The URL can be used to link to this page

Parks and Recreation Master Plan 2013 Update 411041 Y ' pökaneValle y` �" aa r.,y� .sl11 �w ;•:-.,Y,'•%:-.•t '�` '. ..,','7,',,V.-.1,-0E, ..,'.N1.4*.;,,.,,',. y k arxtrt4. °.; 2 ''t ,Efi ,, r i a ,• '� az r . } x 7�, Parks and :r. y Recreation p Master Plan N.y! • � :• : 4...i = - 2 013 Update p , •,s,-- „,,.,...„ .v ti ' !' „:• '--!',-, ' -,•;:tr.. --; *tall-A' '4‘t•-• i- ',,--,• ,--4,-:•-4,- -#•• 11'11'1'''.--''''•• )1,14','It #" ‘-..n..,, 'i -...''' 10 41111i1 a. a R+ .t. ”. '- 5 ,9� _d._ P.P.',:,'.:".,'" arta - 16i .) a < 'hwa. `?"rk � m..'fi'x yob T s s .,,,,,:t.,,,,,,..,,,;,,,,.,•;,0-. x +max'f a ' , ,,� ' y9F� ,4 AT ro �. �'. `F� �!� .� . r tt "y ° M °r 1` .,''';','42. ' v .:� . G% -$`" - _ _ W R 1 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 Charles "Chuck" Hafner Rod Higgins Ben Wick Arne Woodard Executive 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 I 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 54 6.5 Recreation Programs and Services 56 6.6 Administration and Management 58 6.7 Maintenance 61 6.8 River Access 61 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 8.8 Capital Improvement Plan 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 Page 1 4 Table 5-3: Proposed Acres Needed by Park Type 39 Table 5-4: Summary of Recreation Facility Needs 42 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 I 5 Chapter 1.0: Introduction This Plan Update is intended to supplement the 2006 City of Spokane Valley Parks and Recreation Plan (the 2006 Plan), reflecting changes in the community since that plan's adoption. The update is structured in a manner similar to the 2006 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 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 Plan 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 Plan Update does as well,basing its recommendations on exhaustive stakeholder interviews, a statistically valid telephone survey, and two public meetings. In addition,this Plan Update'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 was 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 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 Plan Update includes by reference those portions of the 2006 Plan that still apply. Where conditions have materially changed, however,this Plan Update provides detailed explanations of the changes and offers updated recommendations and implementation measures accordingly. The Plan 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 16 Chapter 3 - Existing Parks Facilities Chapter 4 - Existing Operations Chapter 5 - Needs Assessment Chapter 6 - Recommendations Chapter 7 -Aquatic Facilities Chapter 8 - Implementation L3 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, and 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 the City'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. Pig X10 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 the City to attract visitors. I 11 Chapter 2.0: Planning Context This chapter provides a profile of Spokane Valley 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 2013 population of 91,490. This Plan will often refer to the 2010 population because that was a census year in which extensive demographic information was obtained by the federal government and provided to the city. • Demographic characteristics often provide insights regarding recreation demand, interests, and participation. Since the City was incorporated in 2003,there is no specific historical data to illustrate demographic variations. However, population AOA characteristics for the area can be derived UNITED;TATES from regional population statistics. • Based on the assumptions developed in Spokane Valley's Comprehensive Plan,the )7: build-out population (year 2033) is expected WAS INGTON to reach over 105,668 people within the current city limits. 2.1 Regional Context `1 The City is located near the eastern border of the State of Washington in an inland valley that stretches City of Spokane Valley from the west plains in Eastern Washington, City olSGuka^.e of Cam dPJin, eastward through Spokane and Spokane Valley to J `"- Post Falls and Coeur d'Alene, Idaho. The City is ISA Ho located in the heart of Spokane County. In general, the City is bordered on the west by the City of Figure 2-A:Regional Context g g Page 112 Spokane and on the east by unincorporated Spokane County, with the City of Liberty Lake nearby. The City is located approximately 15 miles west of the Idaho 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 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, Sanson Avenue/Forker Road, and Trent Avenue. • East: The City is bordered by Hodges Road. • South: The City has an irregular boundary but generally follows a north-easterly direction from south of 32nd Avenue in the vicinity of Ponderosa and Painted Hills area to 8th Avenue at Hodges Road. • West: The City is bordered by Havana Street. I 11-11( - - Moor GIOatha, - W. I - - I 11110001111111.11111.11 '�`4041...1 ct+yorubertyL Elba ■ wpm -of Spok ne%elle or-A 11Wiphi44 Mil • .1i if Spoaana Valley Planning Area ili‘11111iL ii- GAa Figure 2-B:City of Spokane Valley Planning Area 2.3 Demographic Characteristics Demographic characteristics often provide insight for recreation needs. Spokane Valley residents are the people who will use Spokane Valley parks and recreation facilities most often; as such,the residents of the City serve as the foundation for parks and facility Prz I 13 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,the City had an estimated population of 89,755. More than one-quarter (26.6 percent) of the City'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 recreational participation rates are lower than comparable cities in Washington.Table 2-1 compares similarly sized cities with the City 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:A.. ^ '--4e of Po.ulation Total Percent 20 and Percent 20-34 Percent 35-54 Percent 55 Population younger and older Yakima 91,067 31.4 21.7 23.8 23.2 Kennewick 73,917 31 22.2 25.1 21.7 Federal Way 89,306 28.4 21.7 28.4 21.5 Spokane 89,755 26.6 20.7 26.7 26.2 Valley Renton 90,927 25.4 24.2 29.9 20.5 Everett 103,019 25.4 25.4 28.3 20.8 Bellingham 80,885 21.9 32.5 21.4 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 Characteristics for Selected Geo:ra s hies Median HH Mean HH Median Family Mean Family Income Income Income Income Renton 62,800 77,317 69,077 85,906 Bellingham 42,892 59,224 67,595 79,982 Federal Way 51,687 67,104 64,911 75,931 Kennewick 51,730 60,174 57,691 67,559 Spokane Valley 46,209 53,310 55,076 62,236 Everett 46,257 61,985 50,798 69,439 Yakima 36,873 49,570 45,073 56,948 Source:U.S. Census