chapter four recommendations of the master plan

Transcription

Arvada Parks, Trails and
Open Space Master Plan
Arvada Parks, Trails and
Open Space Master Plan
March 2001
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Citizen Advisory Committee
Parks Advisory Committee
Marie Bassett
Candy Carlton
Tamara Drumright
Denny Boeka
Brad Dempsey
Chris Eatherton
Jan Eckhardt
Keith Gantenbein
Kathleen Hultgren
Mark McGoff
Greg Murray
Bob Mestas
David Newman
Andrea O’Neill
Don Patterson
Jane Schnabel
Matt Osborn
Mary Rowzee
Tim Semple
Elizabeth Shinn
Kathy Tully
Joan Wallace
Jean Tate
Doug Magee, Chairman
Cheryl Ames
Tim Bromell
Cathy Coward
David Giddings
Bert Gregg
Lynne D. Heinekamp
Andrea O’Neill
Roger Pinson
Jean Scharfenberg
Stephen Selle
Karen Yasumura
City Staff
Consultants
Mike Lee, Park and Urban Design Manager
Harry Johnson, Senior Landscape Architect
Mike McDonnell, Park Maintenance
Superintendent
Jeff Simmons, Senior Landscape Architect
Joe Eades, Senior Landscape Architect
EDAW, Inc.
Coley-Forrest
CDR Associates
FLOW Consulting
City Council
Ken Fellman, Mayor
Don Allard, Mayor Pro Tem
Lorraine M. Anderson
Steve Urban
Shelley Cook
Marc Williams
Craig Smith
Acknowledgements
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter One – The Plan Summary
Introduction .......................................................................................................................
Citizens Advisory Committee ............................................................................................
Summary of Recommendations ........................................................................................
Open Space, Trails and Park Classifications and Standards .......................................
Open Space Recommendations ..................................................................................
Trails Recommendations ............................................................................................
Neighborhood Parkland Recommendations ................................................................
Community Parkland Recommendations ....................................................................
Sports Complex Recommendations ............................................................................
Special Purpose Parks ................................................................................................
1
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
7
8
Chapter Two – Existing Resources
Parkland Ownership and Management .............................................................................
Inventory of City Parks, Trails and Open Space ................................................................
Neighborhood Parks ...................................................................................................
Community Parks ........................................................................................................
Sports Complexes .......................................................................................................
Regional Parks ...........................................................................................................
Trails ...........................................................................................................................
Open Space ................................................................................................................
Jefferson County Resources .............................................................................................
Planning Context ..............................................................................................................
Wildlife Resources ............................................................................................................
Environmental Resources .................................................................................................
9
10
10
13
15
16
16
17
17
19
20
20
22
Chapter Three – Issues And Needs
Population Growth and Demographic Characteristics .......................................................
Existing and Projected Population ...............................................................................
Household Size ...........................................................................................................
Age Distribution ..........................................................................................................
Income ........................................................................................................................
Ethnicity ......................................................................................................................
Results of Existing Parks, Trails, Open Space and Potential Resources Inventory ............
Public Input .......................................................................................................................
Community Surveys ..........................................................................................................
1999 Arvada Citizens Survey ......................................................................................
1999 Parks, Trails and Open Space Survey ................................................................
National Trends ...........................................................................................................
Recreation Program Participation and Needs ...................................................................
Boys Baseball and Girls Softball .................................................................................
Youth Soccer...............................................................................................................
Youth Football .............................................................................................................
23
23
24
24
24
24
25
25
25
25
28
36
38
38
40
41
Table of Contents - i
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
Adult Softball ...............................................................................................................
Adult Men’s Senior Baseball ........................................................................................
Adult Flag Football ......................................................................................................
Adult Volleyball ............................................................................................................
Tennis Programs .........................................................................................................
Summary of Sports Facilities Needs and Recommended Levels of Service ......................
Soccer and Football Fields ..........................................................................................
Softball/Baseball Fields ...............................................................................................
Basketball and Tennis Courts ......................................................................................
Inline Hockey Rinks ....................................................................................................
Skate Parks ................................................................................................................
BMX Bicycling .............................................................................................................
Other Specialty Recreational Facilities ........................................................................
Golf Courses ...............................................................................................................
Other Outdoor Recreation and Environmental Interest Group Needs ................................
Outdoor Camps and Environmental Programs ............................................................
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service .....................................................................................
Arvada Historical Society ............................................................................................
Arvada Council for the Arts & Humanities ....................................................................
Arvada Modelers .........................................................................................................
Parkland and Trail Comparisons .......................................................................................
u
43
44
44
44
45
46
49
49
50
50
51
51
51
51
52
52
53
53
53
54
54
Chapter Four – Recommendations of the Master Plan
Goals and Objectives ........................................................................................................
Open Space Classifications ..............................................................................................
Open Space Projects ........................................................................................................
Park Preserves ...........................................................................................................
Trail Classifications, Design Standards and Guidelines .....................................................
Primary Trails ..............................................................................................................
Community On-Street Trails ........................................................................................
Local Off-Street Trails .................................................................................................
Trail Projects .....................................................................................................................
Canal Trail ...................................................................................................................
Ralston Creek Trail .....................................................................................................
Leyden Creek Trail ......................................................................................................
Van Bibber Creek Trail ................................................................................................
Other Off-Street Trail Connections ..............................................................................
Park Classifications and Standards ...................................................................................
Proposed Park Projects ....................................................................................................
Neighborhood Park Projects .......................................................................................
Community Park Projects ............................................................................................
Sports Complexes .......................................................................................................
Capital Enhancements to Existing Parks .....................................................................
ii - Arvada Parks, Trails and Open Space Master Plan
59
65
66
67
68
69
69
69
71
71
72
72
72
72
73
74
76
76
77
78
79
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
Chapter Five – Implementation
Financing Plan ..................................................................................................................
Current Financing of Park Improvements ..........................................................................
Financing Plan Objectives and Policy Considerations .......................................................
Proposed Project Costs ....................................................................................................
Recommended Sources of Funding for Priority Projects ...................................................
Sales Tax Increase ......................................................................................................
2000 Arvada Parks and Recreation Survey .................................................................
Neighborhood Park Development Fees ......................................................................
Community Park Development Fees ...........................................................................
Conservation Trust Fund .............................................................................................
Jefferson County Open Space – Joint Venture Park Development Funds ...................
Jefferson County Open Space – Joint Venture Land Acquisition Funds ......................
Jefferson County Open Space – Save Open Space Bond Issue Revenues .................
Jefferson County Open Space – Trails 2000 Program.................................................
Jefferson County – Regional Sports Facilities Program ...............................................
Jefferson County Open Space – Attributable Share ....................................................
Great Outdoors Colorado (GOCO) Trust Fund ............................................................
State Trails Program ...................................................................................................
Brownfields .................................................................................................................
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) ..............................................
Planning Operations and Maintenance .............................................................................
81
81
82
84
84
85
85
86
86
87
87
87
87
87
88
88
88
88
88
89
89
List of Maps
Map 1
Map 2
Map 3
Map 4
Map 5
Map 6
Map 7
Map 8
Map 9
Neighborhood and Mini Park Service Areas ..................................................... end of Chp. 2
Community Park Distribution Analysis ............................................................. end of Chp. 2
Existing Parks, Trails and Open Space ............................................................ end of Chp. 2
Planning Context ............................................................................................. end of Chp. 2
Sub-Areas ....................................................................................................... end of Chp. 2
Wildlife Resources ........................................................................................... end of Chp. 2
Environmental Resources ................................................................................ end of Chp. 2
Master Plan ..................................................................................................... end of Chp. 4
Trails Master Plan ............................................................................................ end of Chp. 4
List of Tables
Table 2.1 Arvada Neighborhood Parks Inventory ............................................................
Table 2.2 Arvada Community Parks, Regional Parks, Sports Complexes and Special
Purpose Parks Inventory .................................................................................
Table 2.3 Arvada Open Space/Trail Corridor Areas .........................................................
Table 3.1 Quality of Life ..................................................................................................
Table 3.2 Community Participation ..................................................................................
Table 3.3 Satisfaction Level ............................................................................................
Table 3.4 Service Ratings, Arvada and the Nation ..........................................................
Table 3.5 Support for Pursuing New Programs ...............................................................
Table 3.6 Number of Survey Responses by Area ............................................................
Table 3.7 Overall Quality of Nearest Park .......................................................................
11
15
18
26
26
27
27
28
29
30
Table of Contents - iii
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
Table 3.8 Frequency of Park Use ....................................................................................
Table 3.9 Factor Preventing More Frequent Use of City Parks ........................................
Table 3.10 Frequency of Adult Activities ............................................................................
Table 3.11 Opinions on Selected Topics ............................................................................
Table 3.12 Importance of Various Types of Open Space ...................................................
Table 3.13 Opinions on Quantities of Facilities ..................................................................
Table 3.14 Importance of Certain Amenities in Parks ........................................................
Table 3.15 Total National Participants by Activity – All Ages ..............................................
Table 3.16 Total National “Frequent” Youth Participants ....................................................
Table 3.17 Participation Numbers for Boys Baseball and Girls Softball .............................
Table 3.18 Participation Numbers for Youth Soccer ..........................................................
Table 3.19 Participation Numbers for Youth Football .........................................................
Table 3.20 Participation Numbers for Adult Softball ...........................................................
Table 3.21 Participation Numbers for Adult Flag Football ..................................................
Table 3.22 Participation Numbers for Adult Volleyball .......................................................
Table 3.23 Participation Numbers for Tennis .....................................................................
Table 3.24 Comparative Level of Service in Other Communities .......................................
Table 3.25 Recommended Level of Service for Select Sports Facilities ............................
Table 3.26 Outdoor Camps and Educational Programs in Parks .......................................
Table 3.27 Comparative Level of Service and Current Parkland Standards in Surveyed
Communities ...................................................................................................
Table 3.28 Comparison of Trail Mileage Offered within Select Front Range
Communities ...................................................................................................
Table 4.1 Open Space Classifications .............................................................................
Table 4.2 Trail Design Criteria .........................................................................................
Table 4.3 Parkland Classifications and Standards ...........................................................
Table 5.1 Project Costs and Financing Plan ....................................................................
