Camas officials continue to debate parks projects

The Camas City Council will continue a public hearing on the city’s Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Plan on Monday, April 18.

Typically updated every six years, the PROS Plan is the city’s guide for managing and enhancing its parks, trails and recreation system. To meet the requirements of the Washington State Growth Management Act, the city also must plan for future parks and recreation projects known as capital facilities – things like trail connections, wayfinding signs, picnic shelters, updated playground equipment, park restrooms, sports field renovations, a dog park, splash pads, community center, sports complex, swimming pools, community gardens, etc. – the city might develop or improve within its parks and recreation system over the next 20 years.

To maintain the city’s eligibility to apply for the state’s current round of parks and recreation grants, the city needed to pass its PROS Plan in March. The Council agreed on March 7 to pass the bulk of the 255-page PROS Plan needed to maintain grant eligibility, but held off on approving the entire plan after some council members objected to its long-range, 20-year capital facilities list detailing $130 million in potential parks and recreation projects.

The Council opened a public hearing on the entire PROS Plan – including the 20-year capital facilities list – during its regular meeting on Monday, April 4.

Camas Parks and Recreation Director Trang Lam explained during the public hearing that the PROS Plan was the result of a year-long process that included five meetings before the city council, several meetings with the city’s Parks and Recreation Commission, two joint meetings with the Camas Planning Commission, two public open houses, outreach at public events such as the Camas Farmers Market and an online and mail-in public survey that collected around 1,400 responses.

In the end, Lam said, the PROS Plan incorporated what city staff and consultants had heard from the community as well as a 20-year capital facilities list approved and prioritized by the Camas Parks and Recreation Commission.

“Our community would like to see a lot more amenities than we currently have,” Lam told city councilors on April 4. “We heard three main things from the community: maintain what we have, develop and improve existing parks and fill in gaps.”

The plan’s capital facilities list, Lam said, is meant to be a broad range of possible, long-range parks and recreation projects.

“This is not a list we’re anticipating to complete in the next six years,” Lam explained, adding that the capital facilities list is a requirement of the Washington State Growth Management Act that allows Camas the ability to update and use its parks and recreation impact fees, be eligible for grants and legislative funding allocation and prioritize internal parks and recreation resources.

“This should not be a stagnant list that we’re looking at and not updating,” Lam said.

The PROS Plan capital facilities list approved by the Camas Parks and Recreation Commission includes 12 high-priority projects that would cost an estimated $14 million to develop. These projects, highlighted in green within the plan, include:

• $2.5 million to help connect the city’s trail corridors;
• $6.5 million to develop Crown Park amenities detailed in the park’s master plan;
• $1.8 million for planning and developing systemwide trails and trailheads;
• $1.5 million to close the loop between the Heritage and North Shore trails;
• $700,000 for trailhead development at the Third Avenue Trailhead;
• $250,000 for the first phase of revamping the city’s skate park;
• $300,000 for a picnic shelter and other improvements at Forest Home Park;
• $225,000 for stairway planning and trail corridor access along the Mill Ditch Trail;
• $350,000 to develop the east segment of the North Shore Trail;
• $350,000 to develop open space and urban forestry management plans; and
• $250,000 to make minor repairs and improvements throughout the city’s parks system.

The capital facilities list also includes nearly $12 million worth of projects the Parks and Recreation Commissioned deemed less critical but still priorities, such as:

• $4 million for the first phase of developing the city’s Legacy Lands along Lacamas Lake;
• $3.5 million to develop a shared-use trail along the Mill Ditch;
• $2 million for the second phase of improving the skate park;
• $600,000 to develop an all-inclusive playground;
• $350,000 to install a bike pump track;
• $200,000 for Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliance projects throughout the parks system;
• $250,000 for a master plan for the city’s newly acquired Green Mountain property;
• $200,000 for field improvements and a new fence at Fallen Leaf Park;
• $150,000 for wayfinding and parks signage throughout the city’s parks and trails system;
• $125,000 to install a dog park;
• $125,000 to modify the dock, have non-motorized launch sites and upgrade gate access at Heritage Park; and
• $100,000 to assess existing sports fields throughout the city and planning to eliminate gaps in the sports field system.

