks and recreation facilities
concurrency determination policy provided by Spokane Valley Municipal Code
section 22.20.
The planning concept also includes a comprehensive recreation trails system utilizing the
Centennial Trail along the Spokane River as the backbone element. Additional linear parks
include the Appleway Trail along the Appleway right -of -way south of Sprague Avenue; a
loop trail that would encircle the outer portions of the community; and other minor trails
to connect to the trail system. In total, it represents about 35 miles of trail including off -
street trails, on- street trails, and trails through parks and open space areas.
6.2 Park Layout Plan
The Park Layout Plan is a graphic representation of the proposed park system for Spokane
Valley. Figure 6 -A illustrates the conceptual location and routing of proposed park sites and
trails, river access sites, special use facilities, along with the location of existing facilities.
The map does not pinpoint specific locations for future parks. Some important notes about
the layout plan include:
1. Each site is coded with letters and numbers (such as NP -1). The letter represents
the park type, the number is for site identification. The letter code is as follows:
NP Neighborhood Park
CP Community Park
SU Special Use Area
T Trail
2. On the Proposed Park Layout Plan map, colored clouds indicate proposed parks and
open space areas. The final location of park sites will be determined later in the
development of City plans and will be influenced by land availability, acquisition
costs, and property ownership.
Page 144
3. The proposed river access points are derived from the draft Shoreline Master
Program for precise location and description of river access. Please see the SMP.
4. The proposed and existing trails information is identified in the Spokane Valley
Comprehensive Plan Parks and Recreation Map.
Page 145
111.111gg. 01010A.1. IgLI
NP 4mirmiTerem
rAdmiwanailm
arini ki6 romouramarr
Figure 6 -A: 2013 Proposed Park Layout Plan
Spokane Valley Park Layout Plan
gie
MIW
0.5 1.5 7 1.5
A
Page 146
6.3 Park and Facility Recommendations
Preliminary recommendations for park land are listed by park classification (e.g.
Neighborhood, Community, Special Use). Both existing and proposed parks are listed by
park number (e.g., NP -1). In each classification, any new facility in that classification is
discussed first followed by recommendations for existing facilities. The discussion on trails
and proposed recommendations are found in section 6.4.
6.3.1 General Park Recommendations
Improve, coordinate and standardize park signage to minimize long term maintenance and
create an identity for Spokane Valley parks.
6.3.2 Mini -Park Recommendations
Currently the City does not own any mini - parks. The acquisition of mini -parks requires
careful consideration. These small parks typically have a greater maintenance cost per
area, and their size limits their recreational value. Since their size limits facilities and
activities that can be offered, they usually contain only a small children's playground.
However, in the case of the City of Spokane Valley, where park land is needed but larger
parcels will be difficult to obtain, small mini -parks may offer an alternative. Before
embarking on this approach, the City should seriously consider the maintenance
ramifications.
At the current time, no recommendations are made for developing future mini - parks.
However, as the City develops and redevelops stormwater areas, consideration could be
given to use those areas as mini - parks.
6.3.3 Neighborhood Park Recommendations
The Neighborhood Park should be central to the City's park system. It should provide most
of the open space and passive use within neighborhoods. If possible, they should be located
within easy walking distance without crossing major barriers or arterial streets.
The optimum size for neighborhood parks should be about five acres. In Spokane Valley,
the average size is 5.5 acres. However, in cases where the optimum size is not available
because of current development or where land costs prohibit acquisition of large sites,
smaller parcels may be considered.
The Neighborhood Park Service Area identified in Figure 5 -C in Chapter 5 identifies current
neighborhoods that are served by a neighborhood park. Figure 5 -C illustrates the need for
additional park land. The plan recognizes the difficulty the City will have in meeting the
goal of a park in every neighborhood of the City. As a result, the Plan proposes a
compromise between need, and the City's ability to acquire land.
In some cases, the best option is for the City to partner with the school districts and
upgrade school playgrounds to offer recreational facilities that will also serve the local
neighborhood. Starting below is a discussion on neighborhood park sites.
Page 147
New Neighborhood Park Priority Ar
This proposed park site is located to serve central Spokane Valley north of Trent Avenue.
Priority should be given to develop City owned park space to ensure access to all residents,
but because very little undeveloped and available land exists in this area, additional
recreation facilities could be added to the existing school facilities. A school /park could be
developed at East Valley Middle or East Valley High School. Park improvements to the
school playground should include an additional children's playground, splash pad, upgrade
of the play fields and addition of a small picnic shelter and picnic area.
New Neighborhood Park Priority Area 2 Site NP -2
This proposed park is also intended to serve south central Spokane Valley south of Sprague
Avenue between Pines and Sullivan. Priority should be given to develop City owned park
space to ensure access to all residents, but because there is very little undeveloped land in
this area, an alternative to acquisition may be to add recreation facilities to the existing
Adams Elementary School. Park improvements should include a children's playground,
splash pad, play fields and a small picnic shelter and picnic area.
New Neighborhood Park Priority Area 3 Site NP -3 4
This site is proposed south of Sprague Avenue in the vicinity of Barker Road or Shelly Lake.
In the area near Shelly Lake, a drainage corridor exists that runs from Shelly Lake up into
the hills. An open space corridor is proposed along this drainage way that protects the
wetlands areas. This site should contain all of the facilities typically found in a
neighborhood park.
Balfour Park Extension (Proposed)
The City recently (2012) purchased 8.4 acres of vacant and undeveloped property west of
Balfour Park. The property is bordered by Sprague Avenue on the south, Herald St. on the
west, Main Ave. on the north, and Balfour Park, a private business and the City Fire Station
to the east.
Jointly with the Spokane County Library District, the City of Spokane Valley plans to
prepare a Master Development Plan for the property. The property is intended to be
developed as a city park that also has a new library as a major component of the plan.
There are no recommendations for the Balfour Park Extension beyond initiating the master
development plan.
The currently developed portion of Balfour Park will be included in the master
development plan for the Balfour Park Extension, how the existing park integrates into
future facilities will be decided during the master development plan process.
The following recommendations were identified prior to the adjacent property being
acquired and may not be relevant or necessary after the master development plan process.
They are included here to help inform that process.
Recommended Improvements:
• Resurface parking lot
Page 148
A
• Provide frontage improvements along Main and Balfour Streets
• Repair the damage chain -link fence between parking lot and Fire Station parking
• Add parking lot lighting
• Install concrete mow curbs under fences and around shrub beds to improve
maintenance
• Replace existing drinking fountain with an ADA accessible fountain and access walk
• Add an ADA accessible water fountain at the restroom
• Replace existing wood playground edge with concrete edge and provide an ADA
access ramp to the play area
• Replace or repair wood edging around volleyball court. Add additional sand
• Consider expanding park to the west and including additional Neighborhood Park
amenities such as:
o Water Play Area
o Basketball Court
New Neighborhood Park Priority Area 5+ Site NP -5
This site is proposed in the vicinity of 16th and Bowdish. While the area has parks to the
south significant transportation barriers exist to make those parks (Browns and Terrace
View) viable neighborhood park options. This site should contain all of the facilities
typically found in a neighborhood park.
Browns Park
Recommended Improvements:
• Replace shelter
Site NP -6
• Repair and update play structure which has some maintenance issues
• Increase accessibility to the park by adding sidewalks and access points through the
fence
• Modify/ change playground edging with a ramp to increase access
• Update and repair tables, dugout benches and bleachers
• Install lighting in parking lots, at restrooms, and park shelter to increase security
• Update and repair park entry sign and replace posts damaged by mower
• Develop Browns Park as a destination sand volleyball venue by adding additional
sand volleyball courts
• Consider adding a splash pad near the playground for younger kids in the
neighborhood
• Update and repair fencing
• Replace restroom
Castle Park Site NP -7
Recommended Improvements:
• Update and repair park signs
• Make minor repairs to parking lot
• Repaint or stain wood fence and consider adding a concrete mow strip under it to
ease maintenance
Page X49
• Consider adding amenities such as restroom facilities, picnic shelter, playground
areas, slack lining area, sidewalks, water fountains, splash pad and basketball courts
Igecliff Pa
Recommended Improvements:
• Add sidewalk access to playground, park shelter, restrooms and water fountains to meet
ADA accessibility standards
• Replace tennis courts with new concrete and fences
• Replace or repair missing, cracked or damaged items on the play structure
• Repaint or stain restroom, bleachers and tables.
• Replace picnic shelter
• Replace restroom
• Replace play equipment
Additional Comments:
• Amenities such as splash pads, designated basketball courts and volleyball courts could
increase the use of this park
P -9
Recommended Improvements:
• Add basketball court to eliminate a safety conflict in the parking lot
• Replace restroom
Additional Comments:
• Park would benefit from having the street improvements, such as curbs and
sidewalks, along 24th Street and Blake Street
Greenacres Park Site NP -10
Recommended Improvements:
• Complete establishment of turf throughout the park
• Implement Phase 2 of the park development which includes such features as
basketball and tennis courts, baseball field, community garden and a skate park.
6.3.4 Community Park Recommendations
While the neighborhood park system is designed to provide convenient passive recreation
areas for local neighborhoods, additional park sites are needed for the more structured
activities such as organized sports, large group gatherings, outdoor concerts and other
facilities that draw large groups of people. The proposed community park system
recommended in the Plan is designed to provide these facilities that attract users from
throughout the community.
New • muni 'ar 'riori
The planning process indicated a community desire to develop a new community park in
the south central area of the City; see Figure 6 -A. While there are two neighborhood parks -
Terrace View and Browns Park - in this area, opportunities to expand those facilities to
meet the requirement of a community park are very limited. Additional opportunities may
Page 150
exist to acquire park land on or near the former Painted Hills Golf Course. The golf course
has recently closed and its future as a golf course is uncertain. Additionally property near
44th and Sands should be pursued for acquisition from Central Valley School District.
Valley Mission Park Site CP -2
Recommended Improvements:
• Repave parking lot
• Replace /repair concrete tennis court and basketball court
• Replace restroom
Valley Mission Park (South)
Part of the area is used as overflow parking for Valley Mission North. It has been paved and
has perimeter fencing and has had a pedestrian light installed to safely get people across
the street. Major cracking of the pavement and damage to some fencing are the major
maintenance issues.
Recommended Improvements:
• Patch cracks in the pavement
• Consider adding community garden or small scale off -leash dog park
Horse Arena
Additional recommendations for the horse arena are found in the Special Use Facility
Recommendations section below.
6.3.5 Large Urban Park Recommendations (LUP)
Large urban parks are park areas designed to serve the entire community and differ
primarily from community in their size.
Mirabeau Point Park ! Site LUP -1
Discovery Playground
This is a relatively new park and it has been well used, but the general maintenance has
been good. It is all ADA accessible; the safety surfacing is all adequate and maintained.
There are currently no recommendations for this area of Mirabeau Point Park. However,
active consideration should be given to update or add new features to maintain interest as
a destination playground. Consider new shade structures to improve usability.
Mirabeau Meadows
Recommended Improvements:
• Repair exterior maintenance to the restroom building
Mirabeau Springs
Mirabeau Springs has matured into a beautiful park, complete with a waterfall, overlook
areas, connection to the park trail systems, a rock and cedar park shelter and an ADA
accessible deck over the water. Maintenance is excellent, allowing the vegetation to assume
a natural state of growth without letting it take over. There are currently no
recommendations for this area of Mirabeau Point Park.
Page 151
CenterPlace Regional Event Center
Recommendations for CenterPlace are found in the Special Use Facility Recommendations
section below.
6.3.6 Regional Park Recommendations (RP)
Regional Parks are large day -use parks designed to serve the entire region. There are no
regional parks in the City, although Plante's Ferry Sports Stadium is located on the edge of
the city limits. While many residents use Plante's Ferry, the City of Spokane Valley has no
jurisdiction over its operation.
