HomeMy WebLinkAboutCommittee of the Whole Packet for 06/04/2018
AGENDA
Committee of the Whole Meeting
5:30 PM - Monday, June 4, 2018
Council Chambers, 7th Floor, City Hall – 1055 S. Grady Way
1. Citizen Advisory Committee for Parks, Trails and Community Facilities
Report
a) Presentation
b) CAC Final Report
Parks, Trails and
Community Facilities
Initiative:
Report of the Citizen
Advisory Committee
Presented to Renton City Council June 4, 2018
Presenters: Tim Searing, Chair, & Bob Reeder, Vice-Chair, CAC
1 AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
Tonight’s Presentation
Our Mission
Process
Recommendations
2 AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
Our Mission from the City Council:
…identify important gaps in City parks, trails and
community facilities and make recommendations for
additional investments…work[ing] from the City’s Parks,
Recreation and Natural Areas Plan, Trails and Bicycle
Master Plan and Renton Downtown Civic Core Vision and
Action Plan....
…consider geographic equity, capital costs, as well as
maintenance needs for existing and any proposed new or
expanded facilities… identify its criteria for
recommending projects…and present a prioritized list of
projects…total[ling] no more than 70 million dollars.
3 AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
The Parks Trails and Community
Facilities Initiative is the third leg of
the City’s financial sustainability
initiative.
Quality of Life
Renton Regional Fire Authority
Business &
Occupations
Tax
Financial Sustainability
4 AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
CAC Process
18 members selected by Council
Met 9 times, 2-hours each, from January through May
Reviewed existing system, gaps
Reviewed capital and operating costs
Reviewed parks budgets, funding history, options for funding new
assets
Reviewed parks projects included in the 3 plans identified in our
mission
Deliberated to identify our criteria, select projects, develop
a report
This was a prioritization effort built on prior strategic plans.
5 AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
The City’s Current Park System
1,243 acres
57% of acreage is undeveloped
32 developed parks
6 AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
Current Park System
12 miles of trails
45 fields and sport courts
20 playgrounds
11 picnic shelters
7 AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
Current Park System
24.5 FTE to maintain
2018 Operating budget: $6.2M
2018 Capital budget: $4.15M
8 AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
Residents Support Our Parks
2011—Last statistically valid poll
Renton resident surveys—annually
2011: strongest support for “improving existing facilities” (91%)
2017 Resident survey:
9 of 10 households have visited a park
in the last 12 months;
58% have visited a
City-run trail
9 AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
Gaps in the Current Parks System
Lack of land for new parks
Lack of certain types of recreational facilities
(dog parks, community gardens)
Geographic distribution of parks
Growing backlog of major maintenance
10 AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
Population increase since 2009: 23%
Park Acreage increase since 2009: 1%
Parks Level of Service: 1990: 17.2 acres per 1,000 residents
Today: 12.1 acres per 1,000 residents 11 AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
We Built on Work of 3 Prior Strategic Plans
Staff screened out projects that were nearing completion
or too speculative (lack of land, ability to permit). Results:
44 “viable” projects with estimated construction cost of $207.8M
CAC agreed to add consideration of all 43 “major maintenance”
projects in current parks 6-year capital improvement
program: $12.9M 12 AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
Our Vision for Parks:
Be a Source of Civic Pride
13 AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
14
Serve the Recreation Needs of All
Our Residents
Our Vision (con’t)AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
15
Be a Reflection of the City’s Commitment
to Making Renton a Great Place to Live,
Learn, Work and Play
Our Vision (con’t)AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
16
Be in Excellent Condition –Safe and Thriving
Our Vision (con’t)AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
17
Help Grow a Sense of Community and Build
Partnership between the City, Other
Governments, Business and Local Community
Groups
Our Vision (con’t)AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
For the LOVE of RENTON!
18
Highlight Renton as a Regional Recreation
Destination
Our Vision (con’t)AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
19
Include Local Parks and Trails in
All Neighborhood Planning Areas
Our Vision (con’t)AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
20
Ensure that Specialized Facilities that
Cannot Be Replicated in All Neighborhoods
are Centrally Located Wherever Practical
Our Vision (con’t)AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
Our Criteria for Selecting Priority
Parks Projects for Funding
Take care of what we have
Enhance geographic equity
Address gaps in types of facilities available
Address the need for more all-year use
of existing assets—in particular,
ballfields and pools
Viability of project—can we be sure it
will be completed?
Staff assessment as to use, need,
condition 21 AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
CAC Process to Develop
Recommendations
First 4 meetings:Learning about the park system
Last 5 meetings: Deliberations & Recommendations
Considered the full project list
Asked staff to remove “non-viable” or nearly completed
projects
Discussed potential criteria in selecting projects
Found it helpful to sort projects by location
22 AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
CAC Process (cont’d.)
To assess CAC member’s values and priorities, members
individually completed an extensive ballot
Rated 87 projects
44 “viable” projects from the 3 strategic plans (all projects are in the
2011 Parks Recreation and Natural Areas Plan)
43 “major maintenance” projects (all in the City’s current Parks 6-
year capital budget)
Rated each project on a scale of 1-5, on 3 questions:
Will this be a project that is attractive/exciting to Renton residents?
Will this project likely have support of the business community as
well as residents?
Will this project address geographic equity or other systemic gaps
that you believe are important to address? 23 AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
Small group discussions leading to two proposed policy
approaches for allocating $70M
Option A:All deferred maintenance + geographic equity with focus
on downtown
Option B:Focus on geographic equity --Center, East, South, and
apply ¼ of funds to Coulon and special use projects --seniors, dogs,
kids, accessibility, synthetic fields. Include major maintenance
anywhere.
What would be funded under each policy approach if
projects were selected based on ballot results?
24
CAC Process (cont’d.)AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
We compared the project lists, and then built a
consensus $70M package
Accepted all 43 major maintenance projects
Accepted two other projects on all 4 project lists
(May Creek McAskill, Philip Arnold)
Simple parliamentary process to add projects
Initial voting totaled $68.5M; we added a $1.5M for
contingency/inflation.
25
CAC Process (cont’d.)AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
26
3 CITY PLANS
CAC
PRIORITIZATION
PROCESS
STAFF INPUT
CAC
REPRIORITIZATION
CAC
RECOMMENDATION AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
CAC Recommended Projects
All 43 Major Maintenance Projects
11 new or expanded park projects across the City
$1.5M in contingency funds
Total estimated construction cost, in 2018 dollars: $70M
Assuming funding is available:
Major maintenance projects can be completed in approximately 2-5 years.
Other projects will take at least 5 years: they require design,
master planning, permitting.
27 AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
CAC Recommended Parks Project List
Project Name
Est.
Capital
Cost
Project Description
43 Major Maintenance
projects
$12.9M All major repairs and renovations to existing assets in the current Parks
6 year CIP. This is the CAC’s top priority.
May Creek/McAskill $6.57M Develop City-owned but undeveloped property into new neighborhood
park in East Plateau, an underserved area in the City. Provide parking,
picnic area, play area, hard surface court, open turf area, restrooms,
and trail connections. Potential adjacent property acquisition.
Philip Arnold Park $1.55M Renovate ballfield, add year-round field, renovate playground,
repurpose activity building, and renovate restrooms. Highly used park
in City Center.
Thomas Teasdale Park $706K Address underserved area of City with high demand for services. Add
adaptive field for more inclusive use. Repurpose activity building.
Cedar River Park $19.6M Expand Henry Moses Aquatic Center, potential field reconfiguration.
Renovate fields and lighting. This is a high use facility in central
location, a “gem” of the park system.
28 AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
Project Name Est. Cap.
Cost Project Description
Community
Garden/Greenhouse
$21K Expand garden, potential development into larger neighborhood park.
Addresses gap in system for small dollar amount.
NARCO Property $14.3M Develop according to Tri-Park Master Plan to include 4 “field turf”
soccer fields (some year-round use), relocate trail, parking, picnic
facilities, play area, restrooms, bike park/”bmx” and climbing wall.
Central location.
Burnett Linear Park $610K Expand this pedestrian/bike connector between South Renton and City
Center. Relatively inexpensive. Part of Downtown Civic Core Action
Plan recommendations.
Liberty Park $5.43M Re -develop per Tri-Park Master Plan to improve ballfields. Central
location. A highly used “gem” of the park system.
Sam Chastain Trail $5.63M Build this key corridor/trail connection between Cedar River Trail and
Coulon Park, with an eventual connection to East Rail corridor trail.
Dog Parks (no
specific location)
$553K There is only one dog park in the City; add another of this popular
amenity.
Community Garden
(no specific location)
$615K Expand upon this type of asset by establishing an additional community
garden in a new location.
Contingency $1.5M Rounding out the total capital investment, these funds could be used to
help finish other projects, or to buy land.
Total estimated cost $70M 29AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
30 AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
How to Pay for This
We considered a number of funding options
Property tax levy lid lift seems most feasible, given that
very few new/expanded park projects are “shovel ready.”