Bureau,2011 American Community Survey In 2010,there were 39,426 employed residents and 49,060 jobs in the City. Close to 12,000 of the 49,060 jobs were held by people living within the City. This means that close to 27,000 City residents worked outside the City and there were more jobs in the City than there were employees. An analysis of employment in the City reveals the largest class of employment was "Retail Trade"followed by"Manufacturing." However,the largest class of employment for residents was "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:Tor 5 Industr Sectors for Workers and Residents Top 5 Industry Sectors for Workers Top 5 Industry Sectors for Residents Retail Trade 22.3% Health Care and Social Services 16.7% Manufacturing 14.8% Retail Trade 14.5% Health Care and Social Services 14.5% Manufacturing 9.3% Accommodation and Food Service 7.6% Education Services 8.4% Administration and Support,Waste 7.4% Accommodation and Food Service 8.4% Management 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 Grout b Percenta•e of Po elation White - Black or American Asian Hispanic African Indian and American Alaska Native Bellingham 84.9 1.3 1.3 5.1 7 Everett 74.6 4.1 1.4 7.8 14.2 cazjr' I 15 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 2.0 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,the total land area, excluding right-of-way, of the City is 20,086 acres. The majority of the City is zoned for residential use (62.34 percent) followed by industrial use (20.25 percent) and finally mixed-use/commercial (15.27 percent). Because 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. Of those, 29 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'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 were owner occupied. The average household size for owner-occupied unit was 2.38 and the average size of a renter occupied unit was 2.5.Just over 82 percent of occupied housing units were moved into since 1990 and the median price of a home was $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 an indicator of housing affordability. In general,the more affordable a home,the more Page X16 income can be used for recreation.A commonly accepted measurement of whether such costs are considered excessive is if those costs 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:Housin:Affordabilit 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 4,319 27.60 2,230 16.7 percent 20.0 to 24.9 percent 2,265 14.50 2,365 17.60 25.0 to 29.9 percent 3,634 23.20 1,129 8.40 30.0 to 34.9 percent 1,771 11.30 1,018 7.60 35.0 percent or more 3,642 23.30 6,639 49.80 Total 15,631 13,444 Source:U.S. Census Bureau,2011 American Community Survey 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 is 91,490. According to the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan, the projected 2033 population for the City 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. Table 2-6:Po s ulation since S.okane Valle 's Incor.oration Year Estimate Population Change Percent Change 2003 82,985 x x 2004 83,436 451 0.54% 2005 84,465 1,029 1.23% 2006 86,601 2,136 2.53% 2007 87,894 1,293 1.49% 2008 88,513 619 0.70% 2009 88,969 456 0.52% 2010 89,755 786 0.88% 2011 90,110 355 0.40% 2012 90,550 440 0.49% 2013 91,490 940 1.04% Sources:Intercensal Estimates of April 1 Population and Housing, Washington State OFM Page X17 Chapter 3.0: Existing Parks and Facilities Understanding the parks and recreation facilities inventory at the planning period's outset is critical. The City 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. Four school districts (West Valley, Central Valley, East Valley, and Spokane Public Schools) 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 Parks 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 adopted. Each park classification 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 adopted for the City 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 often 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 than neighborhood parks.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 sports fields, indoor recreation areas, and large picnic areas. Due to their size and Page 118 facilities offered,they require more 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 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 Area, and the Iller Creek and Saltese Uplands Conservation Areas,which provide nearby recreational opportunities for area residents. In fall 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 the City'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 X19 3.2.1 Key Findings • The City's parks system 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, including 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 b Park T A.e Park Type Count Acres Current Ratio (Acres per 1,000 People) Community Park 2 40.1 0.44 Large Urban Park 1 42.0 0.44 Natural Area 1 31.1 0.34 Neighborhood Park 6 35.9 0.40 Special Use Area 3 15.6 0.19 Undeveloped Park 2 15.6 0.17 Grand Total 15 180.3* 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 X20 it O 1 _ eilexley w?lie . en Wellesley 1 C E w o v ■ _ nsy1111111111. rle Pop''•.��serva ion '. 0 yields Porti 1:1 - - y „ _ a, 3 o `t Park •fgomery I t ome - Indiana 6 •soov .roun. inoulo cuiti � � S ` Park Al o IiiiiiiiiiiiillIN `- y y''''.-r-' L I Greens =s par 1 Bro••wa e "Pg141 Broaawa Y Sprague .:I ��' PPP III \eW.4 I.= .. iiimmi _ h. .. iiimil in.i il• a 10 LIMN 16th. vilro _ 11111AO Ferra^VIeUF-ark/P.o! � I 10 32nd Brow= Par, , 32, _,,sr Ca}� LL O � a ,,,, �I i` - ( r " t: Spokane Valley Parks >1 oa/ 9 1 = m City Limits 1_JOther Parks a1 Other Cities IED:DNR r =City of Spokane Valley Other Government Property . N =Spokane Valley Parks School Property I V 1 in=1 miles Miles 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 Source Saba as p.ovleee by the City of Spokane Valley,subject to revision Figure 3-A:Park Inventory Map Page 121 a t' 0 " 2 5 0 8 a 8 °:- a; w 0 .0 0 >, „ c3 < a P sem. F :,,. y E w s. N 2 _ �'' m �' E > `� a, a ' 3 ,? o ii C �' CG P. "' P. a' 1111 W C, Nei:hborhood Park === =====.. ==11====== 11M IMINEE 14 Balfour Park MI. ...... 2.8 acres Browns Park ..011•©100©0 81 ...... 8.2 acres Castle Park ... ........ Y ...... 2.7 acres • 7ec .� iff Park I.©© ��©� . 40 1111.... 4. 4.7 acres G shelter 8.3 acres s Park 1111© S 11...1111©11 29 11.....Terge and one small se, 9.2 acresMIrrace Park � P ©.. 1��©� 118 1111.... horseshoe sit Communi Parks _=== _====== Sullivanrk ....©��_� 151 a ea bo,radio control car 16.1 aces Valley Mission Park&Pool 1111. P ...©. 1111. 