6.3.7 Special Use Facility Recommendations (SU)
Special use areas typically are single - purpose areas or sites occupied by specialized
facilities. Special use facilities can be included as a component in a park, such as a splash
pad or be an independent component like an off -leash dog park. Special use facilities like
skate parks or disc golf courses can be located in parks, but their use restricts that space
from being used by other park users. Because they can vary in character and use, specific
site requirements and facilities offered will vary.
iklew Special Use Facilitie Multiple Sites SU
Throughout the update process a number of special use facilities were identified as
important to the community. In some cases these facilities already exist, such as splash
pads; in others, no such facilities are available, such as off -leash dog parks. Figure 6.2.1
shows the proposed location of these facilities as colored dots.
Splash Pads
Discovery Playground and Greenacres Park each have splash pads that are extremely
popular. Splash pads were indicated as a desired amenity in new neighborhood parks in
NP -1, NP -2, and NP -3. Consideration should be given to add splash pads to all existing park
facilities.
Off -Leash Dog Park (Pet Park)
At the present time the City of Spokane Valley does not have an off -leash dog park /pet park
available to its residents or visitors. Through the public process this facility was indicated
as desirable. Locations vary from a new park facility to using an existing park facility.
Skate Park
Some indication has been indicated as a desirable facility. During the planning process
potential locations for a skate park were conceptually identified, including NP -4, Sullivan
Park, and Valley Mission, this plan recommends the City undertake a public process to
design and determine a site for a future skate park.
Disc Golf Course
While Greenacres Park possesses a disc golf course, disc golf participants in the city
indicated a desire for a facility that can accommodate a more advanced player with longer
distances between holes. During the planning process potential locations for a disc golf
Page 152
course were conceptually identified. This plan recommends the City undertake a public
process to design and determine a site for a future disc golf course.
VTyMission Horse
e SUMii
The Valley Mission Horse Area consists of a riding arena and a number of covered stalls.
Currently the stalls and the arena are only in marginal condition. In the past, the facility
was rented up to 11 times a year. However, in recent years, the rental of the facility has
sharply declined. Currently, the three primary issues with the site are: who should pay for
the repairs, how it should be managed, and /or if the facility should continue in its present
state.
The following ideas are recommended for this site:
• User fees should be increased to reflect the cost of maintenance and custodial needs.
(The A -frame building and the stalls need major improvements).
• A surcharge should be initiated with the user groups. The funds should be dedicated
to improvements to the facility.
• An assessment and public process should be undertaken to evaluate the potential to
transition the horse arena to a different facility type such as a skate park.
Site SU -3
Recommended Improvements:
• Parking lot areas need to be repaved
• The location sign needs to be repaired and repainted
• The maintenance shed on the upper parking lot needs to be painted
• Replace restroom
• Remove well water source
Additional Comments:
• There are several paths cut down to the river that are steep and prone to erosion.
These paths are used by kayakers to access the river. It is quite difficult for them to
maneuver their vessels down or up these paths.
• The river bank consists mostly of large boulders and rocky ledges. The water can
move very swiftly through this area. There are very few places along the shore to
enjoy the river easily, certainly not by handicapped visitors. One path on the west
side of the park had poison ivy growing abundantly.
• Sullivan Bridge is planned for replacement in 2014 -2015. As part of this
replacement project, Sullivan Park will be expanded and new amenities will be
included, such as:
o New picnic tables and shelter
o New turf
o Improved public access
Radio Controlled Car Track
Currently the Radio Control Car Club of Spokane has a temporary agreement with the City
for a site in Sullivan Park to operate their track. While the site is managed and maintained
Page 153
by the Club, its condition and appearance is less than optimal. Recommended policies for
this facility are as follows:
• A formal lease should be developed with the provisions identified below.
o Site improvements should be made based on a plan approved by the City.
o The site should continue to be open and made available to the general public.
Western Dance Hall
The Western Dance Hall is located in Sullivan Park and is leased to the Western Dance
Association. The Association maintains the facility. Under the current agreement, the City is
also entitled to use the facility. It is recommended that as long as the two above conditions
are met, the use should continue. If the Western Dance Association discontinues its use of
the facility, the City should consider alternative uses for the site.
SU -3
CenterPlace is the City of Spokane Valley's regional event center and houses the Senior
Center and the Parks and Recreation Office. The condition of this facility is in excellent
condition, including maintenance of the grassy areas, planting areas and parking lots. There
are no recommendations for the facility.
Park Road Pool Site SU -4
Recommended Improvements:
• Entrance needs to have overgrown plantings removed or pruned
• Repave the parking lot surface
Additional Comments
• There are no mow strips on the south side of the site between the grass and the
shrub area
• Also, there are no mow strips under the fences, creating additional maintenance
• The north side of the parking lot does not have a curb
• Consider purchasing adjacent property to the south to expand the park
i.gn and Landscape $
The gateway sign installed in 2012 is well maintained and nicely landscaped. It provides a
pleasing visual gateway into the City's west side. There are no recommendations at this
time.
Site SU -6
This site is located on the south side of the Spokane River and is only accessible from the
Centennial Trail. The large rocks in this portion of the river attract swimmers and sun-
bathers. An uplands area along the south bank of the river in the vicinity of these rocks
could offer a pleasant area for picnicking and general passive use. This is generally a
natural open space site. The City should consider the development of a master plan for this
area to guide future development.
Page 154
6.4 Trails, Pathways and Bikeways
The purpose of the proposed trail plan is to connect residential areas with parks, open
space, and other recreational areas. The trail plan uses the Centennial Trail as its
centerpiece, supplemented by a loop trail system encircling the entire community using
park and open space areas and streets. While the proposed trail system is primarily an off -
street recreation trail system, it is expected that it will also serve as a mode of
transportation throughout the community and to regions beyond.
While most people prefer off - street, paved pathways for pedestrian and bicycle use, where
trail segments cannot pass through public land, it may be necessary to construct on- street
bike lanes to complete specific segments. It also will be necessary to coordinate with
adjoining cities and the County to make connections to their trail systems. Since much of
the community is developed, an aggressive approach will be needed to connect individual
segments.
The proposed plan only identifies existing and conceptual routes for pathways and trails. A
more specific analysis of a specific trail segment will be needed to locate specific routes and
design requirements. Potential trail types are described in Chapter 11 of the
comprehensive plan as part of the Bike and Pedestrian Master program.
6.4.1 Trail Plan Recommendations
Figure 6 -A above illustrates the proposed trail plan and how the proposed and existing
trails fit into the park system. Each trail should be assessed for its suitability as part of the
overall trail system. The number represents the number found on Figure 6 -A.
Site
Barker Road Trailhead
• The parking lot should be paved and the metal fence surrounding the property
repaired
• Make the restroom ADA accessible
Island Trailhead (This is the north access point for Myrtle Point Park. The site is a county -
owned and maintained property.)
• Address the erosion issues between parking areas, preferably through low impact
means
• Repair /replace reader board and restroom roof
Mission Trailhead
• Repaint trail access bollards
• Seek to add a buffer from future apartments on the south side
• Remove knapweed along trail and replace with native shrubs and trees (Ponderosa
pine, Serviceberry, Buckthorn, Mahonia, Roses, Snowberry, etc.).
• Develop formal trailhead with parking
Page 155
Mirabeau Point Trailhead South
• Continue ongoing maintenance of graffiti removal
• Reopen restroom with potable water
Mirabeau Point Trailhead North
• Address the erosion issues between trailhead parking areas and the river,
preferably through low impact means
Sullivan Road Trailhead
• Develop a designated parking area for trailhead
Appleway Trail Corridor (Milwaukee Railroad ROW) • Proposed Site T -2
Planning for the Appleway Trail Corridor started in 2013. The conceptual plan includes
transforming the former rail corridor (Appleway alignment) into a multi -use trail that
includes plazas, public art, perennial gardens, community gardens, plantings, and play
space.
Recommended Improvements:
• Implement and develop Appleway Trail Corridor consistent with Appleway Trail
Corridor plan.
r1in on Northern Trail Pro ,osed - 3 miles
This appears to be an abandoned rail line from eastern city limits along Boone to Barker,
then north along Bark ion and Centennial Trail.
ipokane Loop - Eastern Segment (Proposed) - 1.iles
ErgiE1' -4
This segment begins at the BN Trail and travels north to Centennial Trail.
Spokane Loop - Southern Segment (Proposed) - 3.5 miles Sit
This segment runs east -west from Sullivan Road to Dishman Road, generally following
32nd Avenue.
Spokane Loop - Sout it t
A northerly segment that lies hin the proposed Chester Creek Open Space corridor, then
turn westerly through Camp Caro ending at Park Road.
[pokane Loop - Western Segment (Proposed) - 3.5 miles Site T -7
This segment runs north -south mostly within Park Road right -of -way. The trail eventually
turns east to connect to Argonne Road where it crosses the River and connects to the
Centennial Trail.
Chester Creek Connection (Proposed)
mi e Site T -8
A segment connecting the Spokane Loop at 32nd Avenue with Chester Creek .
Page 156
Spokane Loop - Southeastern Segment (Proposed) - 4 miles Site T -9
This segment runs north -south segment generally along Conklin and Flora from the
Centennial Trail to 32nd.
6.5 Recreation Programs and Services
The current policy for recreation programing is that the City will not compete or duplicate
services provided by private special interest groups. As a result of this policy, the
Department offers a limited recreation program. Many of the special interest groups in the
community are satisfied with managing their own programs. However, these groups
appreciate the continued collaboration and relationship they have with the City.
However, in the long term, the Department should consider expanding its range of
recreation programs and services, finding those niche services or programs that are not
being provided by special interest groups. In the short term, the Department should be
conservative in its approach and build a program based on past experiences.
6.5.1 Recreation Program and Services Recommendations
`Program Coordination and Collaboration —
Recommendation:
• Spokane Valley should serve as the overall coordinator for the programs and classes
offered in Spokane Valley to assure that community needs are met. This could be
done by creating a citywide task force representing the various recreation providers
and interest groups. The City's role should be to help establish this group and
provide administrative support.
Program Offerings
Recommendations:
• The City should consider offering/ continuing recreation programs and classes in
the following areas:
o Aquatics
o Summer playground programs
o Non -sport related youth programs
o Underserved youth sport programs (Kindergarten - 6th grade)
o Special events (Breakfast with Santa, Haunted Pool, Paws in the Pool)
o Instructional classes like introduction to guitar, country dances, etc.
o Limited indoor adult sports
o Specialty programs like Bridal Boot Camp
Recommendations:
• In general, the Recreation Program as a whole should seek 100% cost recovery
target based on direct costs. However, the City should explore new program
offerings without expecting them to be self- supporting.
• Program fees for aquatics should be raised to match other surrounding agencies'
fees.
Page 157
'enior Age Program
The Spokane Valley Senior Center is located at CenterPlace and the Spokane Valley Senior
Citizens Association is responsible for senior specific programs. Programs are offered
Monday through Friday for adults 50 years of age and older. The specific terms of this
arrangement are spelled out in a written agreement.
Recommendations:
• Work with the Spokane Valley Senior Citizens Association to ensure senior
recreation program needs are being met. Some considerations include:
o Active recreation programs and activities such as aerobics, health and fitness
and senior competitive sports
o Intergenerational activities and programs in addition to the more traditional
age group oriented programming
o Special interest classes
Youth
Recommendation:
• Build a new youth activity center.
• Initiate a youth and teen program. Two options for managing youth programs are
possible:
o Option 1: Partner with the Boys and Girls Club to manage a program. This
has the advantage that this agency has the experience and would not require
involvement of the City.
o Option 2: Have the City run the youth program; pattern the Boys and Girls
Club model and youth programs. If this were to occur, some of the programs
should include:
• Drop in program for the youth to just "hang out"
• Special interest programs and classes
• Life skill classes
• Limited recreation level sports
• Tours and field trips
• Job skill classes
Arts and Culture:
Recommendation:
• Continue providing arts, drama and dancing programs by using existing spaces such
as the stage at Mirabeau Meadows, the stage in the Great Room at CenterPlace, the
auditorium at CenterPlace, and the classrooms at CenterPlace for art classes. The
City's role in cultural arts could include:
o Provide space for cultural arts activities such as art in the park, theatre
concerts, and art shows
o Provide small grants to cultural oriented organizations for special events,
classes and other activities
o Assist the Arts Council in grant applications and other administrative tasks
o Partner with other local or regional art providers
Page 158
o Compile an artist /instructor resource list
6.6 Administration and Management
The overall goal of the Parks and Recreation Department is to provide quality recreation
programs, acquisition, renovation, development, operation, and maintenance of the parks
and recreation facilities. The Administration Division provides direction and leadership for
the Parks and Recreation Department in implementing the goals and objectives of the City
Council and facilitates the general upkeep of parks and public areas. The following
recommendations are for administering a program of recreation services.