New assets on our project list have a incremental
maintenance cost of around $1.8M/year (rough estimate)
20-year levy rate, for both capital and incremental
maintenance:
19-29 cents would include project cost & maintenance
This equates to $73-$110 per year for owner of median
value home ($378K)
31 AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
Re-cap of Our Recommendations
We support the proposal to invest in our park system.
This is an important key to our quality of life in Renton.
We have provided Council a $70M list of projects that we
prioritize for funding.
Ongoing funding support for existing parks has to be a priority
32 AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
Alternative Recommendation
If the timing’s not right for a $70M levy lift
We recommend funding a $15M commitment to eliminate
the existing 6-year major maintenance backlog
33 AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
Great Cities
HAVE GREAT PARKS!
34 AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
Central Park, NY
35 AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
Bellevue Downtown Park
36
“This amazing park is the
product of exceptional
leadership, political courage,
exemplary collaboration and a
coherent vision.”
--Lee Springgate, former
director,
Bellevue Parks Dept.AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
Gene Coulon Memorial Beach Park
37
Gene Coulon had ‘The Vision’ and hung on to that
Vision until it came to fruition.AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
38
Questions?AGENDA ITEM #1. a)
Report of the Parks, Trails and Community Facilities Initiative
Community Advisory Committee
May 2018
Executive Summary
The City of Renton has an extensive and much-loved park system. Resident surveys consistently
show the City’s parks, trails and community facilities are highly valued. The park system helps
define our community, and create a sense of place. The availability and condition of our parks says
a lot about our City. Since 2009, Renton’s population has grown 38%, while park acreage has
increased 1%. At this point, roughly 90% of the City’s 6-year Parks Capital Improvement Program is
dedicated to capital repairs of existing assets. As assets continue to age, these demands will
continue. Unless something changes, the status quo is one of continued growth in use of our
parks, trails and community facilities, continued deterioration in the condition of those assets, and
no significant increase in the parks and recreation assets available to serve our growing city.
In the last 7 years, there have been three City-led strategic planning efforts which identified dozens
of desired park improvements. Funding for the vast majority of these projects has not been
available. The City budget was hard hit by the 2008 recession and, as a discretionary service, parks
were particularly hard hit as city dollars were shifted to support essential services. The City budget
has come back, due to hard work by the City, voter support and an improving economy. As part of
a multi-year “financial sustainability” effort, City revenues were stabilized through a business and
occupations tax, and City service responsibility (and City property taxes) were reduced when voters
approved creation of the Renton Regional Fire Authority. The Council is now looking to address
the third part of the financial sustainability challenge by focusing on quality of life.
The City Council created Parks Trails and Community Facilities Initiative Community Advisory
Committee (CAC) in January 2018 and charged to: “identify important gaps in City parks, trails and
community facilities and make recommendations for additional investments.” The Committee was
asked to identify its criteria for project selection and present a prioritized list totaling no more than
$70 million, and to consider maintenance costs for the park system. The City Council directed that
projects considered and recommended be drawn from three existing strategic plans: The 2011
Parks, Recreation and Natural Areas Plan, the 2017 Downtown Civic Core Vision and Action Plan,
and the 2018 Trails and Bicycle Master Plan. This report presents the CAC’s recommendations in
response to the mission statement.
The CAC met 9 times between January and May 2018. City staff briefed the CAC on the condition
of parks assets, gaps in the park system, plans for expanding park assets and financial options
available to fund parks. The CAC then went through a lengthy iterative process to develop its
recommendations.
The CAC agrees that increased funding for City parks is necessary and appropriate. Gaps in the
current park system include lack of land for new parks, lack of certain types of community and
recreation facilities, unequal geographic distribution of park assets, and an ongoing challenge of
maintaining what we have.
The CAC believes its recommendations will help restore the condition of Renton’s parks, trails and
community facilities, and build towards the vision of a vibrant park system. The CAC’s top priority
AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
ii
for investment is taking care of what we have. The CAC recommends funding all major
maintenance projects in the City’s Capital Improvement Program The CAC also recommends
funding 11 new and expanded parks, trails and community facilities projects, and a contingency
sum, summarized in the table below, based on the following criteria:
Enhance geographic equity in the location of park assets
Address gaps in types of facilities available
Address the need for more all year use of existing assets, in particular,
ballfields and pools
Project viability—is completion of the project within the City’s control and
capacity?
Staff assessment of the most critical system needs.
Applying these criteria, the CAC believes a $70 million dollar investment, on top of continued
financial support for parks at current levels, will result in major progress in achieving its vision for
City parks.
City staff estimate that to raise $70 million would require a levy lid lift in the range of 17-25 cents,
if the levy were authorized for 20 years. The range in cost depends on how quickly the City wants
to deploy the projects. A slightly larger levy rate can make project construction dollars available
sooner. An estimated 2-4 cents additional would be required to maintain and operate the new
and expanded park lands and facilities. Combined, a single capital and maintenance levy of 19-29
cents would cost the owner of a home of median property value in Renton between $73 and $110
in 2018.
The CAC emphasizes the importance of maintaining maintenance levels as the park system is
expanded.
Should the City Council decide not to pursue a ballot measure for additional park funding at this
time, the CAC strongly endorses near term action by the City to eliminate the existing major
maintenance backlog in the park system. The CAC recommends a funding package of $14.5 million
for this purpose.
The CAC commends the City Council for prioritizing the future of the park system as a path to
improving the quality of life for Renton residents. The CAC believes that a quality park and
recreation system is foundational to quality of life, and that the current funding and system
conditions make a compelling case to increase investment in the current park system.
AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
iii
CAC Recommended Parks Project List
Project Name Estimated
Capital
Cost
Project description
43 Major Maintenance
projects
$12.9M All major repairs and renovations to existing assets in the
current Parks CIP. This is the CAC’s top priority.
May Creek/McAskill $6.57M Develop City-owned but undeveloped property into new
neighborhood park in East Plateau, an underserved area in the
City. Provide parking, picnic area, play area, hard surface
court, open turf area, restrooms, and trail connections.
Potential adjacent property acquisition.
Philip Arnold Park $1.55M Renovate ballfield, add year-round field, renovate playground,
repurpose activity building, and renovate restrooms. Highly
used park in City Center.
Thomas Teasdale Park $706K Address underserved area of City with high demand for
services. Add adaptive field for more inclusive use. Repurpose
activity building.
Cedar River Park $19.6M Expand Henry Moses Aquatic Center, potential field
reconfiguration. Renovate fields and lighting. This is a High use
facility in central location, a “gem” of the park system.
Community
Garden/Greenhouse
$21K Expand garden, potential development into larger
neighborhood park. Addresses gap in system for small dollar
amount
NARCO Property $14.3M Develop according to Tri-Park Master Plan to include 4 “field
turf” soccer fields (some year-round use), relocate trail,
parking, picnic facilities, play area, restrooms, bike park/”bmx”
and climbing wall. Central location.
Burnett Linear Park $610K Expand this pedestrian/bike connector between South Renton
and City Center. Relatively inexpensive. Part of Downtown
Civic Core Vision and Action Plan recommendations.
Liberty Park $5.43M Re-develop per Tri-Park Master Plan to improve ballfields.
Central location. A highly used “gem” of the park system.
Sam Chastain Trail $5.63M Build this key corridor/trail connection between Cedar River
Trail and Coulon Park, with an eventual connection to East Rail
corridor trail.
Dog Parks (no specific
location)1
$553K There is only one dog park in the City; add another of this
popular amenity.
Community Garden (no
specific location)1
$615K Expand upon this type of asset by establishing an additional
community garden in a new location.
Contingency $1.5M Rounding out the total capital investment, these funds could
be used to help finish other projects, or to buy land.
Total investment est. cost $70M
1 The CAC recommends that areas of the City with relatively fewer park assets, including Talbot, Benson, and
East Plateau, be prioritized as a location for these assets.
AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
1
Report of the Parks, Trails and Community Facilities Initiative
Community Advisory Committee
May 2018
I. Introduction
The Parks, Trails and Community Facilities Initiative Community Advisory Committee (CAC) was
created by the City Council and first met in January 2018. The mission of the CAC, as provided to
us by the City Council, reads as follows:
The mission of the Committee is to identify important gaps in City parks, trails
and community facilities and make recommendations for additional investments
in these areas. In making its recommendations, the Committee shall work from
the City’s Parks, Recreation and Natural Areas Plan, Trails and Bicycle Master
Plan and Renton Downtown Civic Core Vision and Action Plan. The Committee
shall consider geographic equity, capital costs, as well as maintenance needs for
existing and any proposed new or expanded facilities. The Committee shall
identify its criteria for recommending projects to be funded, and present a
prioritized list of projects meeting those criteria. The Committee shall also make
recommendations for a preferred funding source or sources. Excluding
maintenance costs, the proposed projects should total no more than 70 million
dollars. The committee shall deliver its report and recommendations to the
Mayor and City Council no later than May 2018.
This report presents the recommendations of the CAC in response to our mission statement.
