 |
The shortage of recreational facilities within Liberty Lake has been a topic of discussion ever since the city incorporated in 2001.
Other than a trio of golf courses and an abundance of well-manicured trails, most residents who play soccer, softball or other team sports wind up driving out of town to participate at venues like Plantes Ferry Park or the Valley YMCA.
On Tuesday night, the Liberty Lake City Council heard a debate about the future of parks and recreation development, ultimately voting against a pair of amendments to the city’s comprehensive plan and sending both groups that proposed the changes back to the drawing board.
The first amendment, generated by the city’s Community Development Subcommittee, outlined the need for recreational facilities like baseball diamonds and soccer fields within Liberty Lake. Council Member Neal Olander, who serves on the sub-committee, delivered a presentation on Tuesday in which he talked about dwindling public land and the importance of prioritizing “community-wide facilities that would provide free and low-cost recreational opportunities for all of Liberty Lake’s residents.”
Olander noted that the push for a 20-acre sports complex – mentioned frequently by the city last year – has been supplanted by a plan to allocate recreational facilities throughout the city.
“This amendment does not say larger facilities are more important than neighborhood parks, it just says such facilities require special attention by the city,” Olander said.
Cindy Esch, representing a citizen-based group called the Community Park Planning Committee, brought up the results of a survey taken last year in which Liberty Lake residents mentioned the development of neighborhood walkable parks as a top priority while placing the construction of recreational facilities like softball fields and tennis courts much farther down the list.
“The survey supports walkable parks,” Esch said. “I sincerely hope the council listens to what your constituents have to say.”
Mike Terrell, representing Greenstone Inc., a prominent developer in Liberty Lake, said the city’s amendment would make more sense as part of the parks and recreation plan, as opposed to the comprehensive plan.
“This kind of language is not included in other areas of the comprehensive plan,” Terrell said. “This amendment is way ahead of the discussion.”
Much of the debate over the future of parks centers around the distribution of funds generated through new development. The city can utilize up to $65 million from a pair of programs – tax increment financing and the local infrastructure financing tool – to improve Liberty Lake’s infrastructure, supporting the construction of sidewalks, sewer systems, storm drainage and parks within new development areas such as the rapidly growing River District in the north section of town.
The second amendment, presented by the Community Park Planning Committee, dealt with the establishment of walkable parks within the comprehensive plan. Like the city’s proposed change, it was voted down by the council, 3-2.
“There was a sentiment that it was too specific to the north side,” said Council Member Patrick Jenkins.
Both amendments will now go back to their respective committees for further discussion. The deadline for changes to the 2010 comprehensive plan is June 30.
Doug Smith, Liberty Lake planning and community development director, said he expects “enthusiastic public participation” when the city re-examines its parks and recreation plan sometime in March or April.
“I think what we saw at the council meeting was a bit of a carryover from the question about a centralized recreational facility versus dispersed facilities,” Smith said.
Jason Hunnel, a member of the citizen-based committee, expressed hope that both sides could reach a healthy compromise.
“We have to continue to work together as a community,” Hunnel said. “It’s just a question of how these recreational facilities are going to be distributed throughout the community. We’re really back to square one again.”
|
|
By
Craig Howard