Appendix
Detailed Description of Financing/Implementation Tools
iv - Arvada Parks, Trails and Open Space Master Plan
u
31
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
37
38
41
42
43
44
45
45
47
48
52
55
56
66
70
73
90
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
CHAPTER ONE
THE PLAN SUMMARY
Introduction
T
he City of Arvada is located at the base of the foothills of the
Rocky Mountains in the Denver metro area. Arvada’s
neighboring communities are Westminster to the east, Boulder
to the north, and Wheat Ridge to the south and Golden to the
southwest. Over the years since its founding in 1870, and
incorporation in 1904, Arvada has grown to be one of the largest
suburban communities in the Denver metropolitan area with a 1998
estimated population of 101,095 city and 113,086, including area
residents. In the year 2010, the Arvada planning area population is
projected to increase by 10.9% to 125,414 residents.
While Arvada began
as a small
independent farming
community, with an
intact downtown and
small urban core, it
has evolved largely
into a residential
community. The City,
however, has begun to
grow an economic
base composed
primarily of commercial
Memorial Park
development at major
road intersections with
some industrial development in the west and southeast. The City of
Arvada is desired by many for its high quality residential neighborhoods, family atmosphere, many beautiful parks, attention to history,
convenient location to the Denver area, and setting near the
mountains.
Memorial Park
In spite of the urban development that has occurred to date, the
character of the City of Arvada continues to be defined by numerous
parks, trails, recreational areas, stream corridors, and access to the
foothills and mountains to the west. The City encompasses five
notable east to west stream corridors that link Arvada’s suburban and
urban open space and wildlife habitat areas in and adjacent to the
foothills. These corridors include Clear Creek, Van Bibber Creek,
Ralston Creek, Little Dry Creek and Leyden Creek corridors. In
addition, the proposed Farmer’s Highline and Croke Canal corridor
Chapter One - 1
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
provides an important north/south link between the east/west
corridors and with adjacent communities, as well as with Standley
Lake, Majestic View Community Park and Two Ponds National
Wildlife Refuge.
In the year 2010, the Arvada
planning area population is
projected to increase by 10.9% to
125,414 residents.
The City’s first adopted master plan for parks and open space was
completed in 1981. A subsequent master plan was completed in
1988. In 1995 the City prepared a city-wide comprehensive plan that
generally identified desirable open space and parks. The plan also
gave some guidance for the provision of parks, trails, recreational
facilities and open space. These policy statements are summarized
later in this document. The City’s continuing growth and other
changes have prompted a need for a new Park, Open Space and
Trails Master Plan, which will guide development of the parks, open
space and trails system through the next decade.
The Mission Statement is as follows:
“Provide a high quality parks, trails and open space
system for citizens of the Arvada area.”
This Parks, Trails and Open Space Master Plan defines policies and
projects for the next 10 years that will:
n
Conveniently locate neighborhood parks and new community and
regional parks;
n
Improve existing parks and sports complexes to better serve the
community’s needs;
n
Establish an interconnected multi-purpose trail system through
the city; and
n
Designate additional open space areas to protect wildlife habitat
and environmentally sensitive areas, provide trail corridors,
preserve views and provide recreational opportunities to area
residents.
This Master Plan is based on an inventory of existing conditions as
well as an analysis of community needs, including valuable direction
provided by Arvada residents through survey responses and comments made in a series of public workshops and other forums. As
discussed in more detail in Chapter Two, parks, trails and open space
within the City are owned and maintained by the City of Arvada.
North Jeffco Metropolitan Recreation and Park District, a separate
2 - Arvada Parks, Trails and Open Space Master Plan
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
public agency including the City and surrounding portions of
Jefferson County, is responsible for scheduling the use of the parks
and providing recreational programs within the parks. This district
also provides specialized recreation facilities, recreation centers and
swimming pools, which this plan will not address.
Citizens Advisory Committee
A Citizens Advisory Committee was specially formed to work with City
staff and the consulting team to develop a plan that will meet the
needs of the community. The committee felt strongly about the need
to follow through with plan recommendations after the plan is
adopted, and they had a great deal of input into the formulation of
the plan. They met over an 8-month period, developed a mission
statement and goal and objectives, reviewed the results of the
inventory and analysis, identified issues, developed project priorities,
matched projects with potential funding sources and reviewed the
master plan document. They also developed the following principles
to guide priorities for plan recommendations:
Principle #1 – Acquire/protect land first, before it is gone and the
price increases.
Principle #2 – Provide connections between parks and other public
destinations
Principle #3 – Serve under-served areas and needs, and correct
existing deficiencies.
Principle #4 – Provide a wide range of direct benefits to citizens.
Principle #5 – Develop a plan that is implementable. (community
appeal, financially realistic, maximize partnerships)
In addition to the direction these provide, the goals and objectives
listed in Chapter 4 provide the basis for all decisions in this plan.
Chapter One - 3
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
Summary of Recommendations
This section summarizes the most critical recommendations of the
plan. More detailed recommendations are located in Chapter 4.
Open Space, Trails and Park Classifications and Standards
Open space, trails and parks need a classification system that will
allow Arvada to define the differences between the various types of
areas that the City maintains and manages. A new system for
classifying open space areas is introduced in order to define an
appropriate development and management framework for the various
types of properties the City acquires. Trail classifications establish
widths, locations and design criteria based on the anticipated users
and level of use. Park classifications allow the city to establish
criteria for their location and level of service standards, as well as to
define appropriate facilities within the various parks. The
classification system for open space and parks is categorized as
follows and is described in more detail later in this plan.
Open Space
Park Preserve
Natural Area
Special Resource Area
Parks
Mini-Park
Neighborhood Park (3.6 acres/1,000 population)
Community Park (4.5 acres/1,000 population)
Sports Complex (no separate acreage standard-included in
community park acreage standard)
Regional Park
Special Purpose Park
Trails
Primary Trails
Community On-Street Trails
Local Off-Street Trails
Local On-Street Trails
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
Open Space Recommendations
Arvada has never had a specific open space plan. This master plan
identifies key areas to preserve as open space and establishes a
classification system that can be used to designate parcels according
to their preservation method, environmental sensitivity and level of
facility development for public use. Approximately 3,800 acres are
conceptually shown on the master plan map focusing on the
drainages, water bodies, prominent ridges, expansions to existing
open space areas and key wildlife habitat. Park Preserves are a type
of open space that is intended to allow for limited facility
development and include the following areas:
n
n
n
Arvada Reservoir and Tucker Lake
Leyden Lake
Hyatt Lake
Other potential open space areas are identified on the Master Plan
map and constitute the majority of the proposed open space
acreage. These open space areas have yet to be categorized
according to the classifications listed in Chapter 4. These
classifications should be made when the property is protected and a
management plan developed that is specific for that property. Open
space areas may be owned outright by the City or other preservation
group, conservation easements may be placed on the properties, or
other methods employed to protect the land from development.
Trails Recommendations
This plan recommends acquiring the right-of-way for and construction
of paved and unpaved
trails through the
community. The goal
is to complete the
primary trails along
Van Bibber Creek,
Little Dry Creek,
Ralston Creek and
Leyden Creek, from
east to west across the
community, as well as
Ralston Creek Trail
Chapter One - 5
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
to develop a trail along the Farmers Highline Canal and Croke Canal
corridors from Standley Lake to Van Bibber Creek and south to
connect to the Jefferson County Open Space Trail System. Specific
design criteria for these trails are discussed later in this report. The
new trails shown on the master plan total approximately 18 miles,
which would result in a total of approximately 69 miles throughout the
City and its surrounding area.
Neighborhood Parkland Recommendations
This plan recommends that a neighborhood park be located within
approximately 1/2 mile of all Arvada residents and a neighborhood
parkland standard of 3.6 acres per 1,000 population. Although
Arvada is generally
well served in existing
developed areas,
there are specific
areas with deficiencies, such as the
south central area. In
order to meet the
anticipated future
demand for neighborhood parks, and
correct existing
deficiencies, this plan
recommends the
Lew Walsh Park
development of 9
additional
neighborhood parks to meet the demands associated with new
growth. The master plan also recommends establishing a special
fund to address deficiencies in existing neighborhood parks.
This plan also recommends adjustment of the neighborhood park
development impact fee to ensure that it completely covers the costs
of designing and constructing new neighborhood parks. The current
fee does not produce funding adequate to construct neighborhood
parks on designated park sites.
Community Parkland Recommendations
This plan recommends that a community park be located within
approximately 2 miles of all city residents. The plan also recommends
a combined community parkland and sports complex acreage
standard of 4.5 acres per 1,000 population, a figure that is
comparable with other Front Range communities.
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
In order to meet the anticipated future demand for community parks,
this Plan recommends the following specific projects. These projects
have not been specifically prioritized and the order of the list does
not imply order of priority.
n
n
n
n
n
n
Development of Majestic View Community Park
Development of O’Kane Community Park, total 100 acres
Development of the 28 acres of vacant land associated with Lake
Arbor Park
Development of Gold Strike Park and acquisition of 10 or more
acres of additional lands to create a community park in the
southeast area of the City
Development of community park amenities in Long Lake Ranch
Regional Park
Development of community park amenities at the Stenger-Lutz
Sports Complex.
Within these proposed community parks, the acreage devoted to
sports facilities and their associated parking should be balanced with
other types of individual and group recreational opportunities such as
group picnic areas, water features, performance plazas and
amphitheaters, natural areas, free-play turf areas, gardens and open
meadows.
It is also recommended that the City expand the existing
neighborhood park development fee for acquisition and development
of community parks and sports facilities to ensure that new
development pays for its share of needed parkland. This fee would
apply only to residential units, as this type of development and its
occupants drive the need for additional parkland.
Sports Complex Recommendations
Currently the City has 186 acres of Sports Complexes. This plan
recommends the development of a first phase of Long Lake Ranch
Regional Park to meet the sports facility needs of the community for
the next 10 years as well as to contribute to community park needs
for this area of the City. The area identified for first phase of
development is approximately 60 acres in size.
Stenger, Lutz, Pioneer and Youth Memorial Parks are all in need of
upgrades to either complete projects that have been already started,
or to improve the function and appeal of the parks to the larger, nonsports oriented community. In total, this would result in approximately
246 acres of sports complex land in the city (including the 60 acres in
Chapter One - 7
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
Long Lake Ranch
Regional Park
discussed above).
Combined with the
community park
projects, the total level
of service would be
approximately 4.5
acres per 1,000
population.
As mentioned earlier,
the proposed
Community Facilities
Impact Fee should
cover the cost to
acquire, design and
develop sports facilities associated with new growth.
Special Purpose Parks
The Master Plan recommends that a new category of park be
created to accommodate parks such as the Equestrian Center and
the newly proposed Dog Park. These are the only parks currently in
this category. The recommended projects are to improve the
equestrian center property to add a trailhead with parking and a
picnic pavilion, and to participate in the private effort to develop a
park for off-leash dog use.