We understand that the CAC effort is the starting point for the City’s “quality of life” project, which
is the third leg of the City’s “financial sustainability” strategy launched by the Mayor and Council in
2015. The first part of this strategy was shoring up City revenues by implementing a local Business
& Occupations Tax. The second part was to seek voter approval of a regional fire authority to
assume funding responsibility for the City Fire Department. The third part of the plan now focuses
on what residents may support in order to improve the quality of life in Renton. The Council
approved the CAC mission statement after several months of deliberation on how to launch this
“quality of life” discussion.
II. CAC Process Overview
The CAC met nine (9) times, from January through May of 2018, for two (2) hours each meeting.
CAC members were selected and confirmed by the City Council. The Council also selected Tim
Searing to serve as Chair and Bob Reeder as Vice-Chair for the CAC. Attachment A sets forth a list
of CAC members and their affiliations. We are a true citizen panel: we live in neighborhoods all
across the City, and bring different interests to the table. We are not experts in park planning and
development, although two of our members serve on the City’s Parks Commission.
We were supported in our work by staff from the Community Service Department and
Administrative Services Department, as well as an independent facilitator. Early in our process, we
adopted a charter to guide our decision making as a group. Our charter provides that consensus
AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
2
items are those supported by 80% or more of the CAC members present and voting;
recommendations require support of between 60%and 79% of the CAC members present and
voting. Our charter further provides that a CAC member “dissenting from a recommendation of
the CAC may include a summary minority statement as to the position and rational of such
dissenting Member(s).”2
The CAC process focused first on learning: our first four meetings were devoted to understanding
the assets and challenges faced by the City’s park system today, options for providing additional
financial support to our park system, and the three City strategic Planning efforts that the City has
completed since 2011 which identify goals and projects to expand the City’s park system, or
components of that system. Our last five meetings focused on developing our recommendations.
III. Current Renton Park system—Assets and Funding
The City of Renton has an impressive and much-loved park system. Some of the basic facts about
the size and funding of the system are presented below:
There are over 1,200 acres of City-owned park land.
57% of park land acreage is undeveloped open space and natural areas.
In terms of developed parks, the City owns about 210 acres of developed land in 32
different parks, as well as 12 miles of trails, 45 fields and sport courts, 20 playgrounds and
11 picnic shelters.3
About 24.5 full time employees maintain all these City park facilities.
Park assets and staff combined receive about 6% of General Fund budget—for
maintenance and planning. The parks’ operation and maintenance budget in 2018 is
$6.2M: this funds staff and “routine” maintenance—such as mowing, trail sweeping, tree
pruning, as well as recreational programming at City parks.
Capital funding for parks comes from a combination of funds. About is half from a portion
of the City’s Real Estate Excise Tax receipts. The balance is from grants, General Fund
transfers, donations and a portion of Business &
Occupation tax receipts.
Funding for parks is allocated to three categories of
activity:
Daily operations and routine maintenance of
existing facilities (cutting grass, changing light
bulbs, cleaning restrooms, cutting back foliage on
trails).
“Major maintenance”—renovation and non-
routine repairs of existing facilities. These
projects are considered capital expenditures.
They are included in the City’s six-year Capital
Improvement Program (CIP) list for Parks. Major
2 Minority statements from two CAC members are included at Attachment C.
3 This data excludes the City golf course which is self-funding through earned revenues, and managed under
an “enterprise fund” separate and apart from other City parks.
Historical Parks Capital
Expenditures
Actual 2009 $4.78 Million
Actual 2010 $2.16 Million
Actual 2011 $3.12 Million
Actual 2012 $1.65 Million
Actual 2013 $2.10 Million
Actual 2014 $5.83 Million
Actual 2015 $4.89 Million
Actual 2016 $3.32 Million
Actual 2017 $3.78 Million
Budget 2018 $4.15 Million
Ten Year Annual Average: $3.58M
M
AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
3
maintenance includes projects such as replacing unsafe playground equipment or fixing a
leaking roof. The current two-year (2017-2018) capital funding budget for Parks major
maintenance projects includes 43 projects with a total estimated cost of $12.9M.
Capital projects—projects that add new, or expand existing assets.
Capital funding levels for parks vary from year to year, as projects grants come in or as new major
maintenance items come to the forefront. In the last 10 years, Parks CIP spending has averaged
$3.58 million per year. (See table). Operations and maintenance funding for parks has grown an
average of 3% per year over the last decade.
IV. Renton Residents Support Our Parks
In 2011, the City commissioned a statistically valid community survey in connection with the
development of the Renton Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Natural Resources Plan (PRNA).
The Executive Summary from this survey is reproduced at Attachment B. Among the findings in
this survey are as follows:
Residents polled who said they used Renton parks cited the following as activities: use of
trails for walking/jogging/running/hiking/bicycling (75%), swimming in public pools (32%),
using softball/baseball/soccer fields for youth league games (18%), use of dog park
facilities (17%), Use of softball/baseball/soccer fields for adult facilities (11%), use of non-
motorized boating facilities (12%) and use of skate park facilities (11%)
In terms of the geographic distribution of parks and recreation facilities, 35% of
respondents were “very satisfied,” and 53% were “somewhat satisfied.”
74% of respondents wanted to see additional recreational facilities. Of this 74%, the
suggested facility type, in descending order of support was as follows:
o Trails for walking/jogging/running (8%)
o Trails for bicycling (7%)
o Indoor swimming for recreation (5%)
o Tot lots/playgrounds (3%)
o Dog Park (3%)
o Soccer fields (3%)
o Outdoor recreational swimming pool (2%)
o Community center (2%)
o Indoor basketball courts (2%)
o Indoor swimming pool (unspecified use) (2%)
o Tennis courts (2%)
The poll tested support for various types of park improvements. The most strongly rated
item was “improving existing facilities” (91%). Strong support was also expressed for:
o Creating a connected trails system (81%)
o Providing recreation access to natural areas in Renton that are currently
inaccessible (80%)
o Acquiring new land for parks, recreation, open space or natural resources
(74%)
o Developing a unique new facility such as an environmental education center
(63%)
AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
4
The City’s most recent 2017 Renton Resident Survey found a continued high level of use of
Renton’s parks: nine out of ten households visited a park in the last 12 months; Fifty-eight percent
of households visited a City-run trail.
The 2011 PRNA survey and the 2017 resident survey both show strong resident interest in Parks.
However, the City has not conducted statistically valid polling on parks issues since 2011.
V. Gaps in the City’s Current Park System Assets
City staff presented the CAC with information about the gaps they observe in the City park system,
which include:
Lack of land suitable for new parks
Lack of certain types of community facilities—dog parks, or sports fields that can be
programmed year round
Geographic distribution of parks: not all neighborhoods have comparable numbers and
types of parks, in comparison to their population. Recently annexed areas—Benson and
East Plateau—are particularly underserved in terms of the number of developed parks.
(Fortunately, the Family First Center is now in development and represents a major
investment in the Benson area.).
Our mission statement from the Council directed us to develop a project list working from the
three most current strategic plans relating to parks adopted or recently completed by the City,
specifically: the 2011 Parks, Recreation and Natural Areas Plan (PRNA), the 2017 Downtown Civic
Core Vision and Action Plan, and the 2018 Trails and Bicycle Plan (Council approval of which is
pending).
The PRNA presents a long term (20 year) vision and goals for City parks, recreation and
natural areas. It was developed with engagement of over 1,500 City residents, including
multiple workshops, a
questionnaire, a statistically valid
survey, citizen steering committee,
the City Parks and Planning
Commissions, and city staff. The
PRNA identified 73 new parks
projects, with total planning,
development, permitting and
construction costs estimated at
$319 million (2018 dollars). These
projects run the gamut from re-
constructing and expanding existing
facilities, to acquiring new acreage
for parks, to building out amenities in existing parks. Together, they comprise an exciting
vision for a vibrant, much expanded park system that would meet the needs of Renton’s
growing and diverse population.
The Seven Goals of the
2011Parks Recreation and Natural Areas Plan
Goal A: Filling gaps in service
Goal B: Creating a connected system
Goal C: Building Partnerships
Goal D: Creating identity
Goal E: Ensuring a sustainable system
Goal F: Promoting health and community
through programming
Goal G: Protecting and conserving natural
resources
AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
5
The 2017 Downtown Civic Core Vision and Action Plan (Civic Core Plan) highlighted the
need for several of the PRNA projects located in the center of our City, as well as some
new park and other improvements.
The 2018 Trails and Bicycle Plan provides refined focus on non-motorized transportation
projects, several of which were included in the PRNA. We worked from a draft project list,
as this Plan has not yet been approved by Council.
Because most of the park projects in the Downtown Core Vision and Action Plan and the Trails and
Bicycle Plan projects are included in the PRNA project list, we primarily focused on the PRNA list in
our work.
Many of the PRNA projects are too speculative for the City to commit to funding in the next few
years (for example, there is no land identified on which to build the project). For other PRNA
projects, changing permit conditions have meant that some proposed improvements are no longer
feasible (for example, a synthetic turf field previously proposed for Ron Regis Park would be in the
flood plain and cannot be built under current regulations). Staff “scrubbed” those projects from
the lists of projects we considered – removing projects that are no longer viable under current
regulations, are unduly speculative, or are nearing completion. This “PRNA Scrubbed Project List”
includes 44 projects, which would cost an estimated $207 million to plan, permit and construct
(2018 dollars).