341 .....11 Pool,restroom, 24 acres e uestrian arena Lar:a Urban Parks M---_------_-_------ Mirabeau Point Park Waterfall with pond, (42.0 acres) dock,and viewing • Discovery Playground III S 11111111 93 111111 platform • Mirabeau Meadows Stage • Mirabeau SIrin•s Trailhead S$ecial Use Facilities '-=-_--===-_M_MM-MMMa CenterPlace ..........■. 410 ...p.. bui54,000 sq.ft.multi-use 13.6 acres ldin Park Pool 1111. P 1111...•. 101 ...... Pool,bathhouse 2.0Western Dance Hall Sullivan Park MEM ......... ....... Page 122 E ct' � .,' o , " 0.. 4 A c°J °� iti , - ° V aC N A u 0. • " > O A p .,. 0 & sem. . sw. a+ , g 0 O C P. ' po po W Trails and Linear Parks ===_======_ —.====== Centennial Trail ---_------_© Y ©©MMMM Appleway Trail(4.25 linear ............ ....... miles Natural 0.en S.ace Areas ===_��_�_�� Myrtle 31.1 a r oines t Park MEM ........ Y ©©■■■■ Centennial Trail Access Undevelo sed Lands MMM_--===-_M_MM-MMM Valley Mission Park South ... ........ Y ...... 7.2 acres Balfour Park Extension ... ......... ....... 8.4Balfour acres 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. This 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 6 percent of the City's General Fund. • The ratio of cost to revenue for parks and recreation services in the City is 22 percent. • The City annually spends approximately$4,790 per acre of developed park land for maintenance. The City's park operations have changed little 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, 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 City 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. 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. =; z . 124 Citizens of Spokane Valley City Council City Manager 1 1 1 1 1 I Executive and Community Operations and Parks and Legislative Development Public Works Administration Recreation Police Figure 4-A:Simplified Organization Chart for the City of Spokane Valley 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 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 I I I I Park Maintenance Aquatics Division Senior Center CenterPlace (Contract) 'ecreation Divisio (Contract) Division Division Recreation Senior Center i Customer Relations/ Administrative Coordinator Specialist I acilities Coordinato Assistant Office Assistant I - Facilities Worker Facilities Worker Figure 4-B:Organization Chart for the Parks and Recreation Department 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:Existin_' and Historic Park and Recreation Staffin: Levels Fiscal Year Total City(FTE) Parks and Recreation Percentage of Park and Department(FTE) Recreation FTE to Total 2003 44.90 4.0 8.9% 2004 46.95 5.0 10.6% 2005 60.00 7.0 11.7% 2006 61.80 7.0 11.3% 2007 71.15 9.0 12.6% 2008 89.15 9.0 10.0% 2009 93.75 9.0 9.6% 2010 93.75 9.0 9.6% 2011 86.25 9.0 10.4% 2012 87.25 9.0 10.3% 2013 85.25 9.0 10.6% P ,', r I 26 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 when 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 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:Bud:et Allocation 2003-2013 Year City General Fund Parks and Recreation Percentage Expenditures Budget of total(1) 2003 13,892,900 921,770 6.6 2004 25,804,125 1,601,780 6.2 2005 27,187,186 1,932,186 7.1 2006 29,885,641 1,862,966 6.2 2007 31,549,504 2,086,186 6.6 2008 32,705,058 2,644,420 8.1 2009 49,288,955 2,812,040 5.7 2010 54,540,850 2,926,033 5.4 2011 36,925,086 2,813,412 7.6 2012 35,196,500 2,915,206 8.3 2013 42,967,741 2,655,343 6.2 (1) Percentage Based on Department Budget 4.3.1 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 completion of Phase 1 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 Recreation Division Bud•et Breakdown Division 2012 Actual - Percent 2013 Percent Expenditures of Total Expenditures of Total Park 258,923 9% 270,717 10% Administration Park Maintenance 757,313 26% 789,000 29% Recreation 206,895 7% 224,999 8% Aquatics 439,296 15% 485,600 18% Senior Center 86,197 3% 88,143 3% CenterPlace 1,110,937 38% 796,884 32% Total 2,859,561 2,655,343 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 of revenue through program fees,which includes $215,000 from facility rentals, pool fees and recreation programs, and $355,000 through CenterPlace rental fees. When compared to the total park's budget, revenues from parks and recreation services in the City account for approximately 22 percent 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 another possible source of revenue. • Park Facilities can generate revenue through reservations and facility rentals.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 percent 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 X28 Table 4-4:Cost .er Ca mita and Percent of Revenue Generated Year Population Operating Gross Cost/ Net Cost/ Revenue Rate Budget Capita Capita 2006 86,601 1,862,966 21.51 17.52 18.5% 2007 87,894 2,086,186 23.74 19.10 19.5% 2008 88,513 2,644,420 29.88 24.15 19.2% 2009 88,969 2,812,040 31.61 25.85 18.2% 2010 89,755 2,926,033 32.60 25.36 22.2% 2011 90,110 2,813,412 31.22 25.06 19.7% 2012 90,550 2,915,206 32.19 25.90 19.6% 2013 91,490 2,655,343 29.02 22.77 21.5% 4.4 Maintenance Operations Spokane Valley contracts out the maintenance of its park facilities. In 2013,the City spent approximately$789,000 for the park maintenance, which equates to approximately$4,790 per acre of developed park land. 4.5 Recreation Participation The City 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-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'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 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 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 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 P a gc 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 type of facilities available are adequate. However, some facilities such as the horse arena at Valley Mission Park and the Western Dance Hall may be under-used and some modern facility types such as 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 the City'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 percent) 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 ,.__ N°n rfheastZone ~= study areas were distributedes'Z° 4 East/southeast Zone Ittt across the City. The study 2 areas were created bye Sauhe Central Zone+ aggregating Census blocks into .. larger areas; the aggregation •• was necessary in order to achieve statistical validity at the given sample size. 