The 20-year facilities plan also includes about 30 projects worth an estimated $104 million that were not given top priority status by the Parks and Recreation Commission. This non-prioritized list also includes cost estimates for each project:

• $43 million for site selection, master planning and implementation of a recreation/aquatic center;
• $20 million for site selection, master planning and implementation of a sports complex;
• $14.3 million for developing site master plans and/or develop existing parks per master plans (Ash Creek, Fallen Leaf, Goot, Lacamas Heights and Ostentensen Canyon parks);
• $10 million for a feasibility analysis and redevelopment of the Camas Community Center;
• $8.5 million to acquire land to address neighborhood park distribution gaps throughout the city;
• $2 million for a feasibility analysis and redevelopment of the Leadbetter House;
• $1.5 million for the first phase of trail development at the city’s Green Mountain property;
• $1 million to plan and develop a public plaza;
• $1 million to replace playground equipment systemwide;
• $630,000 to install picnic shelters and make minor upgrades at Goot, Heritage and Prune Hill Sports parks – and replace bleachers at Goot Park;
• $450,000 to upgrade the playground and restroom at Heritage Park;
• $450,000 for sports field drainage and renovations at Dorothy Fox, Grass Valley and Prune Hill Sports parks;
• $400,000 to install a restroom and make minor site upgrades at Oak Park; and
• $250,000 to replace the playground at Grass Valley Park.

During the first half of the city council’s public hearing on April 4, several council members called out a few of the big-ticket but low-priority items on the capital facilities list — specifically the recreation-aquatics center, sports complex and redevelopment of the community center.

Lam explained that, while the three high-ticket projects are things community members have expressed a desire for, which is why they have been included in the most recent capital facilities list as well as previously approved Camas PROS plans, but not necessarily things the city would pursue any time in the near future.

“Those are major investments that we don’t have enough information about to really move forward with,” Lam told city councilors on April 4. “Things like the community center and sports complex are not realistic right now, but allow us to be opportunistic when funding comes around … these are important things the community needs to talk about.”

Council members question 20-year capital facilities list

The Camas PROS Plan approved in 2014 included a 6-year capital facilities list that included $500,000 to improve the existing Camas Community Center and $24 million to “develop an indoor community recreation and aquatics center.”

In 2018, a joint committee that included representatives from the cities of Camas and Washougal, as well as both school districts, estimated it would cost at least $59 million to build a joint Camas-Washougal indoor recreation-aquatics center — far more than than the $24 million estimate included in the 2014 PROS Plan. Likewise, consultants told Camas City Council members in July 2019 that it would cost the city between $43 million and $72 million to design and build an indoor aquatics center. The $42 million estimate would have included a 40,000-square-foot facility with an indoor recreation pool and fitness center, while the $72 million price tag was for a 78,000-square-foot facility with two pools (recreation and competition), a fitness center, a gym and community rooms.

The Camas City Council in 2019 opted to go out for a bond for $78 million to build the $72 million community-aquatics center and invest $6 million in field renovations at Dorothy Fox, Forest Home and Prune Hill parks. The bond measure failed after 90 percent of Camas voters who cast ballots in the November 2019 election voted against the pricey community-aquatics center.

In 2021, during the PROS Plan outreach, the city sent a mail survey to 2,500 randomized addresses and had an online survey in English and Spanish available to the entire community. The surveys garnered nearly 1,400 responses and nearly all of the respondents (97% mail and 89% online) were Camas residents. Among those who took the mail or online surveys, nearly 42 percent said they would be willing to increase taxes to build a new pool or aquatic center in Camas, but only about 30 percent said they would be willing to increase taxes to build a community center with gymnasium and fitness space.