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
CHAPTER TWO
EXISTING RESOURCES
T
his chapter describes the existing parks, trails and open space
resources in and around Arvada. Other features of the area,
such as significant environmental, archaelogic or historic
resources, are also described.
Parkland Ownership and Management
Parkland within the City is owned and managed by two governmental
entities: the North Jeffco Metropolitan Recreation and Park District
and the City of Arvada. North Jeffco was created in 1956 to meet the
recreation programming demands of Arvada residents and is responsible for recreational programs and operation of facilities. This includes sports complexes, programmed outdoor recreational facilities
and recreation centers. The City of Arvada is responsible for acquiring, developing, and maintaining public park properties, outdoor
recreational facilities, trails and open space areas. North Jeffco and
the City of Arvada have an intergovernmental agreement that outlines
the mutual responsibilities of the organizations as well as cost sharing
arrangements. The recently adopted intergovernmental agreement
helps more clearly define the two entities roles. Arvada will obtain
ownership of many old North Jeffco park sites, and North Jeffco will
focus more on active, organized recreation. Both entities serve the
City of Arvada residents as well as the people who live at the western
edge of Arvada in unincorporated Jefferson County.
In 1972 Jefferson County passed a sales tax that funded the
Jefferson County Open Space program. Over the years this has
allowed the county and the City, through Jefferson County grants, to
protect hundreds of acres of open space throughout the county, much
of which is near and within Arvada. The passage of an Arvada Park
Development Bond Issue in 1974 and the establishment of City of
Arvada Park Development Fees provided funds for the development
of City-owned park and trail sites. In 1980, a Jefferson County Open
Space policy change provided for the utilization of Open Space funds
for park development projects and maintenance. This shift, coupled
with the establishment of the Colorado lottery in 1982, provided the
City with additional revenue sources to purchase and develop park
and recreation facilities. In 1981 the City of Arvada and North Jeffco
Metropolitan Recreation and Park District jointly completed a park and
recreation master plan. The City prepared a master plan update in
1988. Many parks, trails and land areas were identified as part of
these plans and have since been purchased and/or developed.
Chapter Two - 9
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
One of Arvada’s sports complexes, the Stenger Sports Complex, was
originally constructed and managed by a private sports organization.
In 1998 the city took over ownership, operations and maintenance of
these facilities. As with other city parks, North Jeffco manages the
programmed use of these facilities.
Inventory of City Parks, Trails and Open Space
Recreational resources within and adjacent to the City of Arvada are
discussed in this section in order to establish a framework for
development of this Master Plan. Facilities provided by other
jurisdictions including federal, state and county governments are also
discussed. For the most part, private recreational facilities are not
considered. Private facilities supplement, but are not a substitute for,
the basic services the City traditionally provides.
Arvada is characterized by neighborhood parks and sports complexes
throughout the City. Team sport facilities are concentrated in sports
complexes. Although neighborhood parks are well distributed through
the City, their smaller size usually limits their potential for active
recreational uses. Community parks, which are traditionally a mix of
passive, active and programmed sports, are not generally provided.
Lake Arbor Park is the only currently developed community park
within the City.
In 1999, the City had 61 neighborhood parks, 1 community park, 8
sports complexes, 26 open space/trail corridors, and more than 50
miles of urban trails. The City also has several undeveloped regional,
community and neighborhood park sites. Map 1 shows the location of
existing developed neighborhood and community parks, sports
complexes, urban trails, and open space.
Neighborhood Parks
The City has done a commendable job in providing neighborhood
parks that are distributed fairly evenly across Arvada, with 53 larger
neighborhood parks and 9 mini parks (less than 3 acres) that serve
residents. In total, there are 405 acres of developed neighborhood
parkland and 77 acres of neighborhood parkland that is undeveloped.
These parks are located throughout Arvada’s neighborhoods, typically
within ½ mile of the area they are intended to serve, and often include
playgrounds, picnic facilities, paved pathways, tennis courts,
basketball courts, turf areas of various sizes and trees, shrubs and
flowers. Few parks have restrooms. Recently, soccer practices have
moved from the neighborhood parks to Stenger Sports Complex,
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
Neighborhood Parks
Alice Sw eet Thomas
Allendale
Apple Meadow s
Bridgeside
Club Crest Park North
Club Crest Park South
Columbine
Creekside
Danny Kendrick Park East
Danny Kendrick Park West
Davis Lane
Emil Schneider
Far Horizons
Farmstead
Fitzmorris
Hackberry
Harry S Truman
Hillside
Homestead
Hoskinson
Independence
Jack B. Tomlinson
Ladybug
Lake Arbor Parkw ay
Lakecrest
Lamplighter
Lew Walsh
Leyden Creek
Little Dry Creek
MacArthur
Marge Roberts
McIlvoy
Meadow brook Playground
Meadow lake
Melody
Memorial
Michael Northey
Moon Gulch
North Jeffco Recreation Center Park
North Table Mountain
Oak Park/Campbell Cottages
Quaker Acres
Rainbow 1
Rainbow 2
Rainbow 3
Ralston Valley
Ralston Cove
Secrest
Shadow Mountain
Sierra
Sunrise
Tennyson Knolls
Terrace
Thundercloud
Wadsw orth
Westlake
Westree
1
1
1
3
4
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
2
2
3
2
1
1
1
15
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
25
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
12
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
1
1
52
1
1
3
3
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
150
29
1
1
1
2
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
2
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
2
Acreage
Volleyball Courts
Tennis Courts
Multi-Purpose Play Field
Playgrounds
Picnic Shelters
Parking Lot Spaces
Lakes/Ponds
Horseshoe Pits
Bridges
Basketball
Baseball/Softball
Table 2.1 Arvada Neighborhood Parks Inventory
3.4
4.7
7.8
5.0
13.7
7.0
5.8
3.8
5.0
6.2
11.3
0.9
7.0
2.6
6.6
4.7
1.2
2.7
9.0
4.7
6.8
10.8
2.3
5.2
8.3
3.9
4.1
7.0
4.3
3.0
3.5
2.4
1.3
10.5
2.0
16.3
10.1
5.1
12.3
6.9
15.1
5.6
11.5
3.4
3.4
11.9
7.4
7.2
4.4
4.8
2.9
12.2
10.4
9.4
1.0
4.3
3.4
Comments/Additional Facilities
Practice fields
Mini-park
Practice fields
Mini-park
Mini-park
Mini-park
Exercise trail
Mini-park
Practice field
Restroom
Mini-park
Mini-park
Skate park; 18-hole disc golf course
Restroom
Practice fields
Practice field
Inline hockey rink & practice field
Mini-park
Practice & game field
Mini-park
Chapter Two - 11
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
2
1
1
11
1
27
1
9
6
80
383
9
29
7
Acreage
Volleyball Courts
2
15.0
16.4
5.3
11.0
405.2
Acreage
30
Tennis Courts
10
1
1
1
1
46
20
Soccer Fields
Parking Lot Spaces
Lakes/Ponds
Horseshoe Pits
Bridges
Playgrounds
Westw ood
Woodrun
Yankee Doodle
74th & Carr
Total Developed Neighborhood Parks
Picnic Shelters
58
59
60
61
Basketball
Baseball/Softball
Table 2.1 Arvada Neighborhood Parks Inventory (continued)
1
2
Undeveloped Neighborhood Parks
Leyden Playground
Meadow glen Property
3
Meadows at West Wood
4
5
Meadow brook Village
74th & Carr
23.4
7.0
6
7
8
Skyline Estates
Sunrise Ridge
Wyndham
Total Undeveloped Neighborhood Parks
18.2
8.0
4.3
77.2
Practice & game fields; joint use w /school
Practice field
Fishing dock
4 game football fields
0.8
11.1
4.4
which is discussed later in this master plan. A few of the
neighborhood parks are scheduled for softball games, but most are
used only for practices. The neighborhood parks also sometimes
have natural features such as views and vistas, lakes and water
courses, and wildlife habitat. Table 2.1 lists each park and its
developed features.
Map 1 shows the location of the neighborhood parks as well as their
½ mile service radii. Mini parks are shown with a ¼ mile service
radius because they are small and contain only pieces of a full-service
neighborhood park. Barriers to pedestrian and bicycle access were
identified (arterial roadways and railroads) and service radii adjusted
in order to designate the area that is effectively served by each park.
As illustrated on Map 1, most of the neighborhoods in the City are
adequately served by a neighborhood park. Only the southeastern
quadrant and newly developed areas in the northwestern portion of
the City do not have good access to a neighborhood or mini-park.
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
Several of the existing parks would be greatly improved by the
addition of signage. Others could be enhanced with renovated
planting beds, new shrub plantings and retrofitting xeriscape plantings
into passive areas. Selected neighborhood parks are in need of some
level of repair to replace damaged walks, site furnishings, play
equipment, and irrigation systems. These repairs are necessary as
the facilities reach the end of their usable life span or as new
regulations and standards are adopted, such as the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA), Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC)
and American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM) standards.
These regulations and standards affect trails, restrooms, picnic areas
and playgrounds by mandating accessibility and safety standards.
The inventory of needed capital enhancements assembled by City
park maintenance staff currently totals approximately $8 million.
Community Parks
The City currently has only one developed park that fits the
description of a community park: Lake Arbor (60 acres). Table 2.2
lists the City’s developed and undeveloped community parks. Lake
Arbor has a lake as its focal feature, basketball courts, group picnic
pavilion and fishing
dock, playground and
perimeter walks. It is
the most popular park
in the City. The city
owns an additional 28
acres of land located
immediately west of
the developed park
area. A plan for the
use of this area has
not been developed.
Traffic, safety and
parking issues are
neighborhood
Lake Arbor Park
concerns in recent
years and should be
addressed in future master planning for the park.
Chapter Two - 13
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
Majestic View, which currently has 17 developed acres, contains 4
tennis courts, a playground, basketball court, open turf areas and
natural area. The City has recently acquired additional lands that will
make the park a true community park with a total of approximately 75
acres. This park site has significant natural resources, including
important wetland and wildlife habitat as well as spectacular mountain
views and vistas. In addition to its existing developed area, the
adopted park master plan for this provides for gardens and natural
areas, and a focus on environmental education and interpretation.
Existing structures on site will be reused for an environmental center
and conference facility.
Map 2 shows the
location of existing
developed and
undeveloped
community parks as
well as a 2-mile radius
around each park that
illustrates how well
they are distributed
throughout the city. As
the map shows, the
south central and
southeast portions of
the city are not well
served by developed
Majestic View Community Park
community parks. Lutz
and Stenger sports
complexes, located in south central Arvada, are not considered
community parks as they do not have the diversity of features that
appeal to a broad sector of the community. O’Kane Park is one of the
more centrally located parks, but it is not yet developed. Although
considered a regional park, Long Lake Ranch Park will satisfy
community park needs in the western area of the City when it is
developed. The community parks are well connected to the City’s trail
system.