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 '' 'xz I 31 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 percent confidence level. Cells where the number is red and italicized indicate a percentage that was lower than average, at the 95 percent confidence level. Table 5-1:Park Visits by Study Area Stud Area of Partici•ants'Residence Parks Study Park Total West South North/North- East/South- Area % Zone Central east Zone east Zone Zone West Park Road 11% 4% 7% 6% Edgecliff 5% 6% 2% 2% Terrace View 28% 8% 41% 17% 48% South Central Castle Park 1% - 3% - - Browns Park 6% 2% 19% 1% 2% Mirabeau 48% 41% 41% 50% 00/0 Valley Mission 39% 43% 32% 23% North/ CenterPlace 29% 20% 12% 34% r_,1O/ Northeast 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% - - Residents in 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 questions and responses can be found in Appendix A. In addition to the above, 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 percent) 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 and 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. P = z 134 1111.111.1 e s - // ®oma ....... _ =1 Spokane Valley Park Priorities Figure 5-B:Results from Public Workshop 1 Page X35 5.4 Summary of Park Land Needs This section provides the Needs Assessment for the City. 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, as 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 • Geographic 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 City's Comprehensive Plan,the analysis determined the amount of park land needed in 2033.The year 2033 was chosen because it represented the most recently adopted population projection available at the time this plan was produced. The analysis then established 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 Plan Update 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 Page 136 • Community Parks - Service area of two-mile radius • 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. 137 4 . ,J I'� �� ►IMMIN =M ram_ _ „.., _ ... goliiiim ___ _ ,:-___ 1.kl -4ri "..: OM. L.. m pi any n nnr =,m w MOO --, aglinior Owd11116._ adrami.• Ill ilM IIIIMIllk-- — EI xpo,PP� I®■■■■■■■ ter111111' II =. �m■■■�■■1 , ,gym=am II - WM Nr., Mill : ____.• ‘ ..„ ..._. . . �f x� el -111111 mit_St Ss pm, 1 mill MM I ' :lir , , , , , t , J ,FINPIvr. I 1 .. � ..,._ FritelmeN-1 Spokane Valley parka Ziffei &Mi16. - ~ ,,, 6 =. NU Figure S-C:Park Service Areas for Spokane Valley Parks Page I 38 5.4.3 Summary of Park Land Needs Table 5-2 shows that the City of Spokane Valley will need an additional 38.18 acres of park land by 2033 to accommodate projected population at the currently adopted level of service (LOS). The following terms are used in the analysis: • Adopted LOS is the level of service standard adopted by the City for park land. It is expressed as a ratio of acres per 1,000 people. • 2033 Project Population is the adopted population projection found in section 2.4 of the City's 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 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 Ado►ted Level of Service Adopted LOS 2033 Projected Total Need Existing Park Land Net Need (ac/1,000 Population (2033) (2033) residents) 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:Pro.osed Acres Needed b Park T .e Park Land Need Park Land at Park Type Existing Acres Existing Ratio at Existing Proposed Ratio Proposed Ratio Ratios in 2033 in 2033 Community 40.1 25% 9.54 30% 11.45 Park Large Urban 42.0 24% 9.16 10% 3.81 Park Neighborhood 35.9 22% 8.39 40% 15.27 Park Special Use 15.6 10% 3.81 5% 1.91 Area Natural Open 31.1 19% 7.25 15% 5.73 Space Total 164.7 100% 38.15 100% 38.17 P I 39 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. 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 X40 ii, WV 1 o 1111111 W Jithdli� M .1 I MEE' 104 41.14M - -1144.11111t4S alum ammo ..iitilid -4010114111111111111 E''''.-.‘11"1"11111111F-Li: --7F7 ir giffoom-- 151100.M1111 . -- -oral 4111/4 I MIPIPIIIII .--i-MIE EA II 1 peo dilliguilte lialinprimionellbia "I. : tirMEMmp�'1 =- rl 3:Y' 1' P.- 1 0 It ......la Elm 'If' i_ isi nig I\ IF 11.11 prow mu ., 3 'r , , 1 , f r''. Spokane Vall2Y Park Priorities f MION/M/Mk. Mid Mlialldllik mil WIRIPMEN 'at ,��1 1 Figure 5-I):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 Plan Update used the ratios adopted in the 2006 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 the City,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:Summar of Recreation Facility Needs Recreation Facility Existing Total 2006 Demand Net Need Year Net Need Year Facilities Standard(1) 2012 2033 (2) Baseball Fields 70 (3) 1,200 5 18 Softball Fields (4) 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 field (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 field. 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 centers 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. Individual recommendations are subject to further study and final budget and policy approval by the City Council. Recommendations are organized into the following sections: • Section 6.1 includes a summary of the planning concepts that underline the proposed recommendations. • Section 6.2 presents the 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 the City 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,the City can develop an efficient, cost effective, and comprehensive park system. The basic concept of the park system for the City 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 Pa go 143 parks, off-leash dog parks, and disc golf courses.Additionally, some parks may contain sports fields to meet projected demand. 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 challenging.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 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. • 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. 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 would be determined later in the development of City plans and would be influenced by land availability, acquisition costs, and property ownership. 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. 1 44 4. The proposed and existing trails information is identified in the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Parks and Recreation Map 4.3. P =. z I 45 4NP-1 ..-- ~ a .... N 111 obstaig _ . 7 NP 3I T-" I T-5 CP-L • -'"� Spokane Valley Park Layout Plan • e ,aro.� ,W�„1,„...,�,.e�,.�.�,....,. `4 . j Figure 6-A:2013 Proposed Park Layout Plan Page 146 6.3 Park and Facility Recommendations Preliminary recommendations for park land are listed by park classification (e.g. Neighborhood, Community, Special Use). 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 City parks. 6.3.2 Mini-Park Recommendations Small mini-parks may offer a good alternative in the City because larger parcels needed for larger parks will be difficult to obtain. 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. 