On April 4, the Camas City Council debated elements of the 20-year capital facilities plan included in the PROS Plan update.

Councilwoman Leslie Lewallen questioned Lam about the dollar amounts attached to the capital facilities project list.

“This is a guiding document, as you’ve said various times … but there are dollar amounts attached to these projects. How do you come up with $43 million for a pool?” Lewallen asked, referring to the recreation/aquatic center included in the PROS Plan’s capital facilities list.

“We look at prior projects, really at a planning level,” Lam said. “For the aquatics center, we used (dollar amounts) from a prior process the city of Camas had, which provided Council with three options (in 2019). This is the dollar amount for the smallest option.”

“This is a placeholder to remind ourselves what we talked about in the past,” Lam explained. “We can scale it up or scale it down. But there is a history here, and I don’t want to forget history.”

With other projects on the list, such as the sports complex, Lam said consultants and city staff looked at other jurisdictions that have recently built similar complexes to get an idea of what a project like that might cost in Camas.

Lewallen asked how the city would be able to obtain grant funding for projects on the capital facilities list if city officials don’t know the exact cost associated with each project.

“As we apply for grants, we have to hone in on the amount and scope and get a better dollar amount,” Lam said. “We would come back to the Council and say, ‘There is this opportunity but we have to define the scope.'”

Lam said having projects on the capital facilities list for a long time can actually strengthen a city’s ability to secure grant or legislative funding, and used the grant funds that helped pay for the city’s traffic roundabout at Lake Road and Everett Street in 2020 as a good example of a project that had been included on city-approved capital facilities lists for years.

“The roundabout was on a capital facilities list like this one for over a decade,” Lam said. “When we finally did go for a grant, we could say, ‘Hey, we as a city have put this project on a list (for years),’ and it actually strengthens our (grant application).”

Lewallen asked if it was true that the $130 million capital facilities list would determine what the city can or cannot charge for its park impact fees.

“That is not correct,” Lam said. “They are related, but park impact fees are based on new development and new people coming in to live (in the city). Some projects we have here may not be eligible for projects that are new, or what we call ‘new capacity.'”

Lewallen said it was her understanding that the city would not be eligible for grant funding unless projects were “shovel-ready,” but Lam explained that wasn’t true for these types of capital facilities planning projects.

“The projects (on the PROS Plan list) start by having a baseline that it is important to the community. If it’s on the list somewhere, we’ve talked about it as a community and some community members have said it’s important – maybe 20 years from now, maybe 50 years from now,” Lam said. “There are grants that are for planning purposes, for getting us ready to be ‘shovel-ready.'”

Lam reminded Lewallen that she and Councilwoman Shannon Roberts have been telling the parks director that city leaders “need to have a pool conversation.”

“So, I have it (the aquatics center) in there to have a pool conversation,” Lam said. “This is not just about capital grants that are for building facilities, but (for) planning grants, as well.”

Councilman Don Chaney said he was disappointed to not see pickleball courts on the facilities planning list.

“Pickleball is mentioned 25 times in the narrative of the PROS Plan and continues to rank as one of the fastest growing sports,” Chaney said. “I’m not a pickleball, but I know many people who do.”

Chaney added that he was disappointed to see that a bike pump track, which did not get as much support as pickleball during the community outreach, was included on the capital facilities list – and was in the top priorities on the list – but pickleball wasn’t mentioned.

“I’m hoping … we can see pickleball added to the capital plans list,” Chaney said on April 4. “For me, it’s about public credibility in this process. If 64 percent said they want a pickleball court, I want the public to understand why we didn’t put pickleball courts or tennis courts on our plan.”

Lam said the Parks and Recreation Commission prioritized the capital facilities list and that commission members are aware of a pilot project that will have rotating priority hours for pickleball at Camas’ Grass Valley and Crown Park parks this summer.