As a point of context, since 2011, five (5) new parks projects (including some land acquisition) have
been completed by the City, at a total cost of $6.87 million. Seventy nine percent (79%) of the
funding for these projects came from grants, donation and other non-city funding sources.
VI. Funding for Parks is Falling Behind
The City’s population has rapidly grown in recent years, but park acreage has not. Since 1990, City
population has more than doubled -- largely due to a major annexation in 2008-9. Since 2009,
Renton’s population has gone up 23%, and developed park acreage has increased by 1%.
As shown in the graphic on the next page, the City’s 1990 service level of 17.2 acres of park per
1,000 residents has dropped to 12.10 acres per 1,000 residents today.
Recovering from the 2008 recession was a major financial challenge for the City. Because parks is a
“discretionary” function as compared to police or transportation, parks saw disproportionally
greater cuts than did essential services. The re-prioritization of funding away from parks has had
real consequences for the system. The “major maintenance” backlog on existing park assets
consumes nearly all of parks capital funding—and unscheduled structural and safety issues with
parks facilities and equipment require continuous re-prioritization of major maintenance projects.
At this point 90% of the 6-year Parks CIP is dedicated to major maintenance. Roughly 10% of City
capital funding for parks is spent on planning/design of development. Acquisition and construction
funding in recent years has come almost entirely from grants and impact mitigation funds.
AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
6
Source: City of Renton. AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
7
VII. What happens if we don’t provide additional funding for Renton’s parks?
If the City continues funding parks at current levels, what are the implications for our park system? In
short, the CAC expects we will see our parks being loved to death. The list of PRNA projects will remain
an unfulfilled dream. Our trail network will remain fragmented, lacking connections to the regional trail
system. Maintenance levels will decline, and the backlog of needed repairs and renovations will
continue to grow and our parks will continue to deteriorate.
The status quo also means disparities in parks acreage between different neighborhoods will remain the
reality. And as development continues, we may forever lose the opportunity to acquire scarce
remaining undeveloped land for new park acreage.
The status quo is not an appealing option. We are convinced that additional funding for our parks is
necessary and appropriate.
VIII. Our Recommendations
The City Council has asked us to provide a prioritized list of $70 million in investments in our park
system, based on the projects included in the 2011 PRNA, the Civic Core Plan, and the 2018 Trails and
Bicycle Plan. The Council further requested that we identify our criteria for our project list. We present
below our recommendations and rationale for selecting these projects, as well as a more detailed
description of the criteria important to us and the process we went through to develop our
recommendations.
We commend the City Council for prioritizing the future of the park system as a path to improving the
quality of life for Renton residents. We believe that a quality park and recreation system is foundational
to quality of life, and that the current funding and system conditions make a compelling case to increase
investment in our current park system.
CAC Vision. As a starting point, we first offer our vision, as a community advisory committee composed
of Renton residents and business people, for what our City’s park system should aspire to. Our vision
for the City park system is that it should:
Be a source of civic pride.
Serve the recreation needs of all our residents.
Be a reflection of the City’s commitment to making Renton a great place to live, learn, work and
play.
Be in excellent condition – safe and inviting.
Help grow a sense of community and build partnerships between the City, other governments,
business and local community groups.
Highlight Renton as a regional recreation destination.
Include local parks and trails in all neighborhood planning areas.
Ensure that specialized facilities that cannot be replicated in all neighborhoods are centrally
located wherever practicable.
We believe that $70 million in additional capital funding for parks will result in major progress towards
achieving this vision.
AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
8
CAC Criteria in Selecting Projects. The criteria we applied in making our recommendations were
developed over the course of the process described below, as we learned about the park system, the
three strategic planning efforts that preceded our work (the 2011 PRNA, the 2017 Civic Core Plan, and
the 2018 Trails and Bicycle Plan), and staff perspectives on the challenges and opportunities they see.
Our priorities are largely consistent with the goals of the 2011 PRNA Plan. “Taking care of what we
have” is our top priority—which is consistent with survey input from residents. Our criteria beyond that
are not prioritized.
CAC Criteria in Selecting Priority Parks Projects
Take care of what we have. Eliminate the backlog of repairs and renovations, upgrade existing
facilities to get the most out of these existing assets.
Enhance geographic equity in location of parks assets.
o Since $70M will not fund enough projects to accomplish this goal completely, we have
proposed parks improvements or new parks in all but one area of the City, but focused a
significant percentage of funding in the City core--prioritizing parks that are heavily used
today and are in a central location easily accessed from any neighborhood—primarily,
facilities in the City Center and Cedar River areas.
Address gaps in types of facilities available—funding for dog parks, community gardens and
additional synthetic sport fields.
Address the need for more all-year use of existing assets—in particular, ballfields and pools.
Viability of project. If we commit to doing this project, is there an assurance that it will happen,
or is completion too speculative at this time? Many projects in the PRNA were screened out at
the beginning of our evaluation process for this reason—lack of available land being a major
factor.
Staff assessment. We have great respect for the expertise of City staff, in their assessment of
which parks facilities are in greatest demand, and which projects would help us get the most out
of existing properties.
Other considerations that were important to us include:
Ensuring adequate ongoing maintenance dollars are budgeted – so that we do not fall behind
again in the future.
Partnering where possible to leverage city dollars. The City has an impressive history of
securing grants and other funds to make new projects a reality.
To be clear, $70M cannot accomplish all the projects we would like to see, but it can provide significant
progress towards the vision reflected in the PRNA, Civic Core Plan and Trails and Bicycle Plan. And it can
eliminate the backlog in renovating and repairing existing parks -- honoring the investment of prior
generations by taking care of what we have.
AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
9
CAC Deliberation and Project Selection Process. We went through an iterative process in developing
our recommended project list. As noted above, we spent our first four meetings learning about
Renton’s parks and the three strategic planning documents from which we were asked to draw project
recommendations. We also looked at public polling (mentioned above, and in Attachment B) related to
parks issues; geographic equity issues (where are there gaps in parks availability/type by neighborhood),
and reviewed public funding options.
The full project lists for all three strategic plans were made available to us. We note that project specific
data was highly summarized (description, project type, area, capital cost estimate, PRNA ranking). We
did not undertake an extensive education process about each of the projects—that occurred in
development of the underlying strategic plans, which included extensive public engagement.
After getting grounded in the basic parks data, the CAC agreed that it was important to look not only at
the three strategic plans, but also the major maintenance projects now in the City’s CIP – since those are
a growing part of the CIP, and polling (and our own criteria) place a high emphasis on “taking care of
what we have.” Our process to reach our final recommendations is summarized below.
Six Part Process Used by CAC to Develop the Recommended Project List
Part 1: In our first four meetings, we learned about the park system and how it is funded,
reviewed polling data, were briefing on options for securing additional funding for parks, and
reviewed the three strategic plans with parks projects.
Part 2: Between meeting 4 and 5, CAC members were asked to each complete a homework
assignment: filling out a lengthy, detailed ballot rating (1) the PRNA Scrubbed Project List (44
projects) and (2) all “major maintenance projects” in the City’s current 6-year Capital
Improvement (43 projects). This ranking was proposed as a starting point for discussion for
prioritization of the various projects.
CAC members ranked projects was ranked from 1 to 5 (1 - highly negative, 3 -
neutral/indifferent, 5 - highly positive), on 3 different questions:
1. Will this be a project that is attractive/exciting to Renton residents?
2. Will this project likely have support of the business community as well as residents?
3. Will this project address geographic equity or other systemic gaps that you believe are
important to address?
Balloting allowed ranking of all projects, and sorting of projects in various ways (by question,
rank by neighborhood area, by project type, etc.).
Total Number and estimated Cost of Parks Projects Considered
44 PRNA projects (2018 dollars) $207.8M
43 Major Maintenance projects (2017-18 budget) $ 12.9M
TOTAL projects estimated cost: $220.7M
AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
10
Part 3: After reviewing the ballot results, the CAC agreed the results on Question 1 were the
most useful, considering that we are anticipating a vote to secure the funding. We then we
shifted discussion up to a higher policy level. Through small group discussion and then
reconvening as a committee, the CAC developed two different but overlapping policy
approaches by which to prioritize projects.
Part 4: Staff took the CAC’s two policy approaches and developed four project lists: for each
option, they selected $70 million in projects in two different ways—first, based on our voted
priorities in the ballot results (Question 1), and second, based on staff priorities (given their
professional judgment about asset conditions, community need, impact, and the goal of serving
all of the community to the extent possible).
Part 5: After reviewing the similarities and differences between the CAC ballot-based lists and
the staff lists, the CAC agreed to accept as a baseline for inclusion all 43 major maintenance
projects,--at a cost of $12.9 million -- and the two park expansion projects appearing on all four
lists derived in Part 4 (Philip Arnold Park and May Creek/McAskill park development). The CAC
then built the rest of the $70M list based on a simple parliamentary process: motion to add a
project, second, discussion, and vote.