Management and Ser
In considering the financial impact of offering parks and recreation services, the major
factors that determine the efficiency of a parks and recreation program are:
(1) The ability to generate revenue from services rendered and
(2) The cost to maintain facilities
While good design can help reduce operating costs, the greater impact usually comes from
facilities and activities that generate revenue. Currently, the City offers limited facilities and
activities that generate revenue - rentals at CenterPlace, park shelter rentals, and
recreation programs. While the operating budget may be higher when offering more
activities, the potential for revenue generation also increases; thus the net financial cost to
the taxpayer may be nearly the same.
6.6.1 Management Services Recommendations
Recommendations:
• Consider offering a comprehensive recreation program, to help offset the operating
cost.
• In providing a services program, consider the four basic approaches:
0
0
Maintain the current level of park development
Develop a more elaborate system of parks, trails and other recreational
facilities
o Provide a balance between parks and recreation programs
• Continue to promote and establish parks and recreation facilities and services as a
necessary service to the community. In general, the City's role should include:
o Be responsible for assessing park and recreation needs in the community,
and help coordinate service delivery efforts with the various organizations
o Develop a quality park system
o Provide a level of recreation programs and services that meets needs not
filled by other leisure service providers
• Create an identity and improve visibility. Some of the actions the Department should
take are:
o Offer special events that attract large numbers of participants and promote
city services
o Offer recreation programs to both youth and adults
Page 159
o Publish articles in the City newsletter and other forums promoting the
benefits of parks and recreation
o Advertise special events and programs in the media
o Offer sustained, year round programs
• Consider creating a Park and Recreation Advisory Committee. Over time and as the
City grows in responsibility, the City Council will find it more difficult to devote
adequate time to these park and recreation issues. A parks and recreation advisory
board should be created to develop advisory policies related to parks and recreation
services, assess park and recreation needs, and generally provide a forum for public
input.
• Promote park and recreation services. To help promote the Department, consider
the following:
o Continue to develop promotional and informational brochures
o Make presentations to neighborhood and service groups
o Display information at community events, and host special programs and
informational events.
• Encourage volunteerism. Potential volunteer projects could include:
o Conduct maintenance tasks
o Assist in special events
o Assist in recreation programs
o Offer internships to college students
• Prepare a marketing plan. To efficiently offer services, the Department should
develop a marketing plan that describes how services will be provided and how the
services will be marketed.
• Form and enhance partnerships. Continue to seek partnerships with other providers
to help meet the needs and distribute the responsibilities and costs.
• Offer staff training. To help manage a parks and recreation program more
efficiently, staff should be encouraged to attend special training classes, schools and
other technical seminars.
• Currently, three private user groups lease /use space at city parks. These include the
Radio Control Car Club of Spokane and the Western Dance Association at Sullivan
Park and Splashdown at Valley Mission Park. Leases assure access by private groups
to a specialized facility. This is particularly important if the private group has spent
substantial money to develop the facility. On the other hand, park facilities should
be made available to all residents. It is recommended that private user groups may
lease park property under the following conditions:
o The use will meet a recreation need that is not provided by the City.
Page 160
o The use should be a suitable recreation use. The use will not impact the
enjoyment and use of the park or nearby property owners.
o The user group must pay for the construction, management and maintenance
of the facility.
o The general public will have access to the facility except when the user group
is hosting a special event.
o The user group maintains the facility in a well -kept appearance comparable
to the rest of the park.
o The user group will post a deposit or some other means of assuring that the
facility will be removed and replaced to the original condition when the
facility is no longer in use.
o The City may charge a fee for the lease.
6.6.2 Financial Resources /Funding Recommendations
Financing and funding parks and recreation is a challenge in most communities and since
the adoption of the 2006 Park and Recreation Plan has become even more challenging
because of budget cuts and reductions in property values. However, the same general
principals and methods are still available to the City.
Recommendations:
• Consider adopting /implementing park dedication requirement. At the present time,
the City may consider parks and recreation as for concurrency. Concurrency can be
used to meet the needs of the community that are attributable to new development.
Dedication may include the following:
o The dedication of land
o Money in lieu of land, or
o Some combination of land and money
• To meet existing deficiencies not attributable to new development, or to reduce
potential impacts of dedications, the City should consider the following:
o Seek grants: Adoption of the Parks and Recreation Plan will make the City
eligible for State and Federal parks and recreation grants. The City should
actively seek grants to help leverage local contributions.
o Create a foundation: The City could create a foundation for donations of park
and recreation facilities.
o Consider the creation of a Park District.
6.7 Maintenance
Almost since incorporation, the maintenance of the Spokane Valley park system has been
done by a private contractor under contract with the City. This agreement appears to be
satisfactory for the City and its citizens; in fact, in an unprompted survey question about
what they like most about Spokane Valley parks, 66 percent replied our parks are
clean /well- maintained. While contracting out park maintenance services may be a more
efficient means of maintaining parks and eliminates the cost of purchasing equipment and
it appears to meet the satisfaction of residents, there are other issues that should be
considered. This section provides the recommendations for the maintenance of parks.
Page 161
6.7.1 Maintenance Recommendations
• Dedicate time and resources to check on the work being performed.
• Continue to incorporate into the contract policies and procedures on how park
maintenance personnel will interact with the public. Park maintenance staff will be
in more contact with the public than anyone else will in the City. Their actions and
relationships will reflect on the City.
• Establish a maintenance funding goal calculated on a per acre basis and define
minimum maintenance service levels.
• Develop an integrated pest management plan to define use of herbicides and
pesticides in parks and open space areas.
• Develop a schedule to assess the replacement and upgrade needs for all parks and
facilities.
6.8 River Access
The Spokane River corridor is the only major river within the City of Spokane Valley. The
River offers a number of existing public access opportunities. The public access plan for the
Shoreline Master Program offers a detailed analysis of both existing and potential river
access opportunities. The proposed future access points have been identified in Figure 6 -A,
but if there is any conflict, the Shoreline Master Program rules. This section summarizes
how this plan and the Department should interface when considering park development in
shoreline areas.
6.8.1 River Access Recommendations
• In considering development near the Spokane River or other significant shoreline,
review the Shoreline Master Program for the following:
o Potential river access point or improvements
o Shoreline regulations and policies that may impact park development
• The Parks Department should work with Community Development to identify
potential acquisition sites that may meet the needs of this plan and the SMP.
Page X62
Chapter 7.0: Aquatic Facilities
The City of Spokane Valley owns and operates three seasonal outdoor swimming pools and
contracts with the Spokane YMCA to operate and maintain the pools. Two of the pools are
associated with existing parks, Terrace View and Valley Mission. The third pool, Park Road
Pool, is not associated with a park but adjacent to a school. The pools were upgraded in
2008 -2009 and are in good condition.
Table 7 -1: Existing Aquatic Facilities in Spokane Valley
Facility
Notes Ownership
Park Road Pool
Terrace View Pool
6 -land x 25 -yard outdoor pool with slide
6 -land x 25 -yard outdoor pool with lazy
river
City of Spokane Valley
City of Spokane Valley
Valley Mission Pool 6 -land x 25 -yard outdoor pool and zero City of Spokane Valley
depth entry pool
Spokane Valley YMCA Leisure and lap pools YMCA
Splashdown Outdoor aquatic park Private /leased
Within the region but outside the City of Spokane Valley are five outdoor pools in the City
of Spokane and a number of private pools like the YMCA. Additionally, the Spokane River
and nearby; lakes provide summer swimming opportunities for residents.
7.1 Aquatic Facility Background
The 2006 Park and Recreation Plan dedicated an entire chapter to aquatic facilities. The
stated purpose of that chapter was to analyze the need for indoor and outdoor aquatic
facilities. It provided a detailed analysis of indoor and outdoor pool demand, an analysis of
attendance potential, and finally a financial analysis of operating revenue for an indoor
pool.
In part, the driving force behind the aquatics chapter in 2006 was to identify and publically
vet how to spend $1.6 million on aquatic improvements that was to be transferred from
Spokane County. Originally intended to fund an indoor pool, the $1.6 million was found to
be inadequate for that purpose. The aquatics chapter from 2006 concluded with the three
following concept aquatic recommendations:
1. Upgrade and add leisure component to three existing outdoor pools
2. Add large water play component to one existing outdoor pool and preform basic
upgrades to two existing pools.
3. Build an indoor aquatic complex
In the 2006 plan, concept 1 and concept 2 were considered short term solutions to Spokane
Valley's aquatic facilities, and concept 3 was considered a long -term solution. In 2008 and
Page X63
continuing into 2009, the City implemented a combination of both short -term concepts.
The improvements included:
• Upgraded existing facilities
• Added lazy river
• Added free standing water slide
• Increased sun deck size
• Added zero depth entry pool
The 2013 update did not analyze the need for an indoor aquatic facility. Throughout the
public process, only one comment was received indicating a desire for an indoor facility; as
such, this plan suggests the following recommendations:
• The City of Spokane Valley could at some point in the future consider updating a
needs assessment to determine if an indoor aquatic facility is still desired or needed
in the Spokane Valley. The updated needs analysis may include:
o A design process to determine an appropriate location for an indoor aquatic
facility
o A demand and financial analysis to determine construction and operational
costs and potential use
o A design program to determine the activity spaces, type, and size of facility
Page X64
Chapter 8.0: Implementation
This chapter is updated in its entirety to identify the full range of implementation projects,
programs and initiatives. Many of these items carry over from the 2006 plan, but many are
also new, reflecting the community's changing needs and the City's success in
implementing many of the 2006 plan's recommendations.
8.1 Funding Sources
The following are possible funding sources for acquiring, developing, and maintaining
parks and other recreational areas in the City of Spokane Valley:
• General Fund: This is the City's primary source for operating revenue. Most of this
revenue comes from taxes levied on property and the sale of merchandise within
the City's boundary.
• Municipal Capital Improvement Program Funding: This is a six -year financing
program for major capital expenditures funded from the General Fund.
• General Obligation Bond: These are voter - approved bonds with the assessment
placed on real property. The money may only be used for capital improvements.
This property tax is levied for a specified period of time (usually 15 -20 years).
Passage requires a two - third's majority approval with 50% of the voters voting.
Major disadvantages of this funding option are the high approval requirement and
the interest costs.
• Special Serial Levy: This is a property tax assessed for the construction and /or
operation of park facilities. This type of levy is established at a given rate for three to
five years and requires a simple majority for voter approval. The advantage of this
type of levy is that there are no interest charges.
• Revenue Bonds: These bonds are sold and paid for from the revenue produced from
the operation of a facility. The City does not have any recreational facilities funded
in this manner.
• Donations: The donation of labor, land, or cash by service agencies, private groups
or individuals is a popular way to raise small amounts of money for specific projects.
Service agencies, such as Kiwanis, Lions and Rotary Clubs, often fund small projects
such as playground improvements.
• Exchange of Property: If the City has an excess parcel of land with some
development value, it could be traded for private land more suitable for park use.
• Joint Public /Private Partnership: This concept has become increasingly popular for
parks and recreation agencies. The basic approach is for a public agency to enter
into a working agreement with a private corporation to help fund, build, and /or
operate a public facility. Generally, the three primary incentives a public agency can
offer are free land to place a facility (usually a park or other parcel of public land),
Page X65
certain tax advantages and access to the facility. While the public agency may have
to give up certain responsibilities or control, it is one way of obtaining public
facilities at a lower cost.
• Lifetime Estates: This is an agreement between the City and a land owner, where the
City gives the owner the right to live on the site after it is sold.