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 Neighborhood Parks should be central to the City's park system. They 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.This Plan Update recognizes the difficulty the City will have in meeting the goal of a park in every neighborhood of the City.As a result,this Plan Update 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. Below is a discussion on neighborhood park sites. Pag 147 New Neighborhood Park Priority Area 1 Site NP- 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. 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 the addition of a small picnic shelter and picnic area. New Neighborhood Park Priority Area 2 This proposed park is 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. 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 Site NP 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 eastward.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 (Propose. 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. The City sold 2.8 acres of this property to the Spokane County Library District. The City has jointly prepared a Master Development Plan for the property with the Spokane County Library District. The property is intended to be developed as a City park and new neighborhood library. There are no recommendations for the expanded Balfour Park beyond the Master Development Plan. The currently developed portion of Balfour Park is included in the Master Development Plan for the expanded Balfour Park. The existing park will be integrated into the new facilities. Lew Neighborhood Park Priority Area 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. Page 148 Browns Parkillir Site NP-6 Recommended Improvements: • Replace shelter. • 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. • Add basketball court. • 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. • Consider adding amenities such as restroom facilities, picnic shelter, playground. areas, slack lining area, sidewalks,water fountains, splash pad and basketball courts. Edgecliff Park Site NP-8 Recommended Improvements: • Add sidewalk access to playground, park shelter, restrooms and water fountains to meet ADA accessibility standards. • Replace the tennis courts 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. 1 49 Terrace ViewW Site NP-9 Recommended Improvements: • Add basketball court to eliminate a safety conflict in the parking lot. • Replace restroom. Additional Comments: • Park would benefit from having 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 Community Park Priority Area Site CP-1 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 in this area - Terrace View and Browns Park- opportunities to expand those facilities to meet the requirement of a community park are very limited.Additional opportunities may 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. P =. e 150 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. • Develop an educational geological trail that leads through the natural area. 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. 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 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 P ° 151 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. New Special Use Facilitie` Multiple Sites S Throughout the Plan 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 adding splash pads to all existing park facilities that do not have splash pads. Off-Leash Dog Park(Pet Park) At the present time,the City does not have an off-leash dog park/pet park available to its residents or visitors. Through a public process, this facility was indicated as desirable. The City should continue a public process to design and determine a site for a dog park. Locations vary from a new park facility to using an existing park facility. Skate Park During the planning process,there was support for building a skate park. Potential locations for a skate park were conceptually identified, including NP-4, Sullivan Park, and Valley Mission. The City should undertake a public process to design and determine a site for a future skate park. Disc Golf Course Greenacres Park includes a disc golf course. However, 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 course were conceptually identified.The City should undertake a public process to design and determine a site for a future disc golf course. ',Valley Mission Horse Arena The Valley Mission Horse Arena consists of a riding arena and a number of covered stalls. Currently, the stalls and the arena are in marginal condition. In the past,the facility was rented up to 11 times a year. In recent years, the rental of the facility has sharply declined. The three primary issues currently at the site are: who should pay for the repairs,how it should be managed, and/or if the facility should continue as a horse arena. The following ideas are recommended for this site: • User fees should be increased to reflect the actual cost of maintenance and custodial needs. (The A-frame building and the stalls need major improvements). Page 152 • 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. Sullivan 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 along 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, particularly by handicapped visitors. One path on the west side of the park has 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 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 which includes: o Site improvements based on a plan approved by the City o That the site be open and available to the general public when not in use by the Club 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 Association continues to maintain the facility and the City is entitled to use it,the use should continue. If the P =. e 153 Western Dance Association discontinues its use of the facility, the City should consider alternative uses for this facility. CenterPlace is the City's regional event center and houses the Senior Center and the Parks and Recreation Office. This facility is in excellent condition, including maintenance of the grassy areas, planting areas and parking lots. There are no recommendations for this 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. • 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. Lest Entry Sign and LandscapeSite SU-5 The gateway sign installed in 2012 is well-maintained and nicely landscaped. It provides a pleasing visual gateway into the City's west entry. There are no recommendations at this time. Irrtriro.int Park Site SU-G 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 upland area along the south bank of the river in the vicinity of these rocks offers 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. 