Part 6: The resulting list of 54 projects totaled $68.5 million. Forty three (43) of the projects are
the major maintenance projects; in addition, the CAC selected 11 new or expanded parks
projects. All but three of these projects garnered consensus level support from the CAC
members present and voting (80% or more); the other three were supported by at least 60% of
the CAC members present and voting. We then agreed to add a $1.5 million “contingency”
project to round the project list to $70 million.
CAC Recommended Project List. The CAC’s recommended project list is presented in detail at
Attachment D, and summarized below. Table 1 summarizes the list based on project type, focusing on
the benefits of the 11 new or expanded parks projects. Table 2 summarizes the list based on project
location. A map showing the location of the recommended projects is presented at Attachment E.
AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
11
Table 1
CAC Recommended Parks Project List
Project Name Estimated
Capital Cost
Project description
43 Major Maintenance
projects
$12.9M All major repairs and renovations to existing assets in the
current Parks CIP. This is the CAC’s top priority.
May Creek/McAskill (C)* $6.57M Develop City-owned but undeveloped property into new
neighborhood park in East Plateau, an underserved area in
the City. Provide parking, picnic area, play area, hard surface
court, open turf area, restrooms, and trail connections.
Potential adjacent property acquisition.
Philip Arnold Park (C) $1.55M Renovate ballfield, add year-round field, renovate playground,
repurpose activity building, and renovate restrooms. Highly
used park in City Center.
Thomas Teasdale Park (C) $706K Address underserved area of City with high demand for
services. Add adaptive field for more inclusive use. Repurpose
activity building.
Cedar River Park (C) $19.6M Expand Henry Moses Aquatic Center, potential field
reconfiguration. Renovate fields and lighting. This is a High
use facility in central location, a “gem” of the park system.
Community
Garden/Greenhouse (C)
$21K Expand garden, potential development into larger
neighborhood park. Addresses gap in system for small dollar
amount
NARCO Property(C) $14.3M Develop according to Tri-Park Master Plan to include 4 “field
turf” soccer fields (some year-round use), relocate trail,
parking, picnic facilities, play area, restrooms, bike
park/”bmx” and climbing wall. Central location.
Burnett Linear Park (R) $610K Expand this pedestrian/bike connector between South Renton
and City Center. Relatively inexpensive. Part of Downtown
Civic Core Vision and Action Plan recommendations.
Liberty Park (C) $5.43M Re-develop per Tri-Park Master Plan to improve ballfields.
Central location. A highly used “gem” of the park system.
Sam Chastain Trail (C) $5.63M Build this key corridor/trail connection between Cedar River
Trail and Coulon Park, with an eventual connection to East
Rail corridor trail.
Dog Parks (no specific
location) (R)1
$553K There is only one dog park in the City; add another of this
popular amenity.
Community Garden (no
specific location) (R)1
$615K Expand upon this type of asset by establishing an additional
community garden in a new location.
Contingency (C) $1.5M Rounding out the total capital investment, these funds could
be used to help finish other projects, or to buy land.
Total investment est. cost $70M
*(C) Indicates projects receiving Consensus level support (80%+ of CAC members present and voting).
(R) Indicates projects receiving Recommendation level support (60-79% of CAC members present and voting).
**Total slightly less than $70M due to rounding of estimated project costs
1 The CAC recommends that areas of the City with relatively fewer park assets, including Talbot, Benson, and East
Plateau, be prioritized as a location for these assets.
AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
12
Table 2
CAC Project List by Project Area*
Planning Area # of
projects
Estimated total
cost of projects
Benson 2 $145K
Talbot 5 $1.2M
Cedar River 4 $34.3M
City Center 25 $22.8M
East Plateau 1 $6.6M
Highlands 5 $790K
Kennydale 1 $200K
Multiple Sites 4 $650K
No Specific Location 7 $1.8M
Valley 0 $0M
Contingency Reserve 1 $1.5M
Total 55 $70M**
*Includes each of the 43 major maintenance projects.
**Total slightly less than $70M due to rounding of estimated project costs.
Will our project list achieve the PRNA vision? Will it achieve our vision for the City park system? Not
completely. More work, and more funding needs to be committed in years ahead. However, the $70
million will be a major step forward. Seventy million dollars equates to 34% of the combined total
estimated cost of the PRNA Scrubbed Projects List and all 43 major maintenance projects in the Parks
CIP. Additional funding at this level will make possible significant improvement in the condition of parks
available in our community, and in the types of recreation assets available. Our recommended project
list will:
Renovate dozens of existing park assets currently in need of repair, replacement and upgrade.
Ensure all our parks are safe and inviting.
Expand the range of recreational opportunities available—more neighborhood parks, ballfields,
dog parks community gardens.
Make dramatic progress towards achieving the Tri-Park Master Plan.
Help reduce geographic equity gaps between City neighborhoods, although there will be more
work to do in this regard.
With a $70 million target, the CAC could not fully fund all geographic gaps in the park system and
instead concentrated funding in central parts of the City accessible by all residents. We note that there
remain gaps in the Talbot, Benson and East Plateau areas in particular. We recommend prioritizing
these areas as places to locate the projects in our list with no specific location currently identified (dog
parks, community garden).
We also note that while we have prioritized investment in the Tri-Park Plan, we do not endorse use of
levy funds to acquire the Merlino Property which is a key part of that Plan. We think the optics of using a
significant percentage of levy funds for purchase land from any specifically identified private landowner
are not positive.
AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
13
Timeline and Funding Considerations. Our mission statement includes direction to “make
recommendations for a preferred funding source or sources” through which to secure funding for the
proposed $70 million target in projects. We start this discussion by re-stating our conviction that there is
a clear need for additional funding for Parks. In terms of the source of this funding, we note we were
not asked to scour the existing City budget to recommend re-prioritizing current funds. We understand
that it is ultimately the Council’s decision whether, how and when to raise new money for parks.
We were briefed on a wide range of potential funding options that the City could potentially look to for
raising new money for Parks. Based primarily on the City’s readiness to spend money on new parks
projects, it appears to us that a property tax levy lid lift is the funding option that best fits the City’s
current situation.
The City has very few “shovel ready” parks projects, excluding the subset of major maintenance
projects that can be accomplished within 1 to 2 years. It will take several years to complete
planning, design, permitting in order for the bulk of the projects on our list to be “shovel ready.”
If voter approved bonds are used to fund the $70 million, the City must have a reasonable
expectation that it can spend those proceeds within 3 years. That simply is not possible based
on what staff tell us.
A levy lid lift has the advantage of allowing both new capital dollars and operations and
maintenance dollars to be secured through a single ballot measure, requiring simple majority
voter approval (as opposed to 60% required for bonds, proceeds of which can be used only for
capital).
The lack of “shovel ready” projects means that the voters will see projects completed over
several years – perhaps as long as 10-15 years. It will be important to manage voter
expectations in this situation.
Given how long it will likely take to plan, design, permit and construct all the projects on our list,
there is a significant inflation risk. The estimated costs for PRNA projects are largely based on
preliminary estimates—these projects have not been fully designed, nor has master planning or
permitting occurred. Full design and master planning typically takes 3-5 years. The longer it
takes to launch projects, the more risk there is that the $70 million will not be sufficient to fund
all the projects on our list.
[Note to CAC: This statement is factually incorrect under state law so it will be deleted. The amount of
money the City can collect from year to year on a 20 year lid lift is capped by the citizen Initiative 747
limits: the total revenue collected can only be 1% more than last year, plus the tax on the value of new
construction. So, even if property values are going up 10% a year, the City can collect only 1% more each
year (plus tax on new construction).]
The City can issue short term (up to 9 year) bonds under a lid lift authorization and use that to
accelerate the availability of project construction funds. This addresses the voter expectation
issue, and could mitigate construction price risk—but adds to the required levy size in order to
repay interest on those short term bonds.
The City’s track record of success in recent years in securing grants for parks projects could also
help mitigate the inflation risk. However, Parks staff have cautioned us against using recent
grant success to assume that future grants will offset inflation or provide net additional buying
power over time.
AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
14
How large of a levy lid lift is needed to both construct and maintain the projects we have identified?
City staff estimate that to raise $70 million would require a levy lid lift in the range of 17-25 cents, if the
levy were authorized for 20 years. The range in cost depends on how quickly the City wants to deploy
the projects. As noted above, a slightly larger levy rate can facilitate issuance and repayment of 9-year
bonds to make construction dollars available sooner—but interest on those short term bonds must be
repaid from levy proceeds.
An estimated 2-4 cents additional would be required to maintain and operate the new and expanded
park lands and facilities. This is the estimated incremental amount required over current maintenance
spending at existing facilities. Actual maintenance dollars required will be determined based on:
The project construction schedule –when are new projects brought on line and thus require
maintenance funding; and
Refined assessment of the marginal operating dollars required. Most of the projects on our list
impact existing facilities, with existing maintenance costs. The additional cost to maintain a
renovated or expanded facility may be more or less than current costs.
A single combined capital and maintenance levy of 19-29 cents would cost the owner of a home of
median property value in Renton between $73 and $110 in 2018. (The 2018 median home value in
Renton is $378,000).