Gold Strike Park, located at the confluence of Ralston Creek and
Clear Creek, is a 14-acre undeveloped property that is proposed as a
trailhead for the Ralston Creek Trail and the Clear Creek Trail. It is
also proposed as an interpretive site commemorating the first
discovery of gold in Colorado.
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
Playgrounds
Soccer Fields
Restrooms
20
1
1
2
1
Acreage
Picnic Shelters
2
Tennis Courts
Parking Lot Spaces
3
Lakes/Ponds
1
Football Fields
2
1
2
Fishing Docks
1
Exercise Trails
Basketball
2
Concession Stands
Baseball/Softball
Table 2.2
Arvada Community Parks, Regional Parks, Sports Complexes and Special Purpose Parks Inventory
Community Parks
1
Lake Arbor
2
Majestic View*
Totals
*Will become part of larger Majestic View Park
0
1
3
4
4
2
20
1
1
1
3
1
59.7 Practice fields
4
4
17.4
77.0
Undeveloped Community Parks
1
O'Kane
2
Majestic View
3
4
Lake Arbor Addition
Lewis Ralston Gold Strike
Totals
100.0
57.6
28.0
14.3
199.9
Undeveloped Regional Parks
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
Long Lake Ranch
Totals
Sports Complexes
Foster Ballfields
Lutz Sports Complex
Pioneer Sports Complex
Ralston Addition Soccer Fields
Ralston Ballfields
Youth Memorial Sports Complex
Stenger Soccer Complex
Arvada Tennis Center
Total Developed Sports Complexes
*Full-size fields used as 28 mixed-sized fields
430.0
430.0
2
8
6
1
1
4
21
2
1
1
1
0
4
1
1
565
215
35
2
1
3
256
1
6
53
1,144
2
5
2
1
2
16
0
0
1
0
18
Indiana Equestrian Center
Totals
2
8*
8
8
4.4
40.0
19.9
8.4
1.0
29.0
75.0
8.2
185.9
Game fields
BMX track; game fields
Game fields
Game fields
Game field
Game fields
Game fields
All lighted
47.0
47.0
Sports Complexes
Arvada has 8 sports complexes, the largest of which are Lutz (40
acres) and Stenger (75 acres). These two parks, dedicated to
baseball, softball, soccer and football, are adjacent to each other,
along Van Bibber Creek south of 58nd Avenue. Lutz also has a dirt
BMX track that is operated by a private organization. Other sports
complexes include the Foster Ballfields, Pioneer Sports Complex,
Ralston Addition Soccer Fields and Ballfields, Youth Memorial Sports
Complex and the Arvada Tennis Center. Table 2.2 lists the sports
complexes and their features. In addition, the City maintains the sites
associated with several recreation center and maintenance centers.
These sites have some outdoor recreation facilities as shown in
Table 2.2.
Chapter Two - 15
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
Regional Parks
Long Lake Ranch Park is a 430-acre property that was recently
purchased by Jefferson County Open Space and deeded to the City of
Arvada. It is proposed for development as a regional park with 280
acres planned for active sports facilities, 150 acres of open space and
wildlife habitat and the
Churches Ranch
historic site, which is
also currently used as
an abused horse
rescue and
rehabilitation center.
Churches Ranch is on
the State and National
Historic Registers and
is targeted for future
renovation and
operation as a working
ranch. Specific
elements of the master
plan include the
Churches Ranch at Long Lake Ranch Regional Park
northern Jefferson
County R-1 School
District football and soccer stadiums, which are currently under
construction, numerous football, soccer and softball/baseball fields,
multiple trails, playgrounds, lakes, restoration of the historic farm, and
preservation of 150 acres of open space and wildlife habitat.
The City has one park that does not fit into the other categories: the
Indiana Equestrian Center. This facility is located on approximately
47 acres in the western portion of the city, where many people own
horses. The Arvada Area Horseman’s Association and the city jointly
manage the site.
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
Trails
In total, there are approximately 27 miles of Primary Off-street trails
throughout the City and more than 50 miles of all trails combined. The
Primary Off-street trails are paved and are typically 10 feet wide with a
parallel soft surface trail for users who prefer an unpaved surface.
These trails are located predominantly along the creeks that run west
to east through the City: Clear Creek, Van Bibber Creek, Ralston
Creek, Little Dry Creek, and Leyden Creek. Approximately 15 miles
of trails have been
added to the City’s trail
system since 1990.
One of the more
significant additions is
the nearly complete
Ralston Creek State
Recreational Trail. The
City has been actively
working to connect the
trail segments and
complete the system.
The City also has
numerous unpaved
trails, many of which
Ralston Creek Trail
are actively used by
equestrian, walkers
and joggers. This remains an important component of the city trails
systems and the survey indicated that additional unpaved trails were a
high priority for city residents.
Open Space
Open Space Areas are essentially land and water that remains in a
predominantly natural or undeveloped state. The City owns 29 open
space areas, ranging in size from 0.1 acre to approximately 748
acres, for a total of 1,882 acres. More than half of the areas are less
than 5 acres in size. The largest are Arvada Reservoir (748 acres),
Arvada Reservoir North (430 acres), Pattridge (394 acres) and Tucker
Lake (40 acres). Other agencies also own open space in the area,
including Jefferson County and the Denver Water Board. Map 3
shows the location of the largest open space areas. Table 2.3 lists all
city-owned open space areas.
Chapter Two - 17
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
Table 2.3 Arvada Open Space/Trail Corridor Areas
Open Space
Arvada Reservoir
Arvada Reservoir North
Bright & Brown Trail
Discovery Trail
Forest Springs Trail
Hayes
Lake Arbor Drainage
Little Dry Creek (East of Simms)
Little Dry Creek Trail (West of Simms)
Little Dry Creek Trail (East of Vance)
Lively Walkway (North Club Crest)
Meadowbrook Village
Meadowglen Greenbelt
Oak Street Retention Pond
Pattridge
Pearce
Ralston Creek (East of Wadsworth)
Ralston Creek (West of Arvada Reservoir)
Rainbow Ridge
Ralston Creek (East of Indiana)
Ralston Creek (West of Simms)
Ralston Creek Trail
Trailhead/60th & Secrest
Canal Trailhead at Standley Lake
Tucker Lake
Van Bibber Open Space (East of Ward Rd.)
Westwoods Wildlife Habitat Area (70th and Quaker Street)
Westwoods Trail
Wildflower Ponds and Ralston Cemetery
Total
Approximate
Acreage
748.0
430.0
1.6
3.6
0.3
21.5
4.5
0.1
17.7
12.0
0.9
24.6
17.7
1.6
394.0
65.6
0.6
36.6
8.6
11.9
6.2
6.0
0.3
1.9
40.0*
8.8
0.8
6.0
10.4
1,881.8
*Anticipated City Ownership after transfer from Jefferson County Open Space.
Private open space is considered an asset that supplements the
public open space inventory, but is not part of it since private open
space typically does not allow public access or use. In some cases,
public open space can be used for the location of easements and/or
rights-of-way for other public infrastructure improvements.
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
Jefferson County Resources
The City of Arvada lies within Jefferson County, which established an
open space program in 1972 by funding a one-half percent sales tax
on retail sales. In 1980, the purpose of the funds was expanded to
allow for the expenditure of these funds for the construction,
acquisition and maintenance of park and recreational capital
improvements as well. To help guide the Open Space Program, the
County prepared the Jefferson County Open Space Master Plan
(1998). Since the program’s inception through the end of 1997, the
County has acquired 31,143 acres of open space, of which 5,565
acres are leased, managed, or deeded to cities within Jefferson
County. Through this program the City of Arvada has been deeded
847 acres, approximately 45% of its open space areas.
The County’s Open Space System has categorized their lands for
management purposes. Several land classes apply to areas within the
County with an emphasis on wildlife habitat management and passive
recreation. However, two of the land categories apply to areas within
the realm of city and recreation district operations. The first category,
“Active Recreation Lands,” could include the development of sports
fields. The second category are lands classified as “Buffer Areas,”
which are lands between urbanizing areas that help define community
boundaries and provide an important psychological benefit to the
residents of the area. These areas help to break up the pattern of
continuous urban sprawl. These areas could also include the
development of sports fields or regional joint-use facilities such as a
recreation center. In both cases, the Jefferson County Open Space
Program could acquire these lands with open space funds and offer
help in its development through joint ventures with a city or recreation
district. Management of such areas is then the responsibility of the city
or recreation district with jurisdiction.
Also within Jefferson County, just west of Rocky Flats and Highway
93, are thousands of acres of relatively undisturbed foothills. This
area provides valuable habitat to a number of wildlife species,
including black bear and Preble’s meadow jumping mouse. Portions
of the foothills are recommended for conservation by the Front Range
Mountain Backdrop Final Report (1991), a product of the Five-County
Front Range Mountain Backdrop Task Force. The City of Arvada, in
coordination with the Denver Water Board and Jefferson County Open
Space, recently completed the acquisition of approximately 2,000
acres west of SH 93 and south of Highway 72.
Chapter Two - 19
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
Planning Context
Map 4 shows some of the community context factors that influence
planning in the City of Arvada. At the broadest scale is the city’s
location relative to other communities and its defined planning area.
Each of these is shown in Map 4, which illustrates that the city is
bordered to the east by the incorporated communities of Westminster,
Wheat Ridge and Denver. An exception to this statement is a portion
of the I-70/Clear Creek Corridor, which remains within unincorporated
Adams County. For these reasons, most of Arvada’s recent growth
has occurred to the west into unincorporated Jefferson County. This
trend is reflected in Map 5, which shows anticipated population growth
by subarea.
As shown in Map 4, portions of this area have already developed as
residential subdivisions within Jefferson County. A combination of
new growth and potential annexation of existing developed areas is
expected to account for much of the city’s future population increase.
New growth areas include the Vauxmont area along Highway 72 as
well as infill development west of Ward Road. Once the area between
Highway 93 on the west, the Rocky Flats site on the north and Ward
Road on the east is either developed or set aside as open space, the
city will be largely contained on all sides. This boundary is shown on
Map 4 as the city’s comprehensive planning area.
Also shown on Map 4 are various planned transportation
improvements. These include the expansion of West 72nd Avenue,
64th Avenue, Kipling, the West 86th Parkway, Ward Road and the
McIntyre/Indiana extension. Each of these projects will influence
future development and the service boundaries of existing and future
neighborhood parks. Map 4 also shows the planned Northwest
Parkway, which includes highway improvements as well as a trail
corridor.