• Park Impact Fees: Park Impact Fees are fees imposed on new development because
of the impacts the projects have on the City's infrastructure. While common in most
Washington cities, Spokane Valley has not imposed this fee yet.
• Certificates of Participation: This is a lease - purchase approach where the City sells
Certificates of Participation (COPs) to a lending institution. The City then pays the
loan off from revenue produced by the facility or from its general operating budget.
The lending institution holds title to the property until the COPs are repaid. This
procedure does not require a vote of the public.
Public /Government Grant Programs:
• HUD Community Development Block Grant (CDBG): These grants from the Federal
Department of Housing and Urban Development are available for a wide variety of
projects. Most are distributed in the lower income areas of the community. Grants
can cover up to 100% of project costs.
• Conservation Futures Funding: The Spokane County Conservation Futures Program
was conceived in 1994 with the voters' approval of an advisory ballot measure
authorizing the County to levy a property tax of (up -to) 6.25 -cents per $1,000 of
property value (2013 - levy rate at 4.3 cents per $1,000) to acquire, preserve and
otherwise protect the County's open space, streams, rivers, and other natural
resources. The tax money is solely for the acquisition of property and development
rights to benefit wildlife, conserve natural resources, increase passive recreation
and educational opportunities, and improve the quality of life for area residents.
Fifteen percent of the annual Conservation Futures levy revenue is dedicated
toward maintaining, protecting and enhancing these properties in perpetuity.
• Land and Water Conservation Fund: This is a federal grant program that receives its
money from offshore oil leases. The money is distributed through the National Park
Service and is administered locally by the Washington State Resources Conservation
Office (RCO). In the past, this was one of the major sources of grant money for local
agencies. In the 1990s, funding at the federal level was severely cut, but in recent
times more money has become available. In the current proposed federal budget, a
small amount of money has been allocated to this program. The funds can be used
for acquisition and development of outdoor facilities and requires a 50% match.
• Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP -21): Through the years,
Washington has received considerable revenue for trail - related projects. These
funds can generally be used for landscape and amenity improvements related to
trail and transportation projects.
Page 166
• Youth Athletic Fund: The Youth Athletic Fund is a grant program designed to
provide funding for new, improved, and better maintained outdoor athletic facilities
serving youth and communities. This program was established by State Statute
(RCW 79A.25.800 -830) as part of the State Referendum 48, which provided funding
for the Seattle Seahawks Stadium. Applicants must provide matching funds of at
least 50 percent.
• Boating Facilities Program: This is a grant program funded through the RCO.
Projects eligible under this program include acquisition, development, planning, and
renovation projects associated with launching ramps, transient moorage, and
upland support facilities. Grants are distributed on an annual basis and require a 25
percent match.
• Aquatic Land Enhancement Account: This program is administered by the RCO and
is intended to provide support for the purchase, improvement, or protection of
aquatic lands for public purposes and access to these resources. Applicants must
provide a minimum of a 50 percent match.
• Washington Wildlife and Recreation Program: This program is administered by the
RCO. There are two accounts under this program: 1) Habitat Conservation; and 2)
Outdoor Recreation. Projects eligible under this program include acquisition and
development of parks, water access sites, trails, critical wildlife habitat, natural
areas, and urban wildlife habitat. Applicants must provide a minimum of a 50
percent non -RCO match.
• Exactions: Costs of necessary public improvements are passed onto the adjacent
landowners.
• Public Land Trusts: Private land trusts, such as the Trust for Public Land, Inc. and
the Nature Conservancy will acquire and hold land for eventual acquisition by a
public agency.
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFW): USFW may provide technical assistance and
administer funding for projects related to water quality improvement through
debris and habitat /vegetation management, watershed management and stream
bank erosion, and sediment deposition projects.
Other Potential Sources:
• Partnerships: The City is in a unique position to develop additional partnerships
with other jurisdictions or agencies to implement projects identified in the plan.
Some potential partners include the YMCA, Boys and Girls Club, private sport
groups, neighborhood organizations, Spokane County, and the City of Spokane.
• Private Grants and Foundations: Private grants and foundations provide money for
a wide range of projects. They are sometimes difficult to find and equally difficult to
secure because of the open competition. They usually fund unique projects or ones
of extreme need.
Page X67
8.2 Recommended Capital Projects
Table 8 -1: Parks and Recreation C inital Projects List
Project Site / Park
#
Project /
Description
Estimated
Costs
Priority
Year
1
NP -4
Master development
plan for Balfour Park
Extension
High
2013
2
Barker Trailhead
Pave parking lot
$45,000
High
2014
3
Browns
Add eight sand
volleyball courts
$120,000
High
2014
4
Discovery
Playground
Add new equipment
$50,000
High
2014
5
Discovery
Playground
Install shade
structure
$15,000
High
2014
6
Park Road Pool
Paint pool tank
$35,000
High
2014
7
Valley Mission
Determine alternate
use of horse arena
High
2014
8
CP-1
Property acquisition
and development for
new neighborhood
park 10 -50 acres
$ 3,000,000
- 6,000,000
High
2015
9
Balfour
Add basketball court
$25,000
High
2015
10
Balfour
Add picnic shelter
$150,000
High
2015
11
Browns
Replace picnic shelter
$150,000
High
2015
12
Browns
Replace bathroom
$150,000
High
2015
13
Unknown
Develop an off -leash
pet park as either a
new facility or
component of an
existing park
$50,000
High
2015
14
Unknown
Develop a skate park
facility, location to be
determined but
conceptually
identified as NP -4,
Sullivan Park, or
Valley Mission.
$ 250,000
- $500,000
High
2015
15
CenterPlace
Repair roof
$300,000
High
2015
16
Unknown
Develop a disc golf
course as a
component of an
existing facility in
conjunction with
other agencies
$50,000
High
2016
Page 168
Project
#
Site / Park
Project /
Description
Estimated
Costs
Priority
Year
17
NP -2
Property acquisition
and development for
new neighborhood
park 3 -7 acres.
$ 1,000,000
- 2,400,000
High
2017
18
NP -1
Property acquisition
and development for
new neighborhood
park 3 -7 acres
$ 1,000,000
- 2,400,000
High
2018
19
NP -3
Property acquisition
and development for
new neighborhood
park 3 -7 acres.
$ 1,000,000
- 2,400,000
High
2019
20
All
Install new park signs
- phased
$100,000
Medium
2014-
2020
21
Balfour
Add splash pad
$75,000
Medium
2015
22
Browns
Add basketball court
$25,000
Medium
2015
23
Browns
Replace playground
equipment
$200,000
Medium
2015
24
Centennial Trail
Repair sections of
trail
Medium
2015
25
Terrace View
Add splash pad
$50,000
Medium
2016
26
Castle
pa k lop slack lining
$20,000
Medium
2016
27
Browns
Add splash pad
$50,000
Medium
2017
28
Sullivan Park
Resurface and
restripe parking lot
$40,000
Medium
2017
29
Valley Mission
Repair tennis courts
$50,000
Medium
2018
30
Edgecliff
Replace picnic shelter
$100,000
Medium
2019
31
Edgecliff
Replace restroom
$100,000
Medium
2019
32
NP -5
Property acquisition
and development for
new neighborhood
park 3 -7 acres
$ 1,000,000
- 2,400,000
Medium
2020
33
Edgecliff
Add splash pad
$50,000
Medium
2020
34
Mirabeau
Trailhead
Provide potable
water at trailhead
$75,000
Medium
2020
35
Valley Mission
Add splash pad
$50,000
Medium
2021
36
Edgecliff
Replace playground
equipment
$100,000
Medium
2022
37
Mirabeau Park
Develop geological
trail
$30,000
Low
2015
38
Myrtle Point
Master development
$45,000
Low
2016
39
Sullivan Park
Landscape and
improve radio control
car area
$75,000
Low
2017
Page X69
Project
#
40
Site / Park
Project /
Description
Estimated
Costs
$150,000
Priority
Low
Year
2020
Terrace View
Replace restrooms
41
Edgecliff
Replace fencing
$35,000
Low
2022
42
Greenacres
Develop Phase 2
$1,500,000
Low
2023
43
Terrace View
Update pool
bathhouse
$200,000
Low
2023
44
Park Road Pool
Update pool
bathhouse
$200,000
Low
2025
45
Valley Mission
Update pool
bathhouse
$200,000
Low
2025
46
Unknown
Develop recreation
center
Low
?
47
Unknown
Develop new public
events venue
Low
?
48
Various
Develop community
garden
$25,000
Low
?
49
Valley Mission
Replace restrooms
$150,000
Low
?
8.3 Preliminary Project Priorities
The total cost for all the improvements identified in Table 8 -2 is nearly $12 - $19 million,
the range depending on the number of acres acquired for the new parks. This is more than
the City can, or will, finance in the near term. To be able to direct funding toward the most
significant projects in terms of meeting community needs, all projects recommended in the
plan were prioritized. The recommended actions listed in priority order are:
• Acquire park land: It is important to acquire park land while it is available. The
highest acquisition priority should be the proposed neighborhood park site NP -1.
Additionally as opportunities arise, park land should be acquired in sites: NP -2, NP-
3, NP -5, and CP -5
• Upgrade existing park facilities: Since all of the parks need some improvements, this
is a place where immediate action could occur. Upgrading of park sites should be a
six -year program.
• Install splash pads at existing or new parks.
• Create an off -leash dog park.
• Create a disc golf course.
• Install eight sand volleyball courts at Browns Park.
8.4 Basis for Estimating Costs
Development costs can vary widely depending on the location, facility type, construction
method, off -site costs, quality of development, and other constraints on the project. For
purposes of estimating cost, the following assumptions were made:
• Land Acquisition: For development, land prices were estimated at $50,000 per acre.
In some areas of the City, land acquisition could well exceed this amount. For open
Page 170
space acquisition, costs were placed at $1,000 per acre. This assumes that most of
the land acquired will be undevelopable because of environmental constraints.
• Development: Potential costs were established for each element of park
development for each park site. These costs excluded street improvements and any
other off -site costs. For typical neighborhood and community parks, an assumption
of $150,000 per acre was used.
• School Park Improvements: An estimated cost of $100,000 per site was used.
• Design: The figures assume a project designed by a professional design firm and bid
through a competitive public bidding process. Design costs were estimated at 10%
of construction cost.
• Contingency: A contingency of 15% was used.
8.5 Capital Costs
Table 8 -2 summarizes probable construction costs of all the projects listed in the plan.
Table 8 -2: Summar of Pro'
Item
Cost
Land Acquisition $2,900,000
Park and Facility Upgrades $5,000,000
New Park Development $11,020,000
Total $18,920,000*
* Land acquisition and park development costs assume a total of 58 acres of new park land.
8.6 Current Funding Availability
The City has an adopted Capital Improvement Program that will be primarily funded
through the General Fund. For parks, the funding allocation is as follows:
Table 8 -3: Funding Allocations for Parks, Years 2014 -2019
Year Allocations
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
Total
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$600,000
Even with this level of funding ($600,000), the City has a significant deficit of financial
resources to implement the improvements recommended in the plan.
8.7 Financing Strategy
It is recommended that the City embark on a conservative park capital development plan.
While community needs exist to warrant a more aggressive financing strategy, the City
Page 171
should first demonstrate the ability to develop several smaller park projects before
embarking on a much larger one.
The short -term capital improvement plan presented below represents the current City CIP
plus some additional outside sources. However, recognizing the magnitude of need, a more
aggressive funding plan, should be considered as soon as practicable. This larger funding
package would be used to acquire land and develop several of the new neighborhood and
community parks.
8.8 Capital Improvement Plan
Table 8 -4 summarizes the recommended projects and funding sources for the years 2014 -
2019.
