The URL can be used to link to this page

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