“The Crown Park master plan design has a sports court on the opposite end of the tennis courts, and we’re trying to see if we can actually transition that into pickleball,” Lam added. “So we’re doing some things (for pickleball players). This is the first flush the Parks and Recreation Commission had. As we hear from you, we will reassess these priorities and be reevaluating them.”

Former mayor lends support; hearing continued to April 18

The Council took public testimony during the hearing. Steve Schwary, who introduced himself as “a lifelong resident of Camas,” said he was concerned about the PROS Plan’s community outreach efforts.

“I don’t recall receiving anything in the mail. If this was done solely online, that’s a concern,” Schwary said. “There are several older citizens who don’t use online services.”

The PROS Plan outreach included 2,500 mail surveys sent to a cross-section of Camas residents as well as an extensive online survey. About half of those who responded to the mail survey were between the ages of 35 and 54, and about 8 percent were older than 75. The online survey attracted younger respondents than the mail survey, but 67 percent of online survey takers were between 35 and 54 years, while 23 percent were 55 or older.

John Ley, a Camas resident who has written about the PROS Plan process for the online ClarkCountyToday media site, also commented on the plan during the April 4 public hearing.

“What does it take to say ‘no’?” Ley wondered, referring to the 2019 vote to not fund a $78 million community-aquatics center and sports field renovations. “Apparently, 90 percent of citizens saying ‘no’ doesn’t mean ‘no’ to everybody.”

Ley also claimed city staff were not showing city council members or the public “a slide saying people only wanted to raise taxes to pay for one single thing — to connect trails.”

The surveys did include a question that asked respondents to rank their willingness to pay taxes for projects that may be available in neighboring communities, asking “if it came down to a choice between increasing taxes to develop that facility in Camas versus not having that in Camas, which would you choose?” Of those who answered that specific question, 57 percent said they would choose to increase taxes to acquire and develop land to fill gaps in trail corridors, while 34 percent would increase taxes to build a new pool or aquatic center; and 28 percent would increase taxes to build another community center with a gym and fitness space.

Given a list of specific programs and facility needs, more than 40 percent of the nearly 1,400 respondents said they were “very supportive” and 28.5 percent said they were “somewhat supportive” of a pool or aquatic center.

The amenities ranking highest in the surveys, with respondents saying they were “very supportive,” included additional walking trails in parks (59.2%), additional biking trails in parks (47.4%), all-abilities, accessible playground equipment (45.4%), outdoor splash pad or water spray park (44.2%), updated or renovated playgrounds at existing parks (41.4%), off-leash dog parks (35%), additional picnic shelters for group gatherings (31.6%) and a new community center with an indoor gymnasium (29.5%).

Camas Parks and Recreation Commission member Ellen Burton, a former Camas City Council member and the city’s interim mayor throughout much of 2021, spoke in favor of the PROS Plan and its attached capital facilities list during the April 4 public hearing.

Burton said the 20 percent response rate to the city’s mail-in survey was, “contrary to remarks” heard during the hearing, actually quite high compared to other survey response rates and applauded the city’s PROS Plan outreach efforts.

“The (city conducted surveys), outreach at public parks, focus groups (with) mountain bike users, seniors, people with disabilities and youth to find out what people really wanted,” Burton said.

She also said the city hired a consultant to help with the PROS Plan because, with only three staffers under Lam at the parks department, “the city lacks staff to actually do this.”

Burton said it is not true that PROS Plan consultants and Lam ignored citizens’ requests during the PROS Plan process.

“I read every single one of the several thousand comments,” Burton said. “This (capital facilities list) is to set the strategy and plan for the next 20 years. … This is not confirmation that we will build a swimming pool or a sports complex. It ensures we are flexible and can take advantage of (funding) opportunities.”

“I hope you will vote for this plan and support the voice of the community,” Burton told city councilors during the April 4 hearing.

The Council will continue the PROS Plan public hearing at its next regular meeting, beginning in-person and online via Zoom at 7 p.m. Monday, April 18. For more information about the April 18 Council meeting, visit cityofcamas.us/meetings.