Wildlife Resources
The City of Arvada is fortunate to have an abundance of defined
wildlife habitat areas within and adjacent to the community. Some of
these resources are shown on Map 6. A glance at the map indicates
that many of these habitats are concentrated along the major
drainages that flow west to east across the community, and in the
foothills west of the city. Each of the notable habitat areas is
described in the remainder of this section.
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
The area between Standley Lake and Indiana Street contains one of
the more notable concentrations of habitat features in the Arvada
vicinity. Among these are bald eagle roosting and winter feeding
areas. Although no longer an endangered species, the bald eagle
remains an uncommon species in Colorado. An active nest site is
located near the north shoreline of Standley Lake. Important to the
ability of bald eagles to successfully nest are suitable feeding areas.
Standley Lake and the grasslands west of the lake represent
important feeding areas.
Prairie dog colonies, which are an important element of the diet of
eagles and other raptors, are also shown on Map 6. In addition to
providing bald eagle habitat, Big Dry Creek and Woman Creek are
defined Preble’s meadow jumping mouse protection areas. These
locations, which are defined as potential habitat for this threatened
species, are shown in Map 6. A third mouse protection area is located
west of Ralston Reservoir along Ralston Creek.
Also located west of Standley Lake is an area designated by the
Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP) as a potential
conservation site. A remnant tallgrass prairie is one of the reasons for
designation of this site. The great majority of this site is located on
the Rocky Flats property.
Closer into the city are a variety of riparian habitats largely associated
with the Leyden, Ralston, Van Bibber and Clear Creek drainages.
Each of these riparian areas provides habitat for a variety of species,
including waterfowl, songbirds and small mammals. With the
exception of the Clear Creek Corridor, which is designated by the
Colorado Division of Wildlife as whitetail deer habitat, big game usage
of these areas has become limited by urban development and other
habitat modifications. As shown in Map 6, the Clear Creek Corridor
also has been designated as an area with important waterfowl and
goose habitat.
Stream corridors are depicted on Map 6, including areas with
cottonwoods and other forested riparian vegetation. These stream
corridors provide important habitat for a variety of species and also
serve as movement corridors.
An additional area with numerous habitat values is the foothills/
grassland ecozone located in the foothills west of SH 93. This area
contains habitat for mountain lion, black bear and mule deer, as well
as small mammals and other species.
Chapter Two - 21
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
Environmental Resources
Map 7 depicts a number of distinctive physical features, most of which
are located west of Indiana Street. One of these features is the
designated mountain backdrop, which is the area designated through
a multi-jurisdictional study as the area where protection efforts should
be concentrated to preserve the important mountain views many Front
Range communities enjoy. Also shown on Map 7 are other dominant
landforms, which occur in the area between Arvada/Blunn Reservoir
and Highway 72. Development in these areas would be prominently
seen in views from the Arvada community to the west.
The designated 100- and 500-year floodplains for several drainages
are also shown on Map 7.
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
CHAPTER THREE
ISSUES AND NEEDS
T
o identify issues and needs in the community one must
analyze many different factors ranging from existing and
projected population, recreation program statistics and
anticipated increases in participation, comparisons with other
communities, and opinions of user groups, staff and the general
public. This chapter is organized into sections that address these
factors as follows:
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
Population Growth and Demographic Characteristics
Results of the Existing Parks, Trails, Open Space and Potential
Resources Inventory
Public Input
Community Surveys
Recreation Program Participation and Needs
Summary of Sport Facilities Needs and Recommended Levels of
Service
Other Outdoor Recreation and Environmental Interest Group
Needs
Population Growth and Demographic Characteristics
Existing and Projected Population
In 1998, the City of Arvada and areas immediately surrounding the
city limits within the foreseeable urban growth area had an estimated
population of 113,086 residents. This number represents an
approximate 27% increase over the1990 population of 89,090
residents. The City expects continued growth, with a 2010 population
projection of 125,414, an 10.9% increase. These new residents will
need additional parks, recreational facilities, trails and open space.
According to Denver Regional Council of Government projections, the
areas that are expected to increase most in population are the
western areas of the city, where land still is available for new
development. This area also contains some of the more significant
environmental and scenic resources, which according to City
residents, are highly valued as open space (see Parks, Trails and
Open Space Survey, EDAW 1999, later in this chapter). Some
population increases are also expected in the central part of the city
as a result of redevelopment projects that will provide higher density
residential units. Map 5, Sub-Areas shows the various areas of the
city and their anticipated gains in population.
Chapter Three - 23
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
Household Size
The 1990 U.S. Census reported an average household size for
Arvada of 2.7. More recent household trend data for Arvada as
reported by the Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG)
indicated an average household size in 1994 of 2.72. The larger
Denver metropolitan area has a smaller average household size of
approximately 2.5.
Age Distribution
Data on age distribution for the City of Arvada is provided by 1990
U.S. Census Data. According to this data, 27.4% of Arvada residents
are under 18 years of age, and 16.0% are age 55 or older. In comparison, 25.5% of the population in the Denver Metro area and 25.6% of
the population in the United States is under 18 years of age. 15.6% of
the population in the Denver Metro area and 21.0% of the population
in the United States are age 55 years or older. These numbers
suggest that Arvada has a fairly typical age distribution for the region,
but has more adults age 18 to 54 than the nation as a whole.
Income
The 1990 U.S. Census reported an annual household income of
$39,014 for Arvada residents compared to a metro area average of
$33,126 and national average of $30,056. This data suggests that the
average household income in Arvada has exceeded the regional and
national average.
Ethnicity
The 1990 U.S. Census reported that 94.3% of Arvada residents were
White, 2.1% were Asian or Pacific Islander, 0.5% were Black, 0.5%
were American Indian, Eskimo or Aleut, and 2.7% were other races.
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
Results of the Existing Parks, Trails, Open Space and
Potential Resources Inventory
The inventory of existing parks, trails and open space areas is
discussed in detail in the previous chapter. In summary, Arvada has
adequate neighborhood parks that are relatively accessible to
residents, but there are some areas, specifically in the southeast and
northwest portions of the City that do not have immediate access to a
neighborhood park. Existing developed community parks are
severely lacking. Changing safety and accessibility standards require
the ongoing monitoring and upgrading of park facilities.
The trail system is fairly extensive through the city, but is missing key
links that would improve its continuity. Opportunities exist to develop
a significant north-south link between Standley Lake and Clear Creek
along the Farmers and Croke Canal system that runs through the city.
There are also significant natural areas existing between the canals
that may soon be lost to development if measures are not taken to
preserve them.
Public Input
Two public meetings were conducted in January and March. A portion
of each Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) meeting was also
dedicated to public comment. The issues specifically raised by the
citizens who attended these meetings were considered by the
consulting team, City staff and the CAC in the development of
recommendations and prioritization of projects that are part of this
plan.
Community Surveys
1999 Arvada Citizen Survey
Prior to this master planning effort, the City conducted a survey of
residents regarding a variety of topics, some of which relate to the
provision of parks, trails, open space and recreational services. Only
results that directly related to this master plan are reported below.
The survey was mailed to a representative sample of 3,000
households in the City of Arvada during July of 1999.1 Of the 3,000
households receiving the survey, approximately 1,344 returned the
1
1999 Arvada Citizen Survey, National Research Center, Inc., Boulder, Colorado.
Chapter Three - 25
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
survey (a response rate of 45%). The vast majority of respondents to
this survey (more than 90%) had not attended a city council meeting
or any other public meeting about city matters in the last year,
demonstrating that these survey results represent a different group of
people than those typically participating in city decision making.
More than 90% of the survey respondents reported that Arvada was
either a “very good” or “good” place to live, giving an average rating
that was slightly higher than other parts of the U.S. and slightly higher
than the ratings recorded in the City’s 1997 Citizens Survey. The
following characteristics were evaluated to assess quality of life
Table 3.1 Quality of Life
Percent of Respondents
Characteristic
Arvada as a place
to raise children
Access to
neighborhood
parks
Recreational
opportunities
Very
good
Good
Neither
good
nor bad
Bad
Very
bad
Don’t
know
Total
Average Rating
(0=very bad,
100=very good)
26%
59%
14%
1%
0%
NA
100%
77
29%
55%
11%
3%
1%
1%
100%
77
14%
52%
26%
5%
1%
2%
100%
69
National Research Center, 1999
Similar to the results of the City’s 1997 Citizens Survey, this survey
identified the biggest problems in Arvada to be growth and traffic
congestion.
As shown below, community participation was reported for use of the
City’s recreational facilities and amenities. The results indicate that
83% of respondents have used a city park or trail at least once in the
past year. (This is a slightly lower participation number than reported
in the fall of 1999 survey, which is discussed later in this chapter.)
Table 3.2 Community Participation
Activity
Used a city park or trail
Used the recreation
centers
Attended a public
meeting about city
matters
Never
16%
54%
91%
Percent of Respondents Participating
In Activity in Past 12 Months
Once or
3 to 12
13 to 26 times
twice
times
26+ times
9%
29%
20%
25%
13%
20%
7%
6%
6%
3%
0%
0%
Total
100%
100%
100%
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
Similarly, satisfaction levels with city parks overall and their maintenance in particular was found to be generally high (82% and 76%).
This is very similar to the results obtained in the survey that was
conducted later the same year.
Table 3.3 Satisfaction Level
Service
City parks
Maintenance of
existing city parks,
open space and trails
Very
satisfied
28%
Satisfied
54%
18%
58%
Percent of Survey Respondents
Very
Neutral
Dissatisfied dissatisfied
13%
3%
1%
16%
3%
1%
Don’t
know
2%
Total
100%
4%
100%
However, comparison of satisfaction with maintenance of city parks,
open space and trails in Arvada with the national average indicated
room for improvement.
Table 3.4 Service Ratings: Arvada and the Nation
Arvada 1999
Service
City parks
Maintenance of existing city parks, open space and
trails
Programs to deal with appearance and safety of
older neighborhoods
Average Rating
(0=Worst, 100=Best)
Arvada 1997
Arvada 1995
Nation
76
72*
74
72
77
76
72
81
59
55
61
NA
*Significantly different from the nation
Chapter Three - 27
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
The following recorded the level of support for various capital
improvement projects, most of which would improve recreational
facilities and amenities within the City of Arvada. Trail development
received the greatest support, followed closely by additional land for
open space and new parks. Support for construction of new athletic
facilities received a clear majority of support, but relatively less than
the other programs related to recreational facilities and amenities.