Table 8 -4: Summary of Funding and Expenditures 6 -year Capital Improvement Plan
Project
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Total
Park
Improvements
$280,000 $7,070,000 $180,000 $2,800,000 $65,000 $1,545,000 $11,940,000
Park Acquisition 0
Total 0
Expenditures
$1,500,000 0
$1,500,000 0
$700,000 0
$700,000 0
$350,000 $2,550,000
$350,000 $2,550,000
Revenues
General Fund $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $300,000
REET #1 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $300,000
Grants 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Loans /Levies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Revenues $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $600,000
Surplus /(Deficit) $100,000 ($1,400,000) $100,000 ($600,000) 100,000 ($250,000) ($1,950,000)
Page 172
Appendix A. Telephone Survey Report
Page 173
arks Sp�1e .
ecreation
Plan Update
Spokane Valley Parks and Recreation Department
Executive Summary Report
February 2013
Prepared by:
Studio
Cascade
Commun114 Plonnt19a De141
IROBINSON RESEARCH
SURVEYS ui1'� FOCUS GROUPS
Contents
Statement of Methodology 3
Executive Summary 4
Detailed Observations 5
Q.1 Which parks do members of your household visit, if any? 5
Using a five -point scale, where one is not at all satisfied and five is completely satisfied,
please rate your satisfaction with each of the following. 7
Q.2 Parks managed by the Spokane Valley Parks and Recreation Department 7
Q.3 Pools managed by the Spokane Valley Parks and Recreation Department 7
Q.4 Recreation Programs managed by the Parks and Recreation Department 8
Q.5 CenterPlace 8
Q.6 Name three things you like. 9
Now I will read a list of possible new amenities and current amenities that could be increased
if the citizens were willing to fund them. After I read each one, please indicate how important
it would be to you in future developments by the City of Spokane Valley Parks and Recreation
Department. Please use a scale of one to five, where one means not at all important and five
means extremely important 10
Q.7 Increased river access for rafters, kayakers, and similar non - motorized activities 11
Q.8 Additional parks 11
Q.9 Urban trails 12
Q.10 Off -leash dog park 12
Q.11 Skate park 12
Q.12 Formal athletic fields 12
Q.13 Outdoor courts such as for basketball and tennis 12
Q.14 Outdoor aquatic facilities 13
Q.15 Indoor recreation facilities 13
Q.16 Sand volleyball courts 13
Q.17 Splash pads 13
Now I will read three possible objectives for the Spokane Valley Parks and Recreation
Department. After I read each one, please tell me how important it is, using the same scale. 14
Q.18 Purchase property for the development of future parks 14
Q.19 Increase recreation programs and services 14
Q.20 Create multi -use indoor recreation facilities 15
Demographic Profile 16
`Other' Responses 17
Q.6 Name three things you like. 17
Zone Map 18
Robinson Research 2 Studio Cascade
Executive Summary Report February 2013
Statement of Methodology
Robinson Research was commissioned by Studio Cascade and the Spokane Valley Parks and
Recreation Department to conduct a telephone survey among households with Spokane Valley
city limits. Cell phones were not excluded from our sampling.
The overall purpose of this project was to determine perceptions of Spokane Valley parks, pools,
recreation programs, and CenterPlace.
For this study, 360 telephone interviews were conducted at Robinson Research's facility from
February 2, 2013 to February 12, 2013. The sample size of 360 was chosen to fit a finite budget.
No fewer than fifteen percent (15 %) of the interviews were monitored in their entirety, and an
additional ten percent (10 %) were called back by a supervisor for verification of key points of
the data. Interim trial runs of the data were cross - tabulated by interviewer as a quality assurance
procedure.
A 360 - sample survey has a margin of error of +/- 5.15% percent, which means that, in theory,
results have a ninety -five percent (95 %) chance of coming within +/- 5.15 percentage points of
results that would have been obtained if all households within Spokane Valley city limits had
been interviewed.
Spokane Valley was divided into four Study Groups areas, labeled 1, 2, 3, and 4. A map can be
found at the end of this report. For the sake of clarity, we have renamed the zones based on their
locations on the map.
1 West Zone
2 South Central Zone
3 North/Northeast Zone
4 East/Southeast Zone
Questions can be directed to:
William D. Robinson
President
Robinson Research
1206 N. Lincoln St., Suite 200
Spokane, WA 99201
(509) 489 -4361
billr@robinson-research.com
Robinson Research 3 Studio Cascade
Executive Summary Report February 2013
Executive Summary
• Half of respondents reported that they or members of their household had visited
Mirabeau Point Park.
• Participants residing in the east/southeast zone were more likely than average to visit
parks outside of their area, specifically, Terrace View Park, Mirabeau Point Park, and
CenterPlace.
• Parks managed by the Spokane Valley Parks and Recreation Department received the
highest mean satisfaction score in a series that asked respondents to rate the parks, pools,
CenterPlace, and recreation programs. Half of respondents rated it at the top of the scale.
• Recreation programs received the lowest mean satisfaction score, though two in five
respondents were unable or unwilling to rate them.
• Two in three respondents mentioned (unaided) that the areas managed by the Spokane
Valley Parks and Recreation Department were clean/well maintained.
• When asked to rate a list of eleven possible new or current amenities that could be
increased, urban trails received the highest mean score. Sand volleyball courts received
the lowest mean score.
• Respondents were read a list of three possible objectives for the Spokane Valley Parks
and Recreation Department and asked to rate their importance. Less than three tenths of a
point separated the highest ranked (increase recreation programs) from the lowest
(purchase property for future parks). All fell just above the midpoint of the scale.
Robinson Research 4 Studio Cascade
Executive Summary Report February 2013
Detailed Observations
Q.1 Which parks managed by the Spokane Valley Parks and Recreation Department do
members of your household visit, if any?
Respondents were not read a list of possible responses from which to select. Multiple responses
were allowed. Interviewers had a list of the parks that included the nearest major intersection. If
a respondent was unaware of the park's name, but could provide directional information, the
interviewer would tell them the name of the park and select it.
Q.1 Which Parks Managed By The Spokane
Valley Parks And Rec Department Do Members
Of Your Household Visit?
Mirabeau Point Park
Valley Mission Park
CenterPlace
Terrace View Park
1 48%
1 39%
1 29%
1 28%
Park Road Pool 1 11%
Browns Park 1 6%
Sullivan Park 1 5%
Edgecliff Park 1 5%
Balfour Park 1 4%
Greenacres Park 7 2%
Castle Park ] 1%
Myrtle Point Park ] 1%
Don't know 1 3%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Nearly half (48 %) of participants reported that they or members of their household had visited
Mirabeau Point Park.
The average respondent mentioned 1.85 parks.
Spokane Valley residents between the ages of 18 and 36 were significantly less likely than
average to mention CenterPlace and more likely than average to mention Valley Mission Park.
Robinson Research 5 Studio Cascade
Executive Summary Report February 2013
Respondents who reported residing in Spokane Valley from one to ten years were more likely
than average to mention Mirabeau Park.
The following table displays the difference (percentages) between the zone in which the
respondents resided and the zone in which the park is located. Cells where the number is blue
and bold signify a percentage that was higher than average, at the 95% confidence level. Cells
where the number is red and italicized indicate a percentage that was lower than average, at the
95% confidence level.
Respondents in the east /southeast zone were more likely than the residents of the other three
zones to visit parks in an area other than their own. It should be noted that while Terrace View
Park, Mirabeau, and CenterPlace are not located within the east/southeast zone, they are situated
more closely than the other parks and are not very far outside of the east/southeast zone.
Robinson Research 6 Studio Cascade
Executive Summary Report February 2013
Zones of Participants' Residences
Parks
Clustered
Zone
Park
Total %
West Zone
South
Central
Zone
North /north-
east Zone
East/south-
east Zone
West
Park Road
11%
26%
4%
7%
6%
Edgecliff
5%
11%
6%
2%
2%
South
Central
Terrace View
28%
8%
41%
17%
48%
Castle Park
1%
-
3%
-
-
Browns Park
6%
2%
19%
I N
2%
North/
northeast
Mirabeau
48%
41%
41%
50%
60%
Valley Mission
39%
43%
32%
58%
23%
CenterPlace
29%
20%
12%
34%
51%
Sullivan
5%
4%
2%
6%
8%
Balfour
4%
4%
2%
7%
2%
Myrtle Point
1%
2%
-
1%
1%
E /se
Greenacres
2%
1%
2%
1%
4%
Don't know
3%
3%
7%
-
-
Respondents in the east /southeast zone were more likely than the residents of the other three
zones to visit parks in an area other than their own. It should be noted that while Terrace View
Park, Mirabeau, and CenterPlace are not located within the east/southeast zone, they are situated
more closely than the other parks and are not very far outside of the east/southeast zone.
Robinson Research 6 Studio Cascade
Executive Summary Report February 2013
Using a five -point scale, where one is not at all satisfied and five is completely satisfied,
please rate your satisfaction with each of the following.
Please Rate Your Satisfaction With
Each Of The Following.
Parks
CenterPlace
Pools
Recreation programs
1
Grand Mean 4.13
3.92
3.87
4.38
4.35
1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00
Q.2 Parks managed by the Spokane Valley Parks and Recreation Department
Parks were ranked first among the four tested facilities managed by the Spokane Valley Parks
and Recreation Department (4.38).
Participants who reported that they or members of their household had visited Balfour Park were
significantly more likely than average to give a higher rating.
Spokane Valley residents who reported having children who frequently visited (but who did not
live with them) were significantly more likely than average to give a higher rating.
Q.3 Pools managed by the Spokane Valley Parks and Recreation Department
Pools were ranked third among the four tested facilities (3.92).
One in three (36 %) respondents were unable or unwilling to rate the pools managed by the Parks
& Rec Department.
Robinson Research 7 Studio Cascade
Executive Summary Report February 2013
Spokane Valley residents who reported having children who frequently visited (but who did not
live with them) were significantly more likely than average to give a higher rating.
Q.4 Recreation Programs managed by the Spokane Valley Parks and Recreation
Department
Recreation programs were ranked last of the four tested facilities (3.87).
Two in five (43 %) participants were unable or unwilling to rate the recreation programs.
Responses spanned the tested subsets quite evenly.
Q.5 CenterPlace
CenterPlace ranked second among the four tested facilities (4.35).
One in four (26 %) respondents were unable or unwilling to give a rating.
Respondents in the 70+ age group were more likely than average to give a higher rating.
Female were more likely than average to give a higher rating; males were more likely than
average to give a lower rating.
"Good" voters were more likely than non - voters to give a higher rating.
Robinson Research 8 Studio Cascade
Executive Summary Report February 2013
Q.6 Name three things you like about the parks, pools, recreation programs, or
CenterPlace managed by the Spokane Valley Parks and Recreation Department?
Participants were not read a list of possible responses from which to select. Respondents were
not allowed to name more than three things they liked, but were allowed to name fewer.
Q.6 Name Three Things You Like
About The Parks, Pools, Recreation
Programs, Or CenterPlace?
Clean/well maintained
Amenities provided
Landscaping
Proximity to home /work
That they exist
Variety of recreation opportunities
Quality of fields /equipment
Availability of parking
Neighbors /people
Safety of parks
Classes /camp /events
Family/kid friendly
Quantity of fields /equipment
1 25%
1 22%
1 21%
1 19%
1 17%
1 17%
1 13%
111%
1 64%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
Two in three (64 %) respondents mentioned clean /well maintained as something they liked.
The average participant mentioned 2.5 aspects they liked about the parks, pools, recreation
programs, or CenterPlace.
Robinson Research 9 Studio Cascade
Executive Summary Report February 2013
Now I will read a list of possible new amenities and current amenities that could be
increased if the citizens were willing to fund them. After I read each one, please indicate
how important it would be to you in future developments by the City of Spokane Valley
Parks and Recreation Department. Please use a scale of one to five, where one means not at
all important and five means extremely important.
Now I Will Read A List Of Possible New Amenities
And Current Amenities That Could Be Increased.
Please Indicate How Important It Would Be To You.
Grand Mean 3.29
1
Urban trails
Splash pads
Outdoor acquatic facilities
Indoor recreation facilities
Outdoor courts
Additional parks
Formal athletic fields
Increased river access
Off -leash dog park
Skate park
Sand volleyball courts
{
{
2.85
2.82
2.79
1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00
3.74
3.65
3.61
3.48
3.46
3.32
3.26
3.21
Robinson Research 10 Studio Cascade
Executive Summary Report February 2013
The following table displays the difference (means) between the zone in which the respondents
resided. Cells where the number is blue and bold signify a mean that was higher than average, at
the 95% confidence level. Cells where the number is red and italicized indicate a mean that was
lower than average, at the 95% confidence level.