We understand that state law does not allow the City to supplant existing parks funds in exchange for
new levy moneys approved by voters. This is an important point to convey to the voters: they would be
authorizing additional money for parks, not a replacement for current funds.
There are many details to be worked out in terms of the timing and size of a voter approved tax
measure, and we understand that this future work will be done based on direction from the City Council.
It is very important to the CAC that in working to expand the park system, the City not exacerbate the
current major maintenance backlog or allow parks general maintenance levels to decline. Staff tell us
that if the major maintenance backlog is eliminated, and the City continues to fund both capital and
general maintenance at levels averaged in the last decade, overall maintenance levels can be
maintained. There is an important caveat here: as the City continues to undertake periodic structural
reviews of park facilities every 5-years, unanticipated major maintenance needs will arise which would
far exceed available capital funding. There is no funding cushion in place to deal with these
unanticipated events.
The CAC members strongly support our parks system. We support funding our recommended project
list, except as noted in minority statements from two CAC members presented at Attachment C.
As stated above, our top priority as a group is “taking care of what we have.” Therefore, should the City
Council decide to not pursue a ballot measure for additional park funding at this time, the CAC strongly
endorses near term action by the City to eliminate the existing major maintenance backlog in the park
system. The CAC recommends a funding package of $14.5 million for this purpose—to fund the $13
million in existing major maintenance projects, together with a $1.5 million contingency.
AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
15
IX. Conclusions
We agree with the Council that a quality park system contributes much to the quality of life in our City.
Renton’s park system has a wonderful and diverse set of assets, and we need to do right by those assets
and the prior public investment they represent. There is a clear need for additional funding for Parks.
We were asked to develop a prioritized list of $70 million in parks projects, drawing from projects
included in three existing City strategic plans involving parks. We believe the top priority for new
funding should be to address major maintenance issues at our parks. Our recommended project list will
accelerate completion of all current major maintenance projects. It will also provide funding for 11 new
projects that we believe are important to achieve our vision for the park system.
If supported by City voters, $70 million of additional parks funding will be a major and exciting step
forward for our park system, and the quality of life in Renton. It is an initiative from which all City
residents can benefit.
If the Council determines not to proceed with a ballot measure at this time, the CAC strongly endorses
near term action by the City to eliminate the existing major maintenance backlog.
As we finish our work on this effort, we want to express our deepest gratitude to the tireless and
excellent work of the staff team that supported us. They are a true asset to the City.
Finally, we thank the City Council for the opportunity to engage in this process and to share our
recommendations with them. We appreciate their leadership, and their interest in giving the voters of
Renton an opportunity to decide whether to support a major investment in our parks, trails and
community facilities.
AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
16
List of Attachments:
A. CAC Members
B. Executive Summary of 2011 Statistically Valid Poll Completed as part of PRNA Development.
C. Minority Statements
D. CAC Recommended Parks Projects List
E. Map Showing Location of CAC Recommended Parks Projects
AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
17
Attachment A
Renton Parks, Trails and Community Facilities Initiative
Community Advisory Committee Members
Name Affiliation
Brendan Armstrong Winwood HOA/Neighborhood
Angelina Benedetti Planning Commission
Mij Charbonneau Past Member, Senior Advisory Committee
Al Dieckman Parks Commission
Brian Kaelin Director of Athletics, Renton School District.
Jeffry Kelly Snake Hill Neighborhood Association
Melody Kroeger Airport Advisory Committee
Devin Malkin Resident
Bob Reeder (Vice-Chair) Budget Advisory Committee/Renton Community Foundation
Dana Rochex City Center Community Plan Advisory Committee
Ted Rodriguez Latino Forum
Tim Searing (Chair) Parks Commission
Jeannie Seil Trail Ranger
Mitch Shepherd Past Member, Renton Municipal Arts Commission
Dr. Linda Smith, Pastor Renton African American Pastoral Group
Rocale Timmons4 SECO
Colin Walker5 Budget Advisory Committee
4 Ms. Timmons was unable to participate in the CAC effort after Meeting 4.
5 Due to time constraints, Mr. Walker dropped off the CAC after Meeting 5.
AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
18
Attachment B:
Excerpt from 2011 Parks, Recreation and Natural Areas Plan (PRNA), authored by Research Northwest,
LLC, Summarizing Results of the Statistically Valid Phone Survey Conducted in the Development of the
PRNA
II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Highlights
After a careful review of the responses to the Renton resident
survey, Research Northwest LLC has gleaned the following
highlights excerpted from responses provided by those respondents
confirmed to reside in the City of Renton.
Renton’s Best Feature The survey revealed that 16% of residents polled stated that they
like the “Location” in Renton. More than one of every ten
respondents (11%) reported “Close to Work” as the one feature that
makes Renton desirable. An additional 10% cited a collection of
recreation features that included responses such as
“Parks/Recreation/Sports Facilities and Programs” (6%), “Lake
Washington and Cedar River” (2%), “Open Space/Natural
Resources (1%), and “Trails to Walk, Bike, Hike, or Jog” (1%).
Residents reporting “Affordable Housing” as the one feature for them
comprised 7% of the responses as did those citing “Near Shopping.”
The response category “Close to
Everything/Tukwila/Seattle/Bellevue” garnered a 6% response rate
while response categories “Freeway Access” and “Quiet/Peaceful”
were volunteered by 5% of those polled. Finally, 4% of residents
cited “Small Town Atmosphere” and an additional 3% valued
“Feeling a Part of Community.” Remaining responses garnered less
than a 3% response rate.
Most Frequent Activity More than one of every four members of the resident households
(27%) reported their most frequent activity to be
walking/hiking/jogging/running. The next most often received
response category was “no activity,” reported by 17% of the
population surveyed in the City. Use of Playgrounds or Tot Lots
was reported as the most frequent activity of 8% of resident
household members. “City Park Activities,” “Bicycling,” and
“Swimming in a Pool,” were activities most conducted by 4% of
the surveyed population in the City. “Basketball” was volunteered by
3% of Renton household members.
Reasons for Inactivity The survey found that 27% of those who reported no recreation
activity in the prior inquiry stated the reason was “No Time.” An
AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
19
additional 22% of those not recreating expressed the reason “Do
Not Need to Use Facilities/Not of Interest.” Moreover, 18% of City
residents who had not recreated in the past year volunteered the
reason “Age.” Health-related reasons were cited by 8% of
residents polled while 4% stated that they “Don’t Know What is
Available.” “Financial Reasons” were identified by 3% of the
respondents.
Recreation Activities The tested activities cited as being undertaken by the largest portion
of Renton residents surveyed were “Use of Trails for
Walking/Jogging/Running/Hiking/Bicycling/etc.” (75%), “Swim in
Public Pools” (32%), “Use of Softball/Baseball/Soccer Fields for
Youth League Games” (18%), “Use of Dog Park Facilities” (17%),
“Use of Softball/Baseball/Soccer Fields for Adult League Games”
(14%), “Use of Non-Motorized Boating Facilities” (12%), and “Use
of Skate Park Facilities” (11%).
Programs Use The survey found that 12% of the resident respondents described
their household as a “Frequent User” of recreation programs
(patrons of programs at least three times per month.) One of every
four residents 25%) was a “Moderate User” (patrons of programs
at least two to twenty-four times annually) of recreation programs
during the past year.) The remainder (66%) was labeled
“Light/Non Users” (patrons of programs once per year and non-
users.)
Program Provider More than half (58%) of residents polled who reported
participating in recreation programs stated they had signed up for
those programs most often with the City of Renton. The remaining
program users (42%) stated they had signed up for their programs
most often with someone other than the City of Renton.
Reason for Lack of Use The survey revealed that 32% of those who reported no recreation
program use in the Program Use inquiry stated the reason was “No
Time/Too Busy.” An additional 18% expressed the reason “Do
Not Need to Use Programs/Not of Interest.” Moreover, 11% of City
residents stated that they “Don’t Know What is Available.” “Age
Reasons” and “Not Convenient Timing” were each volunteered
by 9% of non- users of programs. Health-related reasons were
cited by an additional 6% of residents polled. “Specific Programs I
Want Are Not Available” was volunteered by 5% of residents polled
who reported no program use. “Financial Reasons” and “Programs
not Conveniently Located” were each identified by 4% of the
respondents. The remaining responses each received less than 3%
of the total responses.
Events Participation Less than one in ten residents (8%) reported attending Renton
AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
20
community events “Frequently” in the past year (patrons of events
at least three times per month.) Four of every ten residents (40%)
attended Renton community events with “Moderate” frequency
(users of events at least two to twenty- four times annually). The
remainder (52%) was labeled “Light/Non Users” (community events
attendees once per year and non-users). It is important to note that
many of Renton’s special events are one-day and held only once per
year.
Reason for Lack of Use The survey revealed that 30% of those who reported no attendance
at community events in the prior inquiry stated the reason was “No
Time.” An additional 18% expressed the reason “Do Not Need
to Attend/Not of Interest.” Moreover, 11% of City residents stated
that they are “Not Aware of What is Available.” “Age” and “Not
Convenient Timing” were each volunteered by 9% of those who
had attended no community events. Health-related reasons were
cited by an additional 5% of residents polled. “Poor Parking,”
“Limited Mobility,” and “Programs not Conveniently Located” were
each identified by 3% of the respondents. The remaining responses
each received less than 3% of the total responses.