Table 3.5 Support for Pursuing New Programs
Percent of Respondents
Program
Construction of bicycle and
pedestrian paths
Purchasing additional land in
the city for open space
Purchasing additional land to
build parks in the city
Construction of new athletic
facilities
Strongly
support
Somewhat
support
Somewhat
oppose
Strongly
oppose
Don’t
know
Total
Percent
Who
Support
Pursuing
Program
35%
48%
11%
3%
3%
100%
83%
36%
40%
14%
6%
4%
100%
76%
33%
43%
15%
6%
3%
100%
76%
18%
47%
23%
8%
4%
100%
65%
*Significantly different from the nation
1999 Parks, Trails, & Open Space Survey2
In the fall of 1999, a survey was mailed to households in the City of
Arvada. The primary objectives of the survey were to determine:
n
n
n
n
What types of recreational activities residents enjoy and the
frequency of participation;
Which parks are the most popular and key factors influencing their
use;
Which recreational facilities and park, trail and open space
features were perceived as being in short supply; and
How satisfied are city residents with the existing parks, trails and
open space resources.
The survey was a mail-out, mail-back survey sent the last week of
November 1999 to adults (age 18 or older) in the city of Arvada. A
total of 2,304 surveys were mailed, 31 were returned as undeliverable,
resulting in a total sample of 2,273. All surveys included in these
results were received back within 5 weeks, before the end of 1999. A
total of 493 completed or partially completed surveys were received.
This represents an approximate 22% return rate. A copy of the survey
instrument and more detailed results are located in the appendix of
this report.
2
1999 Arvada Parks, Trails and Open Space Survey, EDAW, Inc.
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
One goal of the survey was to determine if there were differences in
responses between areas of the city. The four City Council districts,
which generally correspond to the four quadrants of the city
(1-northeast, 2-southeast, 3-southwest and 4-northwest), were used.
The percentage of responses from each area is shown on the
following table.
Table 3.6 Number of Survey Responses by Area
Area
Responses
% of total surveys
1
109
23%
2
72
15%
3
114
24%
4
178
38%
Total
473
100%
EDAW, 1999
Summary Conclusions of the 1999 Parks Trails and Open Space
Survey
Parks and trails are popular in Arvada. A large majority of adult
Arvada residents (90%) use their nearest park at least once per year
and 40% use parks 21 or more times per year. Eighty percent walk or
hike on a trail system; 30% do it 21 or more times per year. Seventynine percent use open space areas; 28% do it 21 or more times per
year. Sixty-six percent bike on the trail system; 21% do it 21 or more
times per year.
The city is meeting residents’ expectations in terms of quality and
maintenance of parks, however the city is somewhat split on opinions
regarding the amount of open space and has some reservations
regarding the equity of park distribution in the city. Eighty-six percent
feel that the quality of their nearby parks is good to excellent and 83%
are satisfied with the overall quality of city parks. Seventy-nine
percent were satisfied with the level of maintenance in city parks.
Forty-six percent were satisfied with the amount of open space in the
city while 40% were not. Fifty-three percent felt that parks were
equitably distributed in the city, 14% did not, and 32% said they didn’t
know.
There is tremendous support for more natural surface and paved trails
in the community. Fifty percent of all respondents and 62% of
respondents that had an opinion felt there were not enough natural
surface trails. Forty-six percent of all respondents and 53% of those
with an opinion felt there were not enough paved trails.
Although many residents do not have an opinion, there is support
from some large sectors of the community for additional outdoor
education and nature centers, performance areas, facilities for
Chapter Three - 29
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
community events, exercise/fitness courses, picnic facilities and skate
parks. Residents also strongly support the provision of areas with
natural vegetation within parks.
The northwest area of the city (area 4) has better access to trails,
uses the trail system more often and generally has a stronger demand
for more trails, golf courses and programmed team sport facilities than
other areas of the city. Respondents in the south central and
southwestern area of the city (area 3) participate less in programmed
team sports activities and have less demand for additional facilities for
these activities. Southeast area residents (area 2) scored the quality
of their nearest park lower, with half as many “excellent” ratings than
other areas. They also cite safety, difficult access and poor
maintenance as factors that limit more frequent use of parks. Citywide the most common reasons for not visiting parks more often are:
“lack of features/facilities of interest” (45%), “distance from home”
(43%), and “overcrowding” (32%).
Quality of nearest park and frequency of use
Respondents were asked to rate the quality of the park nearest them
and frequency of use. Quality ratings are shown below:
Table 3.7
Area
1
2
3
4
Citywide
Overall Quality of Nearest Park
Excellent
23% (23)
11% (8)
28% (30)
23% (39)
22% (100)
Ratings
Good
Fair
63% (65)
14% (14)
71% (50)
15% (10)
60% (64)
11% (12)
64% (105)
12% (20)
64% (294)
12% (57)
Poor
1% (1)
3% (2)
2% (2)
1% (1)
1% (6)
* Parentheses = number of respondents
EDAW, 1999
The 86% combined response for excellent and good indicates a high
level of satisfaction with neighborhood parks across the city. Area 2
rated the overall quality of the nearest park lower than the overall city
average with only 82% rating the parks good or excellent, and a
significantly lower percentage of people who rated their nearest park
as excellent (11%).
Frequency of use of the nearest park was distributed as follows:
u
Table 3.8
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
Frequency of Park Use
Area
1-10 times
per year
11-20 times
per year
21 or more
times per year
1
2
3
4
Citywide
24% (25)
46% (33)
33% (38)
30% (51)
32% (149)
22% (23)
12% (9)
15% (16)
18% (31)
17% (81)
39% (41)
30% (21)
41% (46)
46% (80)
41% (193)
Combined
(1+ times per
year)
85% (89)
88% (63)
89% (100)
94% (162)
90% (423)
Never
15% (16)
13% (9)
12% (13)
6% (10)
10% (49)
* parentheses = number of respondents
EDAW, 1999
The majority of respondents (58%) use their nearest park with a high
level of frequency (11 or more times per year) and 90% use nearby
parks at least one time per year. More area 4 respondents used their
nearest park than residents in other areas of the city.
Favorite park
Respondents were also asked to identify their favorite park. The four
parks most frequently mentioned were Lake Arbor (32 responses),
Majestic View (18 responses), and North Jeffco (11 responses).
Factors preventing more frequent use of City parks
Another set of questions reviewed a list of factors that might prevent
or reduce use of the City’s parks and recreation facilities. Only two
factors were mentioned more than the others as being “frequently” a
factor in preventing use of facilities: “distance from home” (16%) and
“lack of features/facilities of personal interest” (14%). The combined
percentages for responses to “frequently” and “occasionally” are 45%
for lack of features/facilities of interest, 43% for distance from home
and 32% for overcrowding.
Table 3.9
Factors Preventing More Frequent Use of City Parks
Factor
Lack of features/facilities of interest
Distance from home
Overcrowding
Difficult access
Safety concerns
Poor maintenance
Poor design/facility quality
Frequently
14% (57)
16% (72)
4% (18)
10% (41)
3% (15)
5% (22)
5% (20)
Occasionally
31% (129)
27% (117)
28% (118)
17% (70)
23% (97)
19% (81)
19% (76)
Not at all
56% (236)
57% (247)
68% (287)
74% (313)
74% (320)
76% (320)
77% (314)
EDAW, 1999
Chapter Three - 31
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
When the areas of the city are compared, respondents of area 2 cite
safety, difficult access and poor maintenance as factors that limit more
frequent use of parks. Area 3 appears to be more content with the
distance to parks than other areas of the city. Area 1 appears to be
more content with the features in parks than other areas of the city.
Activities/Frequency of Use
The frequency of specific recreational activities by adults (age 18 or
older) within city parks, trails and open space are noted in descending
order below. Because only adults completed the survey, youth
activities were not reported.
Table 3.10
Frequency of Adult Activities
Activity
Occasionally (1-5
times/yr.)
Often
(6-20 times/yr.)
Walk, use a playground or
other general park activity
Walk/hike on trail system
Nature observation, walk or
other use of open space
Bike on trail system
Picnicking
Jogging / running
In-line skating
Tennis
Outdoor basketball
Softball
Golf
Soccer
Fishing
Volleyball
Ice skate
Football
Baseball
Guided walk/ educational
activity
21% (95)
30% (139)
40% (181)
Combined
(1 or more
times/yr.)*
91% (415)
25% (111)
25% (108)
25% (112)
26% (114)
30% (134)
28% (122)
80% (357)
79% (344)
24% (104)
45% (198)
15% (63)
15% (66)
16% (69)
16% (70)
12% (53)
8% (37)
11% (49)
13% (56)
12% (52)
11% (49)
9% (40)
7% (30)
7% (28)
21% (94)
13% (56)
11% (45)
10% (42)
6% (28)
5% (23)
6% (24)
7% (29)
5% (20)
2% (10)
2% (9)
2% (7)
3% (12)
2% (10)
1% (6)
21% (92)
6% (28)
19% (82)
4% (15)
2% (8)
2% (7)
4% (15)
6% (27)
4% (19)
1% (6)
1% (5)
0% (1)
1% (6)
2% (9)
1% (4)
66% (290)
64% (282)
45% (190)
29% (123)
24% (105)
23% (100)
22% (92)
21% (93)
20% (88)
16% (72)
15% (66)
13% (57)
13% (58)
11% (49)
9% (38)
*may not equal sum of detailed numbers due to rounding.
** parentheses = number of respondents
EDAW, 1999
Frequently
(21+ times/yr.)
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
Satisfaction levels/issues
General satisfaction level with the overall system is high. Relatively
speaking, lower satisfaction levels existed with the trail system and
amount of open space. Only a small majority (53%) agree or
somewhat agree with the statement that parks are equitably
distributed. This question also had a high (32%) “neither agree nor
disagree” response, which indicates uncertainty. Less than one-half
of respondents (46%) were satisfied with the amount of open space in
the city; 40% were not. Responses also suggest that improvements to
how information is disseminated should be explored.
Table 3.11 Opinions on Selected Topics
Satisfied with overall
quality of system
Satisfied with
maintenance
Trails are easily
accessible from home
Trails provide good
connections to city
destinations
Parks are equitably
distributed
Satisfied with the
amount of open space
Information on parks,
trails and open space is
readily available
Strongly or
Somewhat
Agree
83% (396)
Neither
11% (51)
Strongly or
Somewhat
Disagree
6% (28)
79% (374)
15% (69)
7% (33)
68% (319)
13% (63)
19% (88)
58% (270)
21% (98)
22% (102)
53% (252)
32% (149)
14% (68)
46% (220)
13% (62)
40% (188)
41% (192)
29% (138)
30% (140)
EDAW, 1999
Area 2 respondents were significantly less satisfied with the level of
maintenance, access to trails and adequacy of trail connections than
other areas of the city. Area 4 felt that they had better access to trails
than respondents from other areas of the city.