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 would 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, it may be necessary to construct on-street bike lanes to complete specific segments where trail segments cannot pass through public land. It also will be necessary to coordinate with Page 154 adjoining cities and the County to make connections to their trail systems. Since much of the community is developed, an aggressive approach would 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 would be needed to locate specific routes and design requirements. Potential trail types are described in Chapter 11 of the City's Comprehensive Plan in 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. Centennial Trail Site T-1 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.) 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. Mirabeau Point Trailhead South • 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. Page 155 Recommended Improvements: • Implement and develop Appleway Trail Corridor consistent with Appleway Trail Corridor plan. Great Northern Trail (Proposed) - 3 miles This appears to be an abandoned rail line from the eastern city limits along Boone to Barker,then north along Barker to Mission and Centennial Trail. Spokane Valley Loop - Eastern Segment (Proposed) - 1.5 miles Site T-4 This segment begins at the GN Trail and travels north to Centennial Trail. Spokane Valley Loop - Southern Segment (Proposed) - 3.5 miles Site T-5 This segment runs east-west from Sullivan Road to Dishman Road, generally following 32nd Avenue. Spokane Valley Loop- Southwestern Segment(Proposed) - 3 miles Sit. This is a northerly segment that lies within the proposed Chester Creek Open Space corridor,then turns westerly through Camp Caro ending at Park Road. Spokane Valley Loop -Western Segment (Proposed) - 3.5 miles Site T-7 This segment runs north-south mostly within the 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) - 1 mile Site T-8 This is a segment connecting the Spokane Loop at 32nd Avenue with Chester Creek. Spokane Valley Loop- Southeastern Segment (Proposed) -4 miles Site TMII This segment runs north-south 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. 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 continue to operate its program based on past experiences. Page 156 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 the City to ensure 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 Program Costs .11r 111=11 Recommendations: • In general, the recreation program as a whole should seek 100 percent cost recovery based on direct costs. However, the City should explore new program offerings without expecting them to be immediately self-supporting. • Program fees for aquatics could be raised to match other surrounding agencies' fees. Senior Age Programs 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 set forth 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 I 57 Youth Programs Recommendation: • Build a new youth activity center. • Initiate a youth and teen program.Two options for managing youth programs may include: 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 culturally-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. 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, and acquisition, renovation, development, operation, and maintenance of the parks and recreation facilities. The Administration Division provides direction and leadership for the 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 Services 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 P =. e 158 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 these basic approaches: o Maintain the current level of park development. o 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. 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 may find it more difficult to devote adequate time to these park and recreation issues.A parks and recreation advisory board could 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. Pag X59 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 the services will be provided and 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 parks and recreation programs 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 ensure 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. 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 shall 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 and safe condition comparable to the rest of the park. o The user group will post a deposit or some other means of ensuring that the facility will be removed and replaced to the original condition when the facility is no longer in use by the private user group. 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. Since the adoption of the 2006 Plan, funding has become even more challenging because of budget cuts and reductions in property values. Pag 160 Recommendations: • Consider adopting/implementing park dedication requirement.At the present time, the City may consider parks and recreation for adopted concurrency standards. 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 A 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: Having a current Parks and Recreation Master 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 Since shortly after incorporation,the maintenance of the City's park system has been done by a private contractor. This agreement appears to be satisfactory for the City and its citizens. In an unprompted survey question about what they like most about Spokane Valley parks, 66 percent replied our parks are clean and well-maintained. Contracting for park maintenance services appear to be an efficient means of maintaining parks, eliminates the cost of directly purchasing equipment, and appears to meet with the approval of residents. However,there are other issues that should be considered.This section provides the recommendations for the maintenance of parks. 6.7.1 Maintenance Recommendations • Dedicate time and resources to check on the work being performed. • Continue to incorporate into the contract requirements for minimum standards by which park maintenance personnel will interact with the public. Park maintenance staff will be in more contact with the public more than anyone else in the City.Their actions and relationships will reflect on the City, either positively or negatively. • 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 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; if there is any conflict,the Shoreline Master Program shall control. This section summarizes Page X61 how the 2006 Plan with Plan Update 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 any body of water, reference shall be made to the Shoreline Master Program. • The Parks Department should work with Community Development to identify potential acquisition sites that may meet the needs of this Update Plan and the SMP. Page 162 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 is adjacent to a middle school. The pools were upgraded in 2008-2009 and are in good condition. Table 7-1:Existin:A.uatic Facilities in S,okane Valle Facility Notes Ownership Park Road Pool 6-land x 25-yard outdoor pool with slide City of Spokane Valley Terrace View Pool 6-land x 25-yard outdoor pool with lazy City of Spokane Valley river 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, are five outdoor pools in the City of Spokane and a number of private pools.Additionally, the Spokane River and nearby lakes provide summer swimming opportunities for residents. 