The total difference between the most important and least important amenity was less than one
point, on a five -point scale.
Q.7 Increased river access for rafters, kayakers, and similar non - motorized activities
This amenity was ranked eighth of the eleven tested (3.21).
Participants who reported that they or members of their household had visited Sullivan Park were
more likely than average to give a higher rating.
Q.8 Additional parks
This amenity was ranked sixth among the eleven tested (3.32).
Responses spanned the tested subsets quite evenly.
Robinson Research 11
Executive Summary Report
Studio Cascade
February 2013
Zones of Participants' Residences
Amenity
Mean
West Zone
South Central
Zone
North /north-
east Zone
East/south-
east Zone
Increased river
access
3.21
3.38
3.11
3.02
3.34
Additional parks
3.32
3.44
3.34
3.08
3.42
Urban trails
3.74
3.64
3.57
3.66
4.09
Off -leash dog
park
2.85
3.22
2.77
2.56
2.85
Skate park
2.82
3.04
2.77
2.81
2.66
Formal athletic
fields
3.26
3.37
3.07
3.14
3.46
Outdoor courts
3.46
3.56
3.44
3.33
3.52
Outdoor aquatic
facilities
3.61
3.76
3.59
3.62
3.48
Indoor recreation
facilities
3.48
3.59
3.34
3.40
3.59
Sand volleyball
courts
2.79
2.81
2.89
2.68
2.80
Splash pads
3.65
3.90
3.65
3.50
3.55
The total difference between the most important and least important amenity was less than one
point, on a five -point scale.
Q.7 Increased river access for rafters, kayakers, and similar non - motorized activities
This amenity was ranked eighth of the eleven tested (3.21).
Participants who reported that they or members of their household had visited Sullivan Park were
more likely than average to give a higher rating.
Q.8 Additional parks
This amenity was ranked sixth among the eleven tested (3.32).
Responses spanned the tested subsets quite evenly.
Robinson Research 11
Executive Summary Report
Studio Cascade
February 2013
Q.9 Urban trails
This amenity was ranked first of the eleven tested (3.74).
Participants who reported that they or members of their household had visited CenterPlace were
more likely than average to give a higher rating.
Respondents in the east /southeast zone were more likely than average to give a higher rating.
Q.10 Off -leash dog park
This amenity was ranked ninth among the eleven tested (2.85).
Participants who reported that they or members of their household had visited Terrace View Park
were more likely than average to give a lower rating.
Spokane Valley residents residing in the west zone were more likely than average to give a
higher rating.
Q.11 Skate park
This amenity was ranked tenth of the eleven tested (2.82).
Participants who reported having children who did not live with them, but regularly visited, were
more likely than average to give a higher rating.
Q.12 Formal athletic fields
This amenity was ranked seventh among the eleven tested (3.26).
Participants who reported that household members had visited Edgecliff Park (which has formal
athletic fields) were more likely than average to give a lower rating.
Respondents in the 55 to 60 age group were significantly more likely than average to give a
lower rating.
Q.13 Outdoor courts such as for basketball and tennis
This amenity was ranked fifth of the eleven tested (3.46).
Participants who reported that household members had visited Balfour Park were more likely
than average to give a lower rating.
Respondents in the 18 to 36 age group were more likely than average to give a higher rating.
Robinson Research 12 Studio Cascade
Executive Summary Report February 2013
Respondents in the 55 to 60 age group were significantly more likely than average to give a
lower rating.
Q.14 Outdoor aquatic facilities
This amenity was ranked third among the eleven tested (3.61).
Participants who reported that household members had visited Balfour Park were more likely
than average to give a lower rating.
Q.15 Indoor recreation facilities
This amenity was ranked fourth of the eleven tested (3.48).
Participants who reported children residing in the household were more likely than average to
give a higher rating.
Q.16 Sand volleyball courts
This amenity was ranked last among the eleven tested (2.79).
Responses spanned the tested subsets quite evenly.
Q.17 Splash pads
This amenity was ranked second of the eleven tested (3.65).
Participants who reported that household members had visited Balfour Park were more likely
than average to give a lower rating.
Participants who reported children residing in the household were significantly more likely than
average to give a higher rating. Support waned as the age of the households' children increased.
Respondents in the 70+ age group were more likely than average to give a lower rating.
Robinson Research 13 Studio Cascade
Executive Summary Report February 2013
Now I will read three possible objectives for the Spokane Valley Parks and Recreation
Department. After I read each one, please tell me how important it is, using the same scale.
Now I Will Read Three Possible Objectives For
The Spokane Valley Parks & Rec Department.
Increase recreation programs and
services
Create multi -use indoor recreation
facilities
Purchase property for the development
of future parks
1
Grand Mean 3.53
3.69
3.50
3.41
1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00
Less than three- tenths of one point separated the highest rated objective from the lowest rated.
Q.18 Purchase property for the development of future parks
This objective was ranked last among the three tested (3.41).
Responses spanned the tested subsets quite evenly.
Q.19 Increase recreation programs and services
This objective was ranked first among the three tested (3.69).
Respondents with children in the household or who had children (but did not live with them)
between the ages of 3 and 6 who regularly visited, were more likely than average to give a higher
rating.
Robinson Research 14 Studio Cascade
Executive Summary Report February 2013
Q.20 Create multi -use indoor recreation facilities
This objective was ranked second among the three tested (3.50).
Spokane Valley residents who reported having children between the ages of 3 and 6 that
frequently visited (but did not live with them) were more likely than average to give a higher
rating.
Non - voters were more likely than average to give a higher rating.
Robinson Research 15 Studio Cascade
Executive Summary Report February 2013
Demographic Profile
• One in three (34 %) respondents reported children residing in their household
• Half (47 %) reported no children
• One -fifth (19 %) of Spokane Valley residents reported that no children lived in their
household, but that there were children who frequently visited
• Children's ages
(Percentages
based on
households
with children or
that had
children who
regularly
visited):
Age range
Percentage
0 -2
21%
3 -6
50%
7 -9
40%
10 -12
33%
13 -15
31%
16 -17
16%
Refused
1%
• The average participant had resided in Spokane Valley for 26.47 years
• Eighty -four percent of respondents reported owning their home
• The average age of respondents was 54.13
• The average yearly, combined, household income was $49,770
• Fifty -three percent of respondents were female (quotas were established)
• One - quarter of interviews were conducted among participants in each of the four zones
• Thirty-eight percent of respondents were "good" voters (voted in at least three of the last
four general and primary elections), forty -four percent were voters, but did not qualify as
"good" voters, and eighteen percent were non - voters
Robinson Research 16 Studio Cascade
Executive Summary Report February 2013
`Other' Responses
"Others" are responses that fell outside the predetermined categories and for which no new
category was created. These are the actual responses which were coded as "other" in the
database.
Q.6 Name three things you like about the parks, pools, recreation programs, or
CenterPlace managed by the Spokane Valley Parks and Recreation Department?
Dog friendly
The temperature at which the pool is kept
Open all year
Size of the parks
Convenient hours
System is growing
CenterPlace is a nice facility
Educational facilities
CenterPlace is large and spacious
Suitable for kids with disabilities
Extended pool hours
Hours
Robinson Research 17 Studio Cascade
Executive Summary Report February 2013
Zone Map
1 = West Zone 2 = South Central Zone
Robinson Research
Executive Summary Report
= North/Northeast Zone 4 = East/Southeast Zone
18
Studio Cascade
February 2013
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: December 3, 2013 Department Director Approval:
Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing
❑ information ® admin. report ❑ pending legislation ❑ executive session
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Revised 2013 -2014 Legislative Agenda
GOVERNING LEGISLATION:
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: The Council adopted the 2013 -2014 Legislative Agenda at
their December 18, 2012 meeting. The Finance Committee met on November 7, 2013, and recommended
adding the Appleway Trail Project to the Legislative Agenda. Council reviewed and discussed items for
the amended legislative agenda at the November 19, 2013 Council meeting.
BACKGROUND: Annually, Council considers various legislative topics to determine how best to
protect and promote the interests of the City. Council discussed the 2013 -2014 Legislative Agenda on
November 19 to determine what items Council would like to promote on behalf of the City.
Council brought forth several items for consideration. City Manager Jackson stated staff would return
with additional information to have further Council discussion.
The attached draft agenda includes the same Legislative Agenda items as the November 19 version —
Appleway Trail Project (expanded to include Phases I through III), Protect the Local -State Shared
Revenues (expanded version to include all new revenues such as those generated by marijuana sales),
Additional Lien Authority to Recoup Code Enforcement Costs, and Support of AWC legislative agenda
items that serve the best interests of Spokane Valley.
Additionally, narratives have been provided for the Balfour Park/Library Project; The Barker Road/BNSF
Grade Separation; and, potential legislation regarding manufactured homes. Please note:
• With regard to the Barker Road/BNSF Grade Separation, if this project is included the
success is likely contingent on Council also supporting additional revenue sources at the
state level.
• With regard to Balfour Park, our legislative analyst Briahna Taylor strongly recommends
selecting one project and that the selected project that has the support of our legislative
delegation. Because Balfour will require an upcoming ballot measure, it is not the
preferred project whereas Appleway may be preferable due to public support and the fact
that is not contingent on a ballot measure.
• The City Attorney made inquiries into the issue brought up on November 19, 2013
regarding manufactured housing legislation. He found that AAMHO does not have this
issue on its legislative agenda and did not express a desire for Council to take up this
matter.
City Council can, at their discretion, add and/or subtract items from the Draft Legislative Agenda.
OPTIONS: Council discussion to consider issues to amend the 2013 -2014 Legislative Agenda and
proceed as written or revised; or direct staff further.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Consensus to place this item on an upcoming Council
agenda for adoption consideration as drafted, or with specific revisions.
BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS:
STAFF CONTACT: Mike Jackson and Mayor Towey
ATTACHMENTS: Amended 2013 -2014 Legislative Agenda; Balfour Park Project Description; and
Barker Road/BNSF Grade Separation information.
Spokane
.000Va11ey
2013 -14 Amended Legislative Agenda
Appleway Trail Project
Seek $2,000,000 in funding in the 2015 -2017 Capital Budget for the development of Phase II of the
former Milwaukie Railroad right -of -way as a unique, two -mile green space and trail in the heart of
Spokane Valley's commercial district. The project is expected to increase use of the commercial corridor,
benefitting the economy and creating new jobs. The project will provide a much needed route for non -
motorized travel along Spokane Valley's principle east -west commercial arterial, connecting the Spokane
Transit Authority Transit Center, business districts, schools, and medium -high density housing.
Community members have been actively involved in development of a Conceptual Design for the project,
which includes: a paved trail, plazas, play spaces and gathering places, public art, perennial gardens,
space for community gardens, mountain bike trail, and lighting and safety crossings. The current cost
estimate for the two -mile portion of Phase II of the Appleway Trail Project (University to Evergreen) is
$2,692,320. Spokane Valley has received grant funding in the amount of $642,852 from Spokane
Regional Transportation Council in their last Call for Projects. The design drawings are 90% complete.
In 2008, the City constructed Phase I which included 1.2 miles of pathway from Corbin Road to the east
City limits If successful in this funding request, the City would construct Phase II as described above.
Phase III would consist of two miles of trail from Evergreen Road to Corbin Road. The total funds
required to complete Phase II and Phase III are estimated at $5,286,000.
Protect the Local -State Shared Revenues
The City of Spokane Valley encourages the state to preserve local state - shared revenues, and restore
funding to those accounts revised and reduced during the last legislative session. These funds include the
Liquor Excise Tax Account, Liquor Board Profits, Streamlined Sales Tax Mitigation, Municipal Criminal
Justice Assistance Account, and City- County Assistance Account. In 2013, the Legislature permanently
reduced local Liquor Excise Tax distributions to cities. In Spokane Valley, this resulted in approximately
a 75% reduction ($437,486 in 2011 to $108,900 in 2014). The Legislature also capped the local
government share of Liquor Board Profits at a fixed rate. The City supports restoring shared Liquor
Excise Tax revenues; restoring growth in local Liquor Board Profits so that cities can share in the
increasing liquor revenues; and, protecting and maintaining funding to other state -share revenue accounts.
