Presentation of Windjammer Park Integration Plan to City Council

Windjammer Park Integration Plan

City Council Meeting– May 25, 2016

2

Today’s Agenda

5/25/16

• Introductions • Recap of Community Advisory Group process and outcome• Review Preferred Windjammer Park Integration Plan• Review costs and phasing for Preferred Plan• Review potential City Council action

3

Recap:Community Advisory Group process

5/25/16

4

Community Advisory Group Purpose / Charter

•Offer meaningful community input on: • Prioritize and define program elements to be included in the WPIP• Location and layout of selected program elements in Windjammer Park, which will inform final design, and • Phasing of the WPIP

5/25/16

5

December 2015

January 2016

February 2016

March 2016

April

2016

May/June

2016

CAG

# 1 CA

G #

2 CAG

# 3 CA

G #

4 CAG

# 5

Council and CAG Process

• Provide feedback on 3 concept alternatives

• Present WPIP concept to community

• Gather community feedback (Public Open House and Online Open House)

• Review preferred plan to be presented to City Council

• Provide final feedback

• CAG forms• CAG provides

feedback on design guidelines

• Introduce CAG and WPIP to community

• Gather community feedback (Public Open House)

COUNCIL• Programming

priorities• Approves CAG

COUNCILReport: Alternatives and Public feedback

COUNCILApproves plan

COUNCILCAG formation update and initial priorities list/ design guidelines

5/25/16

6

Community Advisory Group Process Feedback

5/25/16

• The group supports the recommended plan, because the process has been inclusive, the design team listened to their input, and the plan incorporates that feedback.

• The community engagement process has built momentum for the plan, and should be continued as phases or specific park elements are contemplated for implementation. Community engagement and transparent reporting on park progress has a strong potential to support turning the vision into reality.  

7

Updated Preferred Concept

5/25/16

8

Updated Preferred Concept

5/5/16

95/25/16

105/25/16

115/25/16

125/25/16

135/25/16

14

Updated Preferred Concept

5/5/16

Cost

155/25/16

165/25/16

Park Total cost / acre Funding sources

AM Kennedy ParkBeaverton, OR

2 Acres - $141,200/acre THPRD Bond Measure

Engelman ParkWilsonville, OR

1 Acre - #350,000/acre City General Fund, OR State Park Local Park Grant

Hood River Waterfront ParkHood River, OR

6 Acres - $420,000/acre City General Fund

The Dalles Festival ParkPortland, OR

4 Acres - $450,000/acre ARRA Funding

Khunamokwst ParkPortland, OR

4 Acres - $450,000/acre City General Fund

Westmoreland ParkPortland, OR

.6 Acres - $1,000,000/acre City General Fund, Metro Nature in Neighborhood Grant

Milwaukie Riverfront ParkMilwaukie, OR

8.5 Acres - $1,060,000/acre OR Parks Fund Local Grant, OR Marine Board

Tanner Springs ParkPortland, OR

1 Acre - $2,500,000/acre Portland Development Commission, Tanner Springs Development Community, Private investments

Average Cost / Acre: $640,000/acre

WPIP Cost and Phasing

175/25/16

18

Phasing

5/25/16

195/25/16

205/25/16

215/25/16

225/25/16

235/25/16

245/25/16

2511/18/15

26

Updated Preferred Concept

5/5/16

275/5/16

Windjammer Park Potential Funding Sources

Phase Grants and Potentially Appropriated City Funding Potential Funding Sources

1 CWF Project Costs  

1B Grants and Funding

• City General Fund• Park Impact Fees• WRSCO - Washington Wildlife and Recreation Program (Waterfront

parks, picnic shelters, play areas, restrooms)• WRSCO - Estuary and Salmon Restoration Program (Shoreline

Enhancements)

2 TBD Based on Funding and available opportunities

• WRSCO - Aquatic Lands Enhancement Account (Parking lots and entry drives)

• WRSCO - Land and Water Conservation Fund (Parking)• WRSCO - Washington Wildlife and Recreation Program (Waterfront

parks, amphitheater/stage)

3 TBD Based on Funding and available opportunities

• WRSCO - Estuary and Salmon Restoration Program (Shoreline Enhancements)

• WRSCO - Washington Wildlife and Recreation Program (Waterfront parks, hardcourts, picnic shelters, play areas, playing fields, restrooms)

4 TBD Based on Funding and available opportunities

• WRSCO - Aquatic Lands Enhancement Account (Lagoon Renovation, waterfront parks, waterfront boardwalks)

• WRSCO - Estuary and Salmon Restoration Program (Shoreline Enhancements)

• WRSCO - Washington Wildlife and Recreation Program (Waterfront parks, picnic shelters, play areas, playing fields, restrooms)

5 TBD Based on Funding and available opportunities

• WSRCO- Youth Athletic Fields Grant (Relocation of ball fields)• WRSCO - Estuary and Salmon Restoration Program (Shoreline

Enhancements)• WRSCO - Washington Wildlife and Recreation Program (Waterfront

parks, picnic shelters, play areas, playing fields, restrooms)

28

Potential City Funding,  where appropriate

Collaboration with local groups

Other Potential Grant Resources for Parks and Recreation Other Ideas

General Fund Arts Commission Weyerhaeuser Company Foundation Fundraising

City 2% Lodging Tax

Knights of Columbus Wells Fargo Corporate Giving Grants Brick Sales

.09 Rural County Economic Development

Seattle Fund Community Garden and Craft Shows

Real Estate Tax Safeco Community Grants

Park Impact Fees LL Bean Construction and Recreation GrantsHome Depot Community Impact Grants

American Express Grant Program

Robert Wood Johnson Foundation

HUD Community Development Grant Program

5/25/16

29

Next Steps

5/25/16

• June 7 – City Council can take action on the final plan

30

Questions?

5/25/16

Back Pocket

5/25/1631

32

Overall Community Feedback

5/25/16

• Windjammer is a resource and asset for the City; it should be welcoming for locals and visitors.

• Elements that should be ‘a given’ in any future park: canopies, existing wetlands, kayak campsite, kitchens, parking, restrooms, site furnishings and the iconic windmill.

• Family-friendly elements and activities should be prioritized, especially installation of a new splash park. In addition, renovation of existing lagoon, event plaza, stage/ amphitheater and waterfront trail have high priority for a future park.

• Flexibility of spaces is important. • Removal of the existing RV park is preferred over renovating it to current standards.• Consider park neighbors in final design.• Views of the water from the park are important both for casual users, and formal

events. • Removal of the current, formal ball fields can allow for other activities within

Windjammer Park. This removal should occur if and when there is another in-city venue sited for these fields.

5/5/16 335/25/16

5/5/16 345/25/16

5/5/16 355/25/16

5/5/16 365/25/16

5/5/16 375/25/16

5/5/16 385/25/16

WPIP Cost and Phasing

395/25/16

WPIP Cost and Phasing

405/25/16

WPIP Cost and Phasing

415/25/16

WPIP Cost and Phasing

425/25/16

WPIP Cost and Phasing

435/25/16