Recreation Satisfaction Over one of every three households (35%) stated they are “Very
Satisfied” with the geographic distribution of recreation
opportunities in the City and an additional 53% stated they are
“Somewhat Satisfied.” Together, the total of these two positive
ratings is 88%. In contrast, 9% of residents stated they are “Not
Very Satisfied” and 3% reportedly are “Not At All Satisfied.”
One Desired Facility When asked for their one desired recreation facility, 26% of City
residents polled stated they seek no additional recreation facility
while the remaining 74% of respondents offered a suggested facility
type. The top eleven recreation facilities most desired by Renton
residents surveyed were “Trails for Walking/Jogging/Running”
(8%), “Trails for Bicycling” (7%), “Indoor Swimming Pool for
Recreation” (5%), “Tot Lots/ Playgrounds” (3%), “Dog Park” (3%),
“Soccer Fields” (3%), “Outdoor Swimming Pool for Recreation”
(2%), “Community Center” (2%), “Indoor Basketball Courts” (2%),
“Indoor Swimming Pool (unspecified use)” (2%), and “Tennis
Courts” (2%).
Preferred Fields Plan Nearly three of every four resident households polled (73%) stated
they prefer to “improve the sports fields that are now distributed
across the City.” An additional 18% preferred the plan to “build
new sports fields located at one City sports complex.” The
remaining residents, 9%, volunteered the response that they have
no preference.
Preferred Type of Park The Community Park description was best suited to the needs of 44%
AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
21
of residents polled while the Neighborhood Park type was best
suited to the needs of 40% of residents. The Mini- Parks type was
selected as best suiting the needs of 9% of households. The
remaining residents, 7%, volunteered the response that they have
no preference.
One Desired Program When asked for their one desired recreation program, 22% of City
residents polled stated they seek no additional recreation programs
while the remaining 78% of respondents offered a suggested
program type. The top seven recreation programs most often
volunteered included “Aerobics, Spinning, or Fitness” (6%), “Arts
or Crafts” (5%), “Community Events” (4%), “Swimming Lessons”
(3%), “Yoga, Meditation, or Stress Relief” (3%), “Baseball or Softball”
(3%), “Martial Arts” (3%). Remaining responses accrued less than
3% of the total responses.
New Opportunities The tested improvement garnering the largest share of supportive
responses (91%) is “Improving Existing Facilities.” Approximately
eight of every ten resident households cited support for “Creating
a connected trails system” (81%) as well as for “Providing recreation
access to natural areas in Renton that are currently inaccessible”
(80%). “Acquiring new land for parks, recreation, open space or
natural resources” was supported by 74% of residents surveyed
while “Developing a unique new facility such as an environmental
education center” posted the least positive support at 63%.
Financial Support The survey found that 17% of residents polled stated they would
pay nothing for system improvements. The tested dollar range
receiving the largest number of responses (34%) was the $1.00 to
$5.00 monthly amount, followed by 28% support for the range of $6
to $10 monthly, 10% support for a monthly range of $11 to $15, 5%
support at $16 to $20 and 4% at $21 to $25. The average amount
residents were willing to pay was calculated at $7.50.
Funding Sources The level of support for each of the three tested funding approaches
was nearly equal, at three of every four residents polled.
AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
22
Attachment C: Minority Statements
The CAC Charter outlining decision making process provides that a CAC member “dissenting from a
recommendation of the CAC may include a summary minority statement as to the position and rational
of such dissenting Member(s).”
Two CAC members requested minority statements, as presented below.
Melody Kroeger Minority Statement:
I’m supportive of Renton parks; however, I cannot endorse funding the proposed project list for the
following three reasons:
1) Property taxes, on average in King Co, have increased 16.9% in 2018 and any additional increases will
fall disproportionally on middle and low-income families in Renton.
2) Renton currently owns parcels that are undeveloped and property that has significant deferred
maintenance. Consider selling or trading property that will not be developed for parcels that do fit into
the overall park plan.
3) Parks are important but there may be other important levies and bond issues, such as Renton public
schools, in the next 12 months. I strongly urge City Council to avoid voter “tax fatigue”.
Mij Charbonneau Minority Statement:
I support our parks and the project list, but do not support placing a ballot measure for this before the
voters at this time.
AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
23
Attachment D: Detailed Citizen Advisory Committee Recommended Project List (presented by neighborhood planning area)
PROJECT NAME TYPE PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Total Capital
Cost
Projection
2018
Est. Marginal
Increase in
Annual
Maintenance
Costs2 (2018)
Avg.
CAC
Rating3
2011
PRNA
RATING4
BENSON
1 Parking Lot & Drive Repairs - Tiffany
Park
Major Maint.
Quick Win1 Repave parking lot $ 125,000 3.38
2 Fencing, Guardrails, Bull rails & Railings
- Cascade Park Major Maint. Replace chain link fencing with bullrails $ 20,000 2.85
PRNA PROJECT TOTALS
MAJOR MAINTENANCE TOTALS $ 145,000
BENSON TOTALS $ 145,000
TALBOT
3 Thomas Teasdale Park Neighborhood
Park
Improve outfield drainage. Potential re-purpose of
activity building. $ 706,650 4.62 13
4 Sport Court Repairs - Talbot Hill Major Maint.
Quick Win Renovate tennis courts and pickleball court $ 80,000 4.00
5 Ballfield Renovation Program - Teasdale
Park
Major Maint.
Quick Win Renovate infield/outfield $ 150,000 3.69
6 Playground Replacements - Teasdale Major Maint.
Quick Win Remove/replace 20 year old play equipment $ 150,000 3.46
7 Sport Court Repairs - Teasdale Major Maint.
Quick Win Renovate basketball court $ 150,000 3.08
PRNA PROJECT TOTALS $ 706,650
MAJOR MAINTENANCE TOTALS $ 530,000
TALBOT TOTALS $ 1,236,650
__________________
1 Major Maintenance projects are all included in the City’s current Parks 6 -Year CIP: “Quick-Wins” are major maintenance projects that can be completed within 1-2 years.
2Dollars in this column are preliminary estimates for annual incremental maintenance costs for the 11 new and expanded parks projects above current maintenance funding.
3This column shows the average rating given to the project by CAC members. Ratings were from 1-5, with 5 being the highest, on the question “Will this be a project that is
attractive/exciting to Renton residents?”
4This column shows the PRNA prioritized rating for the each of the PRNA projects that the CAC has selected in its priority list. AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
24
ID # PROJECT NAME TYPE PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Total Capital
Cost
Projection
2018
Est. Marginal
Increase in
Annual
Maintenance
Costs2 (2018)
Avg.
CAC
Rating3
2011
PRNA
RATING
4
CEDAR RIVER
8 Cedar River Park
Neighborhood
Park,
Facilities
Renovation
Existing major building facilities include RCC and Carco
Theatre. Expand Henry Moses Aquatic Center,
potential field reconfiguration. Renovate fields and add
lighting. (Phased Tri-Park Plan). Also included in the
Shoreline Master Program, WRIA 8 and the Cedar River
Basin Plan.
$ 19,554,150 $ 1,360,610 4.54 1
9
Pathway, Sidewalk, Patio & Boardwalk
Repairs - Cedar River Trail Narco to Ron
Regis Park
Major Maint.
Quick Win Remove/replace 23 year old trail $ 100,000 3.38
10 NARCO Property Neighborhood
Park
Develop according to Tri-Park Master Plan to include 4
"field turf" soccer fields, relocated trail, parking, picnic
facilities, play area, restrooms, bike park/bmx and
climbing wall. Park included in the Shoreline Master
Program, WRIA 8 and the Cedar River Basin Plan.
$ 14,293,650 $ 209,079 3.00 2
11 Cedar River Trestle Bride Structural
Repairs Major Maint. Complete repairs per structural review $ 350,000 2.69
PRNA PROJECT TOTALS $ 33,847,800 $ 1,569,689
MAJOR MAINTENANCE TOTALS $ 450,000
CEDAR RIVER TOTALS $ 34,297,800 $ 1,569,689
CITY CENTER
12 Coulon Park Structural Repairs 4 Major Maint. Complete repairs as per Structural Report $ 250,000 3.85
13 Coulon Parking Lot Repairs - Medium
Priority
Major Maint.
Quick Win Remove/repave parking areas per Assessment $ 200,000 3.85
14 Coulon Irrigation System Replacement -
Entry Major Maint. Replace existing 50 year old irrigation $ 500,000 3.77
15 Parking Lot & Drive Repairs - Senior
Center Major Maint. Repave parking lot $ 90,000 3.77
16 Pathway, Sidewalk, Patio & Boardwalk
Repairs - Cedar River Trail @ Bronson
Major Maint.