The City also requests consideration for receiving shared revenues in any and all new programs where the
City would have operating, enforcement, or financial obligations associated with the activities of these
new programs.
Additional Lien Authority to Recoup Code Enforcement Costs
The City of Spokane Valley seeks legislation to provide cities with additional tools to recoup costs for
enforcing code compliance when a court order has been issued and a city performs the abatement itself or
through a contractor. The legislation would provide cities with the same authority that counties currently
have to impose a priority lien on the property, and would also authorize cities to collect such liens on the
following year's property tax assessment.
The City supports the Association of Washington Cities' legislative agenda items that serve the best
interests of Spokane Valley.
Balfour Park /Library Project
Seek $2,000,000 in funding in the 2015 -2017 Capital Budget for the expansion of
Balfour Park creating an exciting and dynamic public gathering space that will energize
Spokane Valley. The City of Spokane Valley is partnering with the Spokane County
Library District to house a new branch library on this expanded park campus. This park
expansion combined with a library will provide a significant civic and recreational venue
for our residents. The library building has multiple angles and clerestory glass intended
to promote the dynamic between the building's interior space and the park outside.
This project will create and encourage social interaction between the park, library and
neighborhood.
The development of the Park /Library partnership is contingent upon the Library
resulting in a favorable ballot measure. The City is hopeful in developing the project as
a partnership; however, the City will develop Balfour Park even in the absence of the
Library.
The iconic forecourt water feature located within the civic plaza includes a meandering
colored concrete river pattern and native boulders. The children's reading garden is an
outdoor extension of the reading program. A multi -use building houses restrooms,
stage and storage room and is centrally located in the park to become an architectural
focal point for the informal grass amphitheater. A separate park picnic shelter will be
programmed as a rental facility for weddings, family reunions and other large group
gatherings. A veterans' monument, centrally located in the park, is intended to provide
a space for reflection. Upgrades to Balfour Park include an expansion of the play area,
new splash pad and a new basketball court. This project will create useful, interesting
and exciting spaces for reflection, congregation, celebrations or festivals and other
activities that bring vibrancy to a community and enhance economic development.
With an overall cost estimate of $4,000,000, the City of Spokane Valley will be providing
the matching funds to complete this project.
S4�itii
Valley®
Public Works Department
Capital Improvement Program
11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106 • Spokane Valley WA 99206
509.921.1000 • Fax: 509.921.1008 • cityhall @spokanevalley.org
Barker Road /BNSF Grade Separation
Cost Estimate: $26,000,000
PROJECT LOCATION:
Barker Road is a north -south principal arterial in the City of Spokane Valley. It crosses the Burlington
Northern Santa Fe (BNSF)
mainline track near State Route
290 (Trent Avenue).
Barker Road currently carries
approximately 4,100 vehicles
per day. The BNSF rail line
carries between 30 and 50
trains per day. Barker Road lies
between the Sullivan Road
overpass and Flora Road at-
grade crossing to the west, and
the Wellesley Avenue overpass
to the east. Barker Road is
currently protected by standard
railroad gates and signals.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
This project will reconstruct Barker Road to pass over three BNSF tracks and SR 290 (Trent Avenue).
Wellesley Avenue will be re- routed to connect to the new Barker Road on the south side of the railroad
tracks. SR 290 will be accessed with on -and off -ramps similar to the Sullivan Road interchange to the west.
This project will allow the City of Spokane Valley to petition to close the Flora Road at -grade crossing, which
would further improve public safety by reducing the possibility of rail/vehicle collisions at this intersection.
Barker Road and Wellesley Avenue are within the Urban Growth Boundary. In addition, Barker Road is near
the Spokane Industrial Park which includes customers served by both trucks and trains. With improved
access to the Spokane Industrial Park, direct connection of Barker Road to I -90, and a new four -lane grade
separation at BNSF and Trent, economic growth in the area will be improved significantly.
BENEFITS:
When completed, this project will separate vehicle traffic from train traffic. Also, by removing this at -grade
rail crossing, this project will:
• Improve the current Level of Service (LOS) of `F' at this intersection. The failing LOS has severely limited
new development in this industrial -zoned portion of the City.
• Improve public safety by reducing rail/vehicle collisions;
• Improve emergency access to residents and businesses;
• Eliminate waiting time for vehicles at rail crossings;
• Reduce noise levels - no more train whistles near crossings;
• Improve traffic flow due to separated grade crossings;
• Enhance development opportunities with a single rail corridor and improved access;
11/27/2013
• Help address concerns about coal trains; including impeded traffic flow, increased whistle noise, and train -
vehicle conflict safety.
PROGRESS TO -DATE:
The City is actively pursuing funding for this project. Currently $10 million has been secured from the
Washington State Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board (FMSIB). This project has been identified as
regionally significant by the Inland Pacific Hub Study.
. ..717.l'
: .
ROPOS
WELLESLEY ROAD
PROPOSED DRAINAGE
5WALE, TYP. CLO
PROPOSED
BARKER ROAD
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
The City has been following the potential issues and concerns raised by the proposed train traffic increase
from coal trains along the BNSF mainline In particular, the City is concerned about the potential impacts on
the SR290/Barker Rd intersection and railroad crossing. This intersection already experiences a level of
service (LOS) of `F' with current vehicle traffic and train volumes. The failing LOS has limited development
and growth in this important industrial -zoned section of the City.
The Spokane Regional Transportation Council conducted extensive studies of the rail crossings through
Spokane Valley in 2006. The study outlined the need for a grade separation at the SR290/Barker Rd.
intersection among other locations. The anticipated increase from coal train traffic is expected to further
compound the need for a grade separation at this intersection.
The proposed grade separation is a mutually beneficial project for the City, the State and BNSF. The project
helps address several of the issues raised by coal train opponents, helps improve the efficiency of the rail
movements along the corridor, and addresses environmental, safety and congestion related issues impacting
the City's street network. Development of the surrounding industrial zone may have additional benefit to
BNSF by creating a zone for companies dependent upon trains for shipping to relocate or develop.
11/27/2013
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: December 3, 2013
Check all that apply: ['consent ❑ old business
['information ® admin. report
Department Director Approval:
['new business ['public hearing
['pending legislation ['executive session
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Argonne Road Safety Project — Public Use and Necessity and Final
Action Under RCW 8.12.040 and 8.25.290
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 8.12 and RCW 8.25.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: None.
BACKGROUND: The City has planned to construct improvements to Argonne Road between
Knox and Montgomery to make safety and congestion improvements. An ordinance is
necessary to declare public use and necessity and under RCW 8.12.040 to proceed with the
project. Staff will provide additional background information at the time of the meeting.
OPTIONS: (1) Proceed to a first reading; or (2) take other appropriate action.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Consensus to place on the December 10, 2013
agenda for a first reading.
BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: NA
STAFF CONTACT: Cary Driskell, City Attorney
ATTACHMENTS:
DRAFT
ADVANCE AGENDA
For Planning Discussion Purposes Only
as of November 27, 2013; 9:30 a.m.
Please note this is a work in progress; items are tentative
To: Council & Staff
From: City Clerk, by direction of City Manager
Re: Draft Schedule for Upcoming Council Meetings
Dec 10, 2013, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. [due Mon, Dec 2]
Dec Community Recognition, Presentation of Key and Certificate —Mayor Towey (5 minutes)
1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) (5 minutes)
2. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance 13 -019 Amending Towing Regulations — Erik Lamb (10 minutes)
3. First Reading Proposed Ordinance, Argonne Rd Project, Public Use & Necessity — Cary Driskell (10 min)
4. Proposed Resolution 13 -012 Amending Fee Resolution for 2014 — Mark Calhoun (10 minutes)
5. Proposed Resolution 13 -013 Adopting Amended Parks and Rec Master Plan — Mike Stone (10 minutes)
6. Motion Consideration: Lodging Tax Allocations for 2014 — Mark Calhoun (25 minutes)
7. Motion Consideration: Approval of Legislative Agenda — Mike Jackson (15 minutes)
8. Advance Agenda (5 minutes)
[ *estimated meeting: 95 minutes]
Dec 17, 2013, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. [due Mon, Dec 9]
ACTION ITEMS:
1. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance, Argonne Rd Project, Public Use & Necessity — Cary Driskell (10 min)
2. Motion Consideration: Sweeping Contract — Eric Guth (10 minutes)
3. Motion Consideration: Street Maintenance Contract — Eric Guth (10 minutes)
4. Mayoral Appointments to Planning Commission (2 positions set to expire 12 -31 -2013) (5 minutes)
5. Mayoral Appointments to LTAC (2 positions set to expire 12 -31 -2013) (5 minutes)
NON - ACTION ITEMS:
6. Pavement Management Plan Update — Eric Guth (30 minutes)
7. Permitted Use Matrix Update — John Hohman (10 minutes)
8. Advance Agenda (5 minutes)
[ *estimated meeting: 85 minutes]
Dec 24, 2013 no meeting — Christmas Eve
Dec 31, 2013 no meeting — New Year's Eve
Jan 7, 2014, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m.
Oath of Office to Councilmember Position 4, Ed Pace -
1. Council Officer Elections (select Mayor and Deputy Mayor) — Chris Bainbridge
2. Alki Street Vacation (13400 Block of Alki) — Christina Janssen
[due Mon, Dec 30]
(10 minutes)
(15 minutes)
[ *estimated meeting: minutes]
Jan 14, 2014, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. [due Mon, Jan 6]
1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) (5 minutes)
2. First Reading, Ordinance Street Vacation (13400 Block of Alki) — Christina Janssen (15 minutes)
[ *estimated meeting: minutes]
Jan 21, 2014, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. [due Mon, Jan 13]]
1. Advance Agenda (5 minutes)
Draft Advance Agenda 11/27/2013 2:36:46 PM Page 1 of 2
January 28, 2014, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m.
1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes)
2. Second Reading, Ordinance Street Vacation (13400 Block of Alki) — Christina Janssen
3. Info Only: Department Monthly Reports
Feb 4, 2014, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m.
Feb 11, 2014, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m.
1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes)
[due Tue, Jan 21]
(5 minutes)
(15 minutes)
[due Mon, Jan 27]
[due Mon, Feb 3]
(5 minutes)
Feb 18, 2014, Winter Workshop Special Meeting: 8:30 a.m. — 4:30 p.m. [due Mon, Feb 10]
Meeting will be held in Council Chambers. Tentative agenda items include: council goals /work plan; business
plan; solid waste; economic development; capital projects priorities; legislative committee
February 18, 2014, No Evening Meeting
Feb 25, 2014, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. [due Mon, Feb 17]
OTHER PENDING AND /OR UPCOMING ISSUES/MEETINGS:
Appointments, Mayoral committee appt's for 2014
ADA Transition Plan
Avista Electrical Franchise
AWC June 2014 conference
Coal Train EIS
Future Acquisition Areas
Public Safety Contract, Proposed Amendment
Sports Commission Update
STA Bus Shelters, etc.
Stormwater Swales
Townhouses in Garden Office
*time for public or Council comments not included
Draft Advance Agenda 11/27/2013 2:36:46 PM Page 2 of 2
Spokane
�Valleyg
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
MONTHLY REPORT
October 2013
AGREEMENTS FOR SERVICES ADOPTED AND IN OPERATION
Contract Name
Contractor
Contract
Total
% of
Expended as
Contract
Amount
y
_
of 10/31/13
Expended
?