Chapter Three - 33
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
Open space priorities
The importance of each of the following types of open space were
identified below:
Table 3.12 Importance of Various Types of Open Space
Types of Open Space
Waterbodies
View preservation
Areas with important wildlife
habitat
Close-in, neighborhood scale
Agricultural Lands
Very Important
73% (343)
81% (384)
69% (326)
Somewhat Important
25% (116)
16% (77)
25% (120)
55% (258)
33% (153)
38% (177)
49% (229)
Combined
98% (459)
96% (461)
94% (446)
93% (435)
82% (382)
EDAW, 1999
All of the types of open space were identified as priorities by the vast
majority of respondents. View preservation received the highest very
important rating. There were not significant differences by area of the
city.
Amount of facilities
The “not enough” responses for specific facilities are listed below.
Although 50% of all respondents thought there were not enough trails,
no other facility received a majority of “not enough” responses. Many
people did not have opinions regarding the quantity of specific facilities, which implies that either they did not know about, use or care
about a given facility. Therefore, another way to analyze the data is to
consider only those who did have an opinion. The facilities receiving
the highest “not enough” responses from those who had an opinion
were outdoor education/nature centers, natural surface trails, paved
trails, performance areas, areas for community events and exercise/
fitness courses.
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
Table 3.13 Opinions on Quantities of Facilities
Facility
Natural surface trails
Paved trails
Outdoor education/natural centers
Performance areas
Areas for community events
Picnic facilities
Exercise/fitness courses
Skateboard/skate parks
Tennis courts
Roller hockey facilities
Outdoor basketball courts
Golf courses
Playgrounds
Softball fields
Soccer fields
Baseball fields
Not Enough
(all respondents)
50% (231)
46% (216)
39% (182)
36% (167)
36% (168)
35% (160)
33% (147)
23% (106)
17% (77)
17% (80)
17% (77)
16% (75)
16% (74)
14% (63)
14% (63)
13% (59)
Not Enough
(those w/an
opinion)
62%
53%
64%
50%
52%
42%
50%
45%
26%
38%
29%
26%
21%
22%
21%
21%
EDAW, 1999
When results are analyzed by area of the city, the opinions vary in
some instances. A majority of respondents in area 4 felt that there
were not enough paved (55%) and natural surface trails (56%).
Interestingly, they also had the highest level of satisfaction with ease
of trail access as well as the highest level of use of the trails of any
other area in the city as reported previously in questions 4 and 5.
Respondents in area 2 also strongly stated that there were not
enough natural surface trails (55%). There was a notable variation in
responses regarding areas for community events, with “not enough”
ranging from 29% in area 3, to 46% in area 1. Areas 1 and 4 felt
strongest (15% and 22% respectively) that there were not enough golf
courses. These areas also showed the highest percentage of people
who participated in golf. Area 3 tended too have less demand for
several facilities associated with programmed sports (baseball,
softball and to some extent soccer), which relates to their activity
profile. Instead, area 3 has a stronger demand for trails, outdoor
education/nature centers, picnic facilities, exercise courses and skate
parks. Area 3 had very low demand for playgrounds (7%) and area 2
had very low demand for soccer fields (7%).
Chapter Three - 35
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
Importance of certain amenities in parks
All of the amenities listed below were identified as important by a large
majority of respondents. The provision of areas with natural
vegetation within parks received the highest “very important” rating.
There were not significant differences between responses in the four
areas of the city.
Table 3.14 Importance of Selected Amenities in Parks
Types of Amenities
Natural areas of vegetation
Garden and flower beds
Fountains & water features
Very Important
62% (296)
42% (199)
39% (186)
Somewhat Important
31% (150)
48% (230)
40% (190)
Not Important
6% (28)
10% (47)
20% (95)
EDAW, 1999
National Trends
In January 2000 the Sporting Goods Manufacturers Association
commissioned an annual mail survey of American households to
determine what activities they participate in at least one time per year.
14,891 completed mail surveys were received and responses
balanced to reflect US Census parameters for age, gender, race,
household income and geographic region. The responses reflect
people age 6 and above. The last few years’ survey has been more
comprehensive than previous years, therefore benchmark data is not
available for many of the categories.
As shown in Table 3.15 the most popular activity of all is walking,
followed by biking, fishing, basketball, hiking and running/jogging.
Many activities have seen a decline in total numbers over the past 12
years, including many of the organized team sports. However 2
relatively new activities have gained tremendously in popularity –
inline roller skating, which involves almost as many people as golf,
and mountain biking, which is as popular as skateboarding. Data was
not available by region, but it is likely that mountain biking involves a
larger percentage of the population in this area than nationally.
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
Table 3.15 Total National Participants by Activity – All Ages
Activity
Recreational Walking
Recreational Bicycling
Fishing
Basketball
Day Hiking
Fitness Walking
Running/Jogging
Golf
Inline Rollerskating
Volleyball
Softball
Football
Soccer
Horseback Riding
Tennis
Roller Skating (4 wheel)
Baseball
Mountain Biking
Skateboarding
Archery
Artificial Wall Climbing
BMX Bicycling
Percent
Change
Since 1987
Na
Na
- 7%
+ 10%
Na
+ 32%
- 8%
+ 7%
+ 494%
- 33%
- 36%
Na
+ 14%
Na
- 21%
- 54%
- 20%
+ 419%
- 28%
- 19%
Na
Na
1999 Participants
(in 1,000’s)
84,096
56,227
54,320
39,368
39,235
35,976
34,047
28,216
27,865
24,176
19,766
18,717
17,582
16,906
16,817
12,404
12,069
7,849
7,807
6,937
4,817
3,730
Sports Participation Trends 1999, American Sports Data, Inc. for
SGMA, January 2000
According to a 1997 SGMA report3 , the most popular sports for youth
based on “frequent” participation are:
Table 3.16 Total National “Frequent” Youth Participants
Basketball (25+ days /year)
Soccer (25+ days/year)
Baseball (25+days/year)
In-line Skating (52+days/year)
Touch Football (25+days/year)
Volleyball (25+days/year)
Running/jogging (100+days/year)
Slow-pitch Softball (25+ days/year)
Tackle Football (52+ days/year)
Fishing
Number of Participants in
U.S. (in 1,000’s)
12,803
6,971
5,229
3,591
3,590
3,022
2,824
2,717
2,079
2,021
Seven of the ten most popular activities are team oriented. Eight of
the ten require specialized outdoor facilities.
3
Sporting Goods Manufacturers Association, study conducted annually by American
Sports Data, Inc. 1997.
Chapter Three - 37
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
Recreation Program Participation and Needs
The North Jeffco Parks and Recreation District and private sports
associations were contacted to determine how many participants they
have enrolled in each program over the past 5 years as well as to
identify any anticipated increases or decreases in participation, unmet
demand and issues associated with facility quality or quantity. These
sports are baseball, softball, volleyball, soccer, flag football, and tackle
football. The following gives a brief report on each of the sports, and
includes participation for the years 1995–1999. Environmental interest
groups were also contacted, the results of which follow the recreation
program discussion.
Youth participation in Arvada follows similar trends according to the
following program statistics. Basketball programs were not addressed
as these are conducted in gymnasiums, which are not constructed or
maintained by the City.
The following youth sports are managed by various associations, with
field use programmed by North Jeffco.
Boys Baseball and Girls Softball
Two athletics associations run boys baseball programs in the summer
for Arvada youth; Arvada Junior Baseball Corporation (AJBC) and
North Jefferson Junior Baseball Association. Girls Softball is run by
Arvada Girls Softball (AGSA). Games are played on fields at Lutz,
Ralston, Pioneer Park, Terrace Park and Foster Elementary.
Practices are held at elementary and/or middle schools and some City
parks throughout the community. Table 3.12 provides participation
numbers over the last 5 years.
Participation trends over this period suggest a relatively constant and
even demand. Nationally, baseball and softball have seen declines in
participation numbers of 20% and 36% respectively over the past 12
years for all age groups. However, there has been a recent increase
in the popularity of girls softball.
Table 3.17 Participation Numbers for Boys Baseball and Girls Softball
Organization
AJBC
North Jefferson
AGSA
Other Private Groups that use
City Facilities
Totals
1995
966
1,750
672
4,888
Participants
1996
1997
1998
882
1,106
1,078
1,806
1,764
1,610
560
560
592
Estimated annual participants – 1,500
4,748
4,930
4,780
1999
1,050
1,792
560
4,902
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
It is important to note that there are several other youth baseball and
softball programs offered in the Arvada area that use these same
fields which are managed by North Jeffco: American West Little
League, Northwest YMCA, Arvada Cardinals Girls Softball, St. Anne’s,
Jeffco Schools, and individual Christian schools. These groups
account for about another 100 teams or approximately 1,500
individual participants in these sports annually in this community.
An interview with a representative of the Arvada Junior Baseball
Corporation (AJBC) indicated that demand for field use was high,
especially for the younger participants ages 9 to 11 years. However,
no players have been turned away for lack of space in the program.
Game fields are also used in Broomfield when the fields in Arvada are
unavailable. AJBC would like more of the ball fields in City of Arvada
parks to be available. The condition of Arvada ball fields was reported
as satisfactory, except for the removable bases, which often come
loose during play. In addition, it was noted that the infield dirt becomes
very hard after continued use and can lead to injuries among the
players.
An interview with a
representative of the
Arvada Girls Softball
Association (AGSA)
also cited that the
demand for
programmed field time
was very competitive.
However, no players
have been turned away
for lack of space in the
program. Practice field
conditions at Arvada
Middle Schools were
Harold D. Lutz Sports Complex
reported to be variable.
Some use of ball fields
in Arvada city parks does occur, but it was reportedly hard to find an
available field with a skinned infield. AGSA would like to have use of
more ball fields in City of Arvada parks, but with skinned infields.
An interview with representatives of the North Jefferson Junior
Baseball Association also commented on the competition for field
availability. In fact, this association has leased time at a private indoor
practice facility to augment outdoor field assignment. This indoor
facility is used for approximately 25% of practice time. The remainder
of the practice time occurs at elementary and middle schools with
Chapter Three - 39
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
some use of City parks. These school fields are shared with soccer
teams also practicing and safety concerns arise when a baseball is hit
into an area occupied by soccer players.