7.1 Aquatic Facility Background The 2006 Plan dedicated an entire chapter to aquatic facilities. The 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 a potential indoor pool. In part,the driving force behind the aquatics chapter in the 2006 Plan was to identify and publically discuss 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 the 2006 Plan 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 perform 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 continuing into 2009, the City implemented a combination of both short-term concepts. Page 163 The improvements included: • Upgraded existing facilities at all three pools. • Added lazy river to Terrace View Pool. • Added free standing water slide at Park Road Pool. • Increased sun deck size at all three pools. • Added zero depth entry pool at Valley Mission Pool. The Plan 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 Update suggests the following recommendations: • The City 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 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. 1 64 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: • 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 percent of the voters who voted. Major obstacles 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. • Donations: Donation of labor, land, or cash by service agencies, private groups or individuals are popular ways 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 unused land with 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), certain tax advantages and access to the facility. While the public agency may have P =. g e 16 5 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 a City and a landowner, where the City gives the former owner the right to live on the site after it is sold until such time as the former owner either moves off the property or passes away. • 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 does not impose this fee. • Certificates of Participation: This is a lease-purchase approach where the City would sell Certificates of Participation (COPs) to a lending institution. The City would then pay the loan off from revenue produced by the facility or from its general operating budget. The lending institution would hold title to the property until the COPs are repaid.This funding option 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. They are distributed in the lower income areas of the community. Grants can cover up to 100 percent of project costs. • Conservation Futures Funding: The Spokane County Conservation Futures Program was implemented in 1994 following voter 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 recently, 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 percent 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 X66 • 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 RCW 79A.25.800- 830 as part of the State Referendum 48,which provided funding for the Seattle Seahawks football 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 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, 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 both the 2006 Plan and the Plan Update. Some potential partners include the YMCA, Boys and Girls Club, private sport and conservation 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 demonstrating extreme need. Page X67 8.2 Recommended Capital Projects Table 8-1:Parks and Recreation Ca.ital Pro'ects List Project Project/ Estimated # Site/Park Description Costs Priority Year Develop the Balfour 1 NP-4 Park Extension site $4,000,000 High 2014 plan 2 Barker Trailhead Pave parking lot $45,000 High 2014 3 Browns Add eight sand $120,000 High 2014 volleyball courts 4 Discovery Add new equipment $50,000 High 2014 Playground 5 Discovery Install shade $15,000 High 2014 Playground structure 6 Park Road Pool Paint pool tank $35,000 High 2014 7 Valley Mission Determine alternate High 2014 use of horse arena Property acquisition 8 CP 1 and development for $7,000,000 High 2015 new community park 10-50 acres (20ac) 9 Browns Replace picnic shelter $150,000 High 2015 10 Browns Replace bathroom $150,000 High 2015 Develop an off-leash pet park as either a 11 Unknown new facility or $50,000 High 2015 component of an existing park(3ac) Develop a skate park facility,location to be determined but 12 Unknown conceptually $500,000 High 2015 identified as NP-4, Sullivan Park, or Valley Mission 13 CenterPlace Repair roof $300,000 High 2015 Develop a disc golf course as a 14 Unknown component of an $50,000 High 2016 existing facility in conjunction with other agencies (15ac) Property acquisition 15 NP 2 and development for $1,750,000 High 2017 new neighborhood park 3-7 acres (Sac) I 68 Project Project/ Estimated # Site/Park Description Costs Priority Year Property acquisition 16 NP 1 and development for $1,750,000 High 2018 new neighborhood park 3-7 acres (Sac) Property acquisition 17 NP 3 and development for $1,750,000 High 2019 new neighborhood park 3-7 acres (Sac) 18 All Install new park signs $100,000 Medium 2014- -phased 2020 19 Browns Add basketball court $25,000 Medium 2015 20 Browns Replace playground $200,000 Medium 2015 equipment 21 Centennial Trail Repair sections of Medium 2015 trail 22 Terrace View Add splash pad $50,000 Medium 2016 23 Castle Pa kevelop slack lining $20,000 Medium 2016 24 Browns Add splash pad $50,000 Medium 2017 25 Sullivan Park Resurface and $40,000 Medium 2017 restripe parking lot 26 Valley Mission Repair tennis courts $50,000 Medium 2018 27 Edgecliff Replace picnic shelter $100,000 Medium 2019 28 Edgecliff Replace restroom $100,000 Medium 2019 Property acquisition 29 NP-5 and development for $1,750,000 Medium 2020 new neighborhood park 3-7 acres (Sac) 30 Edgecliff Add splash pad $50,000 Medium 2020 Mirabeau Provide potable 31 Trailhead water at trailhead for $75,000 Medium 2020 restrooms 32 Valley Mission Add splash pad $50,000 Medium 2021 33 Edgecliff Replace playground $100,000 Medium 2022 equipment 