ELI I
Street Maintenance
Poe Asphalt
$1,366,663.00
$1,364,119.23
99.81%
Street Sweeping
AAA Sweeping
$490,199.94
$399,917.24
81.58%
Storm Drain Cleaning
AAA Sweeping
$189,990.00
$188,470.30
99.20%
Snow Removal
Poe Asphalt
$140,000.00
$36,897.14
26.36%
Landscaping
Ace Landscaping
$90,803.72
$72,380.87
79.71%
Emergency Traffic Control
Senske
$10,000.00
$5,596.66
55.97%
Litter and Weed Control
Geiger Work Crew
$60,000.00*
$52,191.16
86.99%
State Highway Maintenance
WSDOT
$215,000.00
$119,281.85
55.48%
Traffic Signals, Signs, Striping
Spokane County
$632,000.00
$527,878.69
83.53%
Dead Animal Control
Brad Southard
$15,000.00*
$14,699.00
97.99%
* Budget estimates
Citizen Requests for Public Works
Citizen Requests
N N W A [Jl CTS ■
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C
-
.
y
_
?
ELI I
i i
,:
E.
Total
Citizen
Request
s: Public
Works
Landsca
ping
Right of
ways
Dead
Animal
Removal
Roadwa
y Hazard
Pothole
Request
s
Sign &
Signal
Request
s
Graffiti
Misc.
Request
s
Traffic
Request
s
• Submitted
62
2
26
6
2
8
0
9
9
• In Progress
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
i i Resolved
61
2
26
5
2
8
0
9
9
"information in bold indicates updates
7
WASTEWATER
Status of the process can be monitored at: http:llwww.spokaneriver.netl,
http: / /www.ecy.wa.gov /geographic /spokane /sbokane river basin.htm,
http:ll www. spokanecounty. orql utilitieslWaterReclamation lcontent.aspx ?c =2224 and
http: llwww.spokaneriverpartners.coml
REGIONAL SOLID WASTE SYSTEM
Staff attended regional strategy meetings with Spokane County and City of Spokane
regarding development of an RFP to solicit proposals from consultants to evaluate
alternatives for solid waste management and disposal. The selection committee
recommended HDR's proposal. The Committee has been negotiating a fee proposal with
HDR to be presented to the County Commissioners in May. The County Commissioners
approved the contract with HDR and the contract was signed on May 20. A kickoff meeting
is scheduled for June 5. The 2 -day kickoff mtg was held with HDR on June 4th and 5th,
which included site visits to all of the facilities. HDR is in the process of collecting data and
developing cost alternatives for the various regional options. They expect to complete these
cost models in late July for the project team to review and discuss. HDR completed the final
draft of the study on August 21st, and presented the results of the study to the elected
officials representing the jurisdictions who are parties to the regional system at CenterPlace
on August 28th.
PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN
A contract was executed with IMS to prepare the 2013 update to the Pavement
Management Plan. A draft report was received and staff is in the process of reviewing it.
CAPITAL PROJECTS
(See attached Capital Projects Spreadsheet)
STREET MAINTENANCE ACTIVITY
The following is a summary of Public Works /Contractor maintenance activities in the City of
Spokane Valley for October 2013:
• Pothole patching /shouldering
• Poe asphalt performed patch work
• Poe subcontractors completed stormwater and concrete repairs.
• The Geiger crew continues with garbage pickup on arterials and dryland grass
vegetation management. Geiger also removed trees and debris from the Chester Creek
channel
• AAA Sweeping continues sweeping arterial roadways and vactoring drywells and catch
basins. Fall sweep began October 29tH
STORMWATER UTILITY
• Stormwater Maintenance projects
Projects at RaymondNalleyway, Sargent, North of Broadway, and Barker
were started /completed with maintenance forces in October.
• Bettman/Dickey Stormdrain Improvements
Project complete. See Project #0189.
• 14th Avenue, Custer to Carnahan
Construction continued in October. See Project #0190.
*information in bold indicates updates 2
& 2nd
TRAFFIC
® Development Projects
Reviewing traffic impact studies for several projects and assisting Development
Engineering with preparation of a Certified Site Program.
The City is taking over the driveway access permit process along SR 27 and SR 290
from WSDOT. Traffic is working with WSDOT and Development Engineering on
developing access permit application and criteria. A meeting is scheduled with
WSDOT for the end of November.
• 1 -90 Business Route
1 -90 Business Route signs have been installed on 1 -90 and along Sprague and
Appleway.
GRANT APPLICATIONS
New Call for Projects
• TIB Call for Projects
Staff submitted TIB grant applications for the following three projects which were
approved by council on July 30:
Broadway Ave Improvement — Flora to Barker
32nd Ave Sidewalk — SR 27 to Evergreen
Indiana Ave Sidewalk — Pines (SR 27) to Indiana
Results will be known by late November.
® WUTC Grade Crossing Protective Fund Grant
The City received a Grade Crossing Protective Fund Grant from the Washington Utilities
and Transportation Commission (WUTC) for a for a barrier curb at the Vista/Trent/BNSF
railroad crossing.
o CDBG Call for Projects
Staff submitted two CDBG applications to Spokane County for the following
projects approved by council:
Farr Rd Sidewalk — 6t" to 8th
Sprague Ave and Long Road Sidewalk — Appleway to Arties, Sprague to
Greenacres Elementary School
"information in bold indicates updates 3
Spokane ems'
Public Works Projects
Monthly Summary - Design & Construction
October -2013
Street Projects
0155 Sullivan Rd W Bridge Replacement #4508
0156 Mansfield Ave Connection
0166 Pines Rd. {5827} & Grace Ave. Int Safety
0186 Adams Road Resurfacing Project
Street Preservation Projects
0179 2013 Street Preservation Ph2
0180 Carnahan, Indiana & Sprague St. Preser.
0187 Sprague Ave Preservation Project
Traffic Projects
0060 Argonne Road Corridor Upgrade (SRTC 06 -3
0167 Citywide Safety Improvements
0181 Citywide Traffic Sign Upgrade
Stormwater Projects
0150 Sullivan Rd Bridge Drain Retrofit
0173 Spokane Valley Regional Decant Facility
0182 2013 Street Presery - Ph 2 - Stormwater
0190 14th Avenue Custer to Carnahan
Other Projects
0149 Sidewalk Infill
0168 Wellesley Ave s'walk & Adams Rd s'walk
0169 Argonne /MuIlan Safety Indiana - Broadway
0170 Argonne Road: Empire Ave - Knox Ave
0191 Vista Rd BNSF Xing Safety Improvements
FHWA - BR
FHWA - CMAQ
HSIP
CDBG
FHWA - STP{U)
COSY
FHWA - STP {U)
FHWA - CMAQ
HSIP
HSIP
Dept of Ecology
Dept of Ecology
COSY
COSY
FHWA - CMAQ
SafeRoutes - State
HSIP
HSIP
12/01/13
03/01/14
04/01/14
01/31/14
90 0 12/31/15
55 0 12/31/14
10 0 10/31/14
15 0 06/30/14
$ 15,833,333
$ 1,976,800
$ 671,050
$ 183,710
09/20/13 100 0 08/15/14 $ 1,522,400
08/19/13 100 70 07/01/14 $ 1,420,934
02/01/14 0 0 08/31/14 $ 1493,614
01/31/14 95 0 08/31/14 $ 1,290,636
09/01/13 10 0 06/30/15 $ 474,580
08/01/13 100 55 03/31/14 $ 200,000
07/26/13
05/24/13
09/20/13
08/19/13
02/14/14
08/16/13
07/01/13
07/01/13
01/31/14
100
95
100
100
80
100
100
100
2
50
20
0
90
50
80
75
80
0
12/01/13
12/31/13
08/15/14
12/31/13
06/30/14
11/30/13
11/30/13
11/30/13
08/31/14
$ 237,375
$ 885,000
TBD
TBD
$ 1,139,955
$ 808,565
$ 111,750
$ 180,640
$ 50,750
Design
Estimated
Total
Protect
Proposed
% Complete
Construction
Project
#
Design & Construction Projects
Funding
Bid Date
PE J CN
Completion
Cost
Street Projects
0155 Sullivan Rd W Bridge Replacement #4508
0156 Mansfield Ave Connection
0166 Pines Rd. {5827} & Grace Ave. Int Safety
0186 Adams Road Resurfacing Project
Street Preservation Projects
0179 2013 Street Preservation Ph2
0180 Carnahan, Indiana & Sprague St. Preser.
0187 Sprague Ave Preservation Project
Traffic Projects
0060 Argonne Road Corridor Upgrade (SRTC 06 -3
0167 Citywide Safety Improvements
0181 Citywide Traffic Sign Upgrade
Stormwater Projects
0150 Sullivan Rd Bridge Drain Retrofit
0173 Spokane Valley Regional Decant Facility
0182 2013 Street Presery - Ph 2 - Stormwater
0190 14th Avenue Custer to Carnahan
Other Projects
0149 Sidewalk Infill
0168 Wellesley Ave s'walk & Adams Rd s'walk
0169 Argonne /MuIlan Safety Indiana - Broadway
0170 Argonne Road: Empire Ave - Knox Ave
0191 Vista Rd BNSF Xing Safety Improvements
FHWA - BR
FHWA - CMAQ
HSIP
CDBG
FHWA - STP{U)
COSY
FHWA - STP {U)
FHWA - CMAQ
HSIP
HSIP
Dept of Ecology
Dept of Ecology
COSY
COSY
FHWA - CMAQ
SafeRoutes - State
HSIP
HSIP
12/01/13
03/01/14
04/01/14
01/31/14
90 0 12/31/15
55 0 12/31/14
10 0 10/31/14
15 0 06/30/14
$ 15,833,333
$ 1,976,800
$ 671,050
$ 183,710
09/20/13 100 0 08/15/14 $ 1,522,400
08/19/13 100 70 07/01/14 $ 1,420,934
02/01/14 0 0 08/31/14 $ 1493,614
01/31/14 95 0 08/31/14 $ 1,290,636
09/01/13 10 0 06/30/15 $ 474,580
08/01/13 100 55 03/31/14 $ 200,000
07/26/13
05/24/13
09/20/13
08/19/13
02/14/14
08/16/13
07/01/13
07/01/13
01/31/14
100
95
100
100
80
100
100
100
2
50
20
0
90
50
80
75
80
0
12/01/13
12/31/13
08/15/14
12/31/13
06/30/14
11/30/13
11/30/13
11/30/13
08/31/14
$ 237,375
$ 885,000
TBD
TBD
$ 1,139,955
$ 808,565
$ 111,750
$ 180,640
$ 50,750
Street Projects
0123 Mission Ave - Flora to Barker
0141 Sullivan & Euclid PCC
0142 Broadway @ Argonne /Mullan
0188 Sullivan Rd Preservation Project
Traffic Projects
0159 University Road Overpass Study
0177 Sullivan Road Corridor Traffic Study
Other Projects
0145 Spokane Valley - Millwood Trail
0176 Appleway Trail
FHWA - STP(U)
FHWA - STP(U)
FHWA - STP(U)
FHWA - CMAQ
FHWA - STP(U)
FHWA - STP(E)
COSY
09/30/14
04/15/14
01/30/14
04/01/15
12/01/13
03/01/14
02/15/14
10/31/13
5
20
90
0
75
8
0
90
$ 517,919
$ 175,260
$ 276,301
$ 1,000,373
$ 249,711
$ 200,000
$ 745,000
$ 150,000
Design
Estimated
Total
Project
Complete
%Complete
Construction
Project
#
Design Only Projects
Funding
Date
PE
Completion
Cost
Street Projects
0123 Mission Ave - Flora to Barker
0141 Sullivan & Euclid PCC
0142 Broadway @ Argonne /Mullan
0188 Sullivan Rd Preservation Project
Traffic Projects
0159 University Road Overpass Study
0177 Sullivan Road Corridor Traffic Study
Other Projects
0145 Spokane Valley - Millwood Trail
0176 Appleway Trail
FHWA - STP(U)
FHWA - STP(U)
FHWA - STP(U)
FHWA - CMAQ
FHWA - STP(U)
FHWA - STP(E)
COSY
09/30/14
04/15/14
01/30/14
04/01/15
12/01/13
03/01/14
02/15/14
10/31/13
5
20
90
0
75
8
0
90
$ 517,919
$ 175,260
$ 276,301
$ 1,000,373
$ 249,711
$ 200,000
$ 745,000
$ 150,000