Quick Win Renovate walk, located within Shoreline Area $ 80,000 3.46 AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
25
ID # PROJECT NAME TYPE PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Total Capital
Cost
Projection
2018
Est. Marginal
Increase in
Annual
Maintenance
Costs2 (2018)
Avg.
CAC
Rating3
2011
PRNA
RATING
4
17 Burnett Linear Park*
Neighborhood
Park
Included in the South Renton Neighborhood
Redevelopment Plan and the City Center Plan.
Improvements identify expanding park to the north.
$ 610,050 $ 7,133 3.38 12
18 Philip Arnold Park
Neighborhood
Park
Potential partnership with neighboring landowner to
enhance usability. Improve ballfield. Potential re-
purpose of activity building. Renovate restrooms.
Included in the City Center Plan.
$ 1,548,750 3.38 12
19 Coulon Park Structural Repairs 1 Major Maint.
Estimated construction scheduled for 2018/2019 at
IVARS, day moorage, boat launch, wave break,
waterwalk, sailing float & trestle bridge.
$ 2,927,898 3.38
20 Coulon Park Lighting Repairs Major Maint. LED light Conversion $ 90,000 3.31
21 Shoreline & Bank Stabilization - Jones
Park
Major Maint.
Quick Win
Stabilize shoreline with large woody debris and native
vegetation. Relocate walk. $ 237,500 3.31
22 Ballfield Renovation Program - Liberty
Park
Major Maint.
Quick Win Renovate infield/outfield $ 250,000 3.23
23 Community Garden/Greenhouse Special Use
Continue to maintain and operate, expand garden.
Potential to be larger neighborhood Park - Planning and
acquisition included in City Center Neighborhood Park.
Included in the City Center Plan, Shoreline Master
Program, WRIA 8, and the Cedar River Basin Plan.
Operations of this site are included in the Enterprise
Fund.
$ 21,000 3.15 12
24 Coulon Parking Lot Repairs - High
Priority
Major Maint.
Quick Win Remove/repave parking areas per Assessment $ 300,000 3.08
25 Philip Arnold Park Improvements Major Maint. Remove/relocate playground, install new ADA walk,
remove closed restroom $ 650,000 2.77
26 Playground Replacements - Coulon Major Maint.
Quick Win Remove/replace 16 year old play equipment $ 400,000 2.77
27 Pathway, Sidewalk, Patio & Boardwalk
Repairs - Jones Park Major Maint. Remove/replace heaved and cracked walk $ 75,000 2.69 AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
26
ID # PROJECT NAME TYPE PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Total Capital
Cost
Projection
2018
Est. Marginal
Increase in
Annual
Maintenance
Costs2 (2018)
Avg.
CAC
Rating3
2011
PRNA
RATING
4
28 Liberty Park Improvements Major Maint.
Master Plan from Library to skate park, install new play
area/remove 21 year old equipment, install new walks
and landscaping, remove shelter.
$ 1,540,972 2.62
29 Parking Lot & Drive Repairs - Philip
Arnold Park
Major Maint.
Quick Win Repave parking lot $ 125,000 2.62
30 Coulon Park Structural Repairs 3 Major Maint. Complete repairs as per Structural Report $ 250,000 2.54
31 Coulon Park Structural Repairs 5 Major Maint. complete repairs as per Structural Report $ 250,000 2.46
32 Liberty Park Neighborhood
Park
Re-develop according to Tri-Park Plan. Improve
ballfields in the short term. Included in the City Center
Plan, Shoreline Master Program, WRIA 8 and the Cedar
River Basin Plan.
$ 5,433,750 $ 43,046 2.31 4
33 Coulon Irrigation System Replacement -
North End
Major Maint.
Quick Win Replace existing 36 year old irrigation $ 500,000 2.08
34 Coulon Bathhouse Major Maint.
Quick Win Renovate 50 year old facility $ 605,200 2.08
35 Corridor Acquisition Trails/Connect
ors
Acquire or secure new properties providing important
linkages between parks and natural areas. Included in
the City Center Plan.
$ 5,628,000 $ 49,195 2.15 7
36 Coulon Park Structural Repairs 2 Major Maint. Complete repairs as per Structural Report $ 250,000 2.00
PRNA PROJECT TOTALS $ 13,241,550 $ 99,374
MAJOR MAINTENANCE TOTALS $ 9,571,570
CITY CENTER TOTALS $ 22,813,120 $ 99,374
EAST PLATEAU
37 May Creek/McAskill Neighborhood
Park
Develop park according to design guidelines (pkg.,
picnic, play area, hard surface court, open turf area,
restrooms, trail connections), create/implement mgt.
plan addressing possible wetlands. Potential acquisition
to increase park usability.
$ 6,568,800 $ 186,203 3.69 9
PRNA PROJECT TOTALS $ 6,568,800 $ 186,203
MAJOR MAINTENANCE TOTALS
EAST PLATEAU TOTALS $ 6,568,800 $ 186,203
AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
27
ID # PROJECT NAME TYPE PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Total Capital
Cost
Projection
2018
Est. Marginal
Increase in
Annual
Maintenance
Costs2 (2018)
Avg.
CAC
Rating3
2011
PRNA
RATING
4
HIGHLANDS
38 Sport Court Repairs - Highlands (Tennis) Major Maint.
Quick Win Re-furbish tennis courts $ 100,000 4.00
39 Pathway, Sidewalk, Patio & Boardwalk
Repairs - Kiwanis Park
Major Maint.
Quick Win
Remove walk and install ADA walk from Union Avenue
to Activity Center $ 350,000 2.85
40 Parking Lot & Drive Repairs - Kiwanis
Park
Major Maint.
Quick Win Repave parking lot $ 90,000 2.77
41 Ballfield Renovation Program - Kiwanis
Park
Major Maint.
Quick Win Renovate infield/outfield $ 150,000 2.69
42 Lighting System Upgrade - Kiwanis Park Major Maint.
Quick Win Convert to LED Lighting $ 100,000 2.00
PRNA PROJECT TOTALS
MAJOR MAINTENANCE TOTALS $ 790,000
HIGHLANDS TOTALS $ 790,000
KENNYDALE
43 Playground Replacements - Kennydale
Beach
Major Maint.
Quick Win Remove/replace 15 year old play equipment $ 200,000 3.23
PRNA PROJECT TOTALS $ 200,000
MAJOR MAINTENANCE TOTALS
KENNYDALE TOTALS $ 200,000
MULTIPLE SITES
44 Playground Replacements -
Cedar River Trail Park & Tiffany Park Major Maint. Remove/replace 20 year old play equipment $ 275,000 3.62
45 Sport Court Repairs - Bocce Courts at
Senior Center & Kennydale Lions Park
Major Maint.
Quick Win
Renovate 30+ year old Bocce Ball Court (R. Center) and
basketball court (Kennydale Lions) $ 185,000 2.85
46 Ballfield Renovation Program - Dugouts Major Maint.
Quick Win Renovate Dugouts $ 150,000 2.54
47 Pathway, Sidewalk, Patio & Boardwalk
Repairs - Cedar River Park, Heritage Park
Major Maint.
Quick Win Remove/replace heaved and cracked walks $ 40,000 2.46
PRNA PROJECT TOTALS $
MAJOR MAINTENANCE TOTALS $ 650,000 AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
28
ID # PROJECT NAME TYPE PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Total Capital
Cost
Projection
2018
Est. Marginal
Increase in
Annual
Maintenance
Costs2 (2018)
Avg.
CAC
Rating3
2011
PRNA
RATING
4
MULTIPLE SITES TOTALS $ 650,000
NO SPECIFIC LOCATION
48 Dog Parks Special Use Acquire land and/or develop off-leash areas in four
neighborhood or community parks. $ 553,350 $ 14,759 3.54 9
49 Lighting System Upgrade 2 Major Maint.
Quick Win Convert to LED Lighting $ 110,000 3.54
50 Lighting System Upgrade 3 Major Maint. Convert to LED Lighting $ 110,000 3.46
51 Community Gardens Special Use
Acquire land and/or develop additional community
gardens, potentially as part of new neighborhood or
community parks.
$ 615,300 $ 4,920 3.31 7
52 Lighting System Upgrade 4 Major Maint.
Quick Win Convert to LED Lighting $ 110,000 2.62
53 Playground Replacements - Play Area
TBD 1
Major Maint.
Quick Win Remove/replace old play equipment $ 150,000 2.23
54 Playground Replacements - Play Area
TBD 2
Major Maint.
Quick Win Remove/replace old play equipment $ 150,000 2.15
PRNA PROJECT TOTALS $ 1,168,650 $ 19,679
MAJOR MAINTENANCE TOTALS $ 630,000
NO SPECIFIC AREAS TOTALS $ 1,798,650 $ 19,679
SUBTOTAL PRNA PROJECT TOTALS $ 55,533,450 $ 1,874,945
MAJOR MAINTENANCE TOTALS $ 12,966,570
55 CAC Contingency Allocation $ 1,500,000
GRAND TOTAL $ 70,000,020 $ 1,874,945 AGENDA ITEM #1. b)
29
Attachment E: Map Showing Location of CAC Recommended Parks Projects
AGENDA ITEM #1. b)