34 Mirabeau Park Develop geological $30,000 Low 2015 trail 35 Myrtle Point Master development $45,000 Low 2016 Landscape and 36 Sullivan Park improve radio control $75,000 Low 2017 car area 37 Terrace View Replace restrooms $150,000 Low 2020 38 Edgecliff Replace fencing $35,000 Low 2022 39 Greenacres Develop Phase 2 $1,500,000 Low 2023 Pago 169 Project Project/ Estimated # Site/Park Description Costs Priority Year 40 Terrace View Update pool $200,000 Low 2023 bathhouse 41 Park Road Pool Update pool $200,000 Low 2025 bathhouse 42 Valley Mission Update pool $200,000 Low 2025 bathhouse 43 Unknown Develop recreation Low ? center 44 Unknown Develop new public Low events venue 45 Various Develop community $25,000 Low ? garden 46 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 currently estimated at $12-$19 million, depending largely 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 without such facilities • 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 exceed this amount. For open space acquisition, costs were placed at$5,000 per acre. This assumes that most of the land acquired will be undevelopable because of environmental constraints. Page X70 • 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$350,000 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 percent of construction cost. • Contingency: A contingency of 15 percent was used. 8.5 Capital Costs Table 8-2 summarizes probable construction costs of all the projects listed in the plan. Table 8-2:Summa of Probable Costs for Recommended Im i rovements Item Cost Land Acquisition $2,900,000 Park and Facility Upgrades $4,500,000 New Park Development $18,600,000 Total $26,000,000* *Land acquisition and park development costs assume a total of 58 acres of new park land. This is based upon the total acreage for new park development. 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:Fundin:Allocations for Parks,Years 2014-2019 Year Allocations 2014 $100,000 2015 $100,000 2016 $100,000 2017 $100,000 2018 $100,000 2019 $100,000 Total $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 Update. 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 should first demonstrate the ability to develop several smaller park projects before embarking on a much larger one. Page 171 The short-term capital improvement plan presented below represents the City's current Capital Improvement Plan 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 2014-2019 planning period. Table 8-4:Summa of Fundin:and Ex i enditures 6- ear Ca i ital Im i rovement Plan Project 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Total Expenditures Park $280,000 $7,070,000 $180,000 $2,800,000 $65,000 $1,545,000 $11,940,000 Improvements Park Acquisition 0 $1,500,000 0 $700,000 0 $350,000 $2,550,000 Total $280,000 $8,570,000 $180,000 $3,500,000 $65,000 $1,895,000 $14,490,000 Expenditures 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) ($180,000) ($8,470,000) ($80,000) ($3,400,000) $35,000 ($1,795,000) ($13,890,000) I 72 Appendix A. Telephone Survey Report I 73 .,\ .. ppolane , a ...i.Valley® kv_____ • Plan Update Spokane Valley Parks and Recreation Department Executive Summary Report February 2013 Prepared by: Studio 'rt Cascade ffgr-_ = camrm,nm Pldnntva Dekin ROBINSON RESEARCH= SURVEYS 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.corn 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 I 48% Valley Mission Park I 39% CenterPlace I 29% Terrace View Park I 28% Park Road Pool 111% Browns Park I 6% Sullivan Park I 5% Edgecliff Park I 5% Balfour Park I 4% Greenacres Park 7 2% Castle Park 1 1% Myrtle Point Park 1 1% Don't know I 3% I I I I I 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. Zones of Participants' Residences Parks Park Total % West Zone South North/north- East/south- Clustered Central east Zone east Zone Zone Zone West Park Road 11% 26% 4% 7% 6% Edgecliff 5% 11% 6% 2% 2% South Terrace View 28% 8% 41% 17% 48% Central Castle Park 1% - 3% - - Browns Park 6% 2% 19% 1% 2% Mirabeau 48% 41% 41% 50% 60% Valley Mission 39% 43% 32% 58% 23% North/ CenterPlace 29% 20% 12% 34% 51% northeast Sullivan 5% 4% 2% 6% 8% Balfour 4% 4% 2% 7% 2% Myrtle Point 1% 2% - 1% 1% Else 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 Grand Mean 4.13 Each Of The Following. Parks 4.38 CenterPlace 4.35 Pools 3.92 Recreation programs I 3.87 I I II 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 I 64% Amenities provided I 25% Landscaping I 22% Proximity to home/work 121% That they exist I 19% Variety of recreation opportunities I 17% Quality of fields/equipment I 17% Availability of parking I 13% Neighbors/people I 11% Safety of parks I 9% Classes/camp/events I 8% Family/kid friendly I 6% Quantity of fields/equipment I 6% 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 Urban trails 3.74 Splash pads 3.65 Outdoor acquatic facilities 3.61 Indoor recreation facilities 3.48 Outdoor courts 3.46 Additional parks 3.32 Formal athletic fields 3.26 Increased river access 3.21 Off-leash dog park 2.85 Skate park 2.82 Sand volleyball courts 2.79 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 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. Zones of Participants' Residences Amenity Mean West Zone South Central North/north- East/south- Zone east Zone east Zone Increased river 3.21 3.38 3.11 3.02 3.34 access 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 2.85 2.77 2.56 2.85 park Skate park 2.82 3.04 2.77 2.81 2.66 Formal athletic 3.26 3.37 3.07 3.14 3.46 fields Outdoor courts 3.46 3.56 3.44 3.33 3.52 Outdoor aquatic 3.61 3.76 3.59 3.62 3.48 facilities Indoor recreation 3.48 3.59 3.34 3.40 3.59 facilities Sand volleyball 2.79 2.81 2.89 2.68 2.80 courts 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 Studio Cascade Executive Summary Report 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. Grand Mean 3.53 IIII Increase recreation programs and I I 3.69 services Create multi-use indoor recreation facilities 3.50 Purchase property for the development of future parks 3.41 I 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 Age range Percentage based on 0-2 21% households 3-6 50% with children or 7-9 40% that had 10-12 33% children who 13-15 31% regularly 16-17 16% visited): 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 1 1 ) r •.4. � r i' P 81 L i ` I — i A ,,, , . '' ; \ � / l 1 } A I 4 i 1 1__-.,,, �j r f` . r "�1,� / _. �i I f Imo. i � I3 h 5 1 j CO 1 1 _.,,,f, ,, _, , _ , , ,, . , . _ . L IF41 1 �. I r, l /,/ I II m ------111.11-7 tiIIIII 1 _p, t ''''' I I ) . % a _ f I ' 1 =West Zone 2 = South Central Zone 3 =North/Northeast Zone 4 = East/Southeast Zone Robinson Research 18 Studio Cascade Executive Summary Report February 2013