While no players have had to be turned away due to lack of space to
date, the North Jefferson Junior Baseball Association is considering
capping enrollment in the future given the stiff competition for field
time. Game fields are also in short supply at Lutz Sports Complex,
Foster Complex, and Pioneer Park due to the scheduling of adult
softball at these facilities as well. Because of the strong demand for
fields, the initial scheduling of games leaves very few opportunities for
rescheduling due to weather delays. Approximately 400 games
required rescheduling last year. Often home games must be
rescheduled in adjacent communities including Wheatridge, Golden,
Lakewood, and Columbine.
Youth Soccer
Arvada Soccer Association (ASA) runs youth soccer programs in fall
and spring. Practices are held at a variety of fields throughout
Arvada, and most games are held at the Stenger Soccer Complex.
This association runs leagues that are primarily recreational in nature.
In addition, there is a
competitive soccer
club, The Legends,
which is a Westminster
based organization
that serves that city as
well as some players
from Broomfield and
Arvada. An estimated
20% of the total
participation numbers
for the Legends are
players from Arvada,
and only this
proportion is listed below. The Legends home game fields are in
Westminster but use practice fields at the Ralston Addition facility and
at Arvada Middle Schools. A small number of the games are held at
Ralston Addition also. Tournaments are held at Stenger Soccer
Complex for the 11 to 16 year old players and at Westminster Soccer
Complex for the 17 to 18 year olds players. Table 3.18 provides
participation numbers over the last 5 years for both these soccer
associations.
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
The increase in participation numbers between 1997 and 1998 are
largely attributed to a difference in how participants were counted.
Prior to 1998, participation was calculated based on the number of
teams that rent practice fields for an entire year. This did not account
for the two different seasons. In 1998 teams were charged for both
the spring and fall seasons, resulting in a more accurate count of
participants per program. In 1999, Arvada soccer experienced a huge
increase in participation of 41%, from 2,288 to 3,200 participants, as
the ASA added U9 and U10 leagues to its program. In addition the
sport has seen participation increase almost every year. Nationally,
soccer has seen an increase in participation as well, with a total 12year growth of approximately 14%. Participation in soccer, as a
percentage of total population, will likely grow at a slower rate in
coming years, with some of this increase attributed to teens that carry
the sport into adulthood.
Table 3.18 Participation Numbers for Youth Soccer
Organization
ASA
Legends
Totals
1995
1,592
106
1,698
Participants
1996
1997
1,576
1,649
112
115
1,688
1,764
1998
2,128
160
2,288
1999
3,025
195
3,220
An interview with the Arvada Soccer Association indicated that use of
the Stenger Soccer Complex for practices and games was adequate,
but that more fields would be needed next Spring. It is anticipated that
when Flag Football moves to new facilities as planned, the additional
field space available at Stenger will be satisfactory to meet anticipated
demand and to allow for rotation of use on the fields to reduce the
damage caused by overuse.
Youth Football
Two associations run youth football leagues: Arvada Midget Football
Association (AMFA) and Rocky Mountain Flag Football Association
(RMFFA). AMFA runs tackle football for 7 to 13 year old players. The 7
to 11 year old players use 60 yard fields and play all their games on
the 3 fields at Youth Memorial Complex, which are dedicated solely for
this use during the fall season. Any changes in the status of these
fields would severely impact AMFA as there are no other 60-yard
fields available. Practices for this age group are held throughout
neighborhood parks and elementary schools in Arvada and are often
shared with other associations such as soccer. The 12 to 13 year old
Chapter Three - 41
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
players use 100-yard fields. Their practices and games are held at the
Jefferson County Middle Schools in Arvada. Four to six school fields
are used for practice with 2 teams per field. Weekly games are
scheduled on 2 or 3 of the fields. When facilities are not available,
practices are held at neighborhood parks.
RMFFA runs youth flag football. They primarily played their games at
Stenger Soccer Complex. Currently, the fields at the new park at 74th
Avenue and Carr Street are also being used. RMFFA actually needs a
total of 6 fields in one location to run their program, and only 4 are
planned at 74th and Carr Street. It is envisioned that once field
development begins at Long Lake Ranch Regional Park, pressure will
be reduced on some of the current athletic complexes and sites, such
as 74th and Carr. Practices for both teams take place at a variety of
parks and elementary schools, often on ballfield outfields or open turf.
Table 3.19 provides participation numbers over the last 5 years for
both these football associations.
Participation numbers over this period show a 20% increase in
demand over 5 years, with the majority occurring in the last year.
National statistics on participation trends in football were not available.
Table 3.19 Participation Numbers for Youth Football
Organization
AMFA
RMFFA
Totals
1995
685
400
1,085
1996
720
385
1,105
Participants
1997
690
400
1,190
1998
715
450
1,165
1999
750
600
1,350
An interview with a representative from the Arvada Midget Football
Association indicated that using the Arvada Middle School fields for
practice generally proceeds smoothly, but can be strained at times.
While the AMFA pays a regular fee to the schools for field use, use of
the fields is determined individually by each school principal. Also,
when a school is closed due to reconstruction, this event significantly
affects the availability of practice fields. The association would like to
have at least one 100-yard field dedicated solely to football so that if
damage does occur from playing while there is snow on the field, the
turf can recover the following spring.
Demand is high, but no players have had to be turned away yet.
Growth and demand is expected to increase in the future.
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
An interview with a representative from the Rocky Mountain Flag
Football Association indicated that more game fields are needed.
Recent enrollment has increased significantly and some potential
participants were denied enrollment this past year. This is a small
program compared to the soccer programs and the organization feels
out competed for field assignment with soccer at Stenger Complex.
Practice fields at elementary schools are also used to the maximum,
but no shortage has occurred compared to game fields.
Adult Softball
Adult Softball leagues are managed by North Jeffco Parks and
Recreation District. The seasons run in spring, summer and fall, with
summer leagues having the highest participation. In the spring and
fall, all games are played at the Harold Lutz Complex. In the summer,
games are played at the Harold Lutz Complex, Youth Memorial
Complex, and Foster Elementary ballfields. Each team has an
average of 14 players. Teams may be all men, all women, or co-ed.
Adult teams do not have assigned practice fields; they use whatever
fields are available. According to North Jeffco staff, in 1999 there were
30 teams on a waiting list because there are not enough fields to
accommodate them. Because of this, the adult softball program has
not been expanded in 7 years as demonstrated in the participation
numbers below. Often, priority for field use is given to youth sports,
with the adult programs assigned to facilities that are lower quality.
Only eight City ballfields currently (nine after completion of the Harold
Lutz Sports Complex) have lights, which limits the number of teams
that can be accommodated per field. Table 3.15 provides participation
According to North Jeffco statistics, participation over the past 5 years
has declined by 546 participants (7%). This reduction represents
approximately 39 teams, while over the same period, the District
reports 30 teams on waiting lists. Across the U.S., softball has
experienced a decrease of approximately 36% in total participation
numbers between 1987 and 1999.
Table 3.20 Participation Numbers for Adult Softball
North Jeffco
Spring
Summer
Fall
Totals
1995
1,232
4,018
2,842
8,092
1996
1,316
4,046
2,702
8,064
Participants
1997
1,358
3,962
2,422
7,742
1998
1,106
3,696
2,688
7,490
1999
1,162
3,696
2,688
7,546
Chapter Three - 43
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
Adult Men’s Senior Baseball
The Metro Senior Baseball League provides programs in the metro
area for men’s baseball, including Arvada residents. Numbers of
Arvada residents that participate in this league was not available.
This league uses one of the large baseball fields at Lutz during fall,
and doesn’t compete for use of the field with youth baseball since
their seasons do not overlap.
Adult Flag Football
Adult flag football is administered by North Jeffco, with one league in
spring and one league in fall. The teams do not have regularly
scheduled practice fields. For the spring league, games are played at
Youth Memorial Complex. In the fall, they are played at Lutz Complex
under the lights. Table 3.21 provides participation numbers over the
last 5 years. Participation statistics over this period show a fairly
constant participation rate over the past 4 years.
Table 3.21 Participation Numbers for Adult Flag Football
North Jeffco
Spring
Fall
Totals
1995
252
300
553
1996
420
408
828
Participants
1997
456
408
864
1998
480
373
852
1999
540
336
876
Adult Volleyball
North Jeffco administers year-round volleyball leagues, with summer
programs utilizing outdoor field space for adult leagues and
tournaments. Field use for leagues consists of ten nets at North
Jeffco Center for the first half of the summer, and then later, Ralston
Center, under the lights. Tournaments are played at various locations,
usually at Youth Memorial Complex. Table 3.22 provides participation
Participation statistics over this period show an increase of 67%, with
the largest increases occurring in the past 2 years.
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
Table 3.22 Participation Numbers for Adult Volleyball
North Jeffco
Outdoor Volleyball Leagues
Summer Outdoor Tournaments
Totals
1995
292
230
522
1996
338
210
548
Participants
1997
1998
368
486
178
234
546
720
1999
500
370
870
Tennis Programs
The North Jeffco Racquet Club runs programs on the 8 courts at the
Arvada Tennis Center. Programs include adult and junior leagues as
well as a structured drop-in time. Table 3.23 shows historic
participation levels in the tennis programs.
Participation numbers show a slightly downward trend until last year,
when all the adult leagues and drop-in experienced an increase. The
tremendous increase in the drop-in numbers is attributed to changing
the available drop-in program length from 2 months to 6 months. In
1999 a new program called Micro Tennis was initiated for young
children which is very exciting. This new technique allows young
players to experience success at a young age, which has been one of
the barriers to participation in the past. Fifty children participated in
this program 1999. Nationally, tennis has seen a decline in the past 12
years (21%). Sufficient tennis courts are available for neighborhood
park informal use. However, the Arvada Tennis Center (with 8 lighted
courts) is the center of league and tournament competition. It also
provides a facility for high school competitions that conflict with league
use. The participation in Racquet Club activities (league, drop-in
program and lessons) and high school tennis is limited by the number
of courts at this facility as evidenced by membership over the last ten
years.
Table 3.23 Participation Numbers for Tennis
North Jeffco Racquet Club
Spring
Lessons
Summer
Lessons
Tournaments
Junior Teams
Fall
Lessons
North Jeffco Racquet Club
Members (adult leagues)
Drop-in
1995
1996
Participants
1997
1998
1999
80
100
90
100
105
400
420
65
375
450
60
350
400
60
360
410
55
340
450
52
70
280
85
290
75
300
90
280
95
300
333
333*
360*
390*
924*
Totals
1,648
1,693
1,635
1,685
2,266
*numbers provided by North Jeffco Racquet Club.
1995 estimated to be same as 1996 for drop-in.
Chapter Three - 45
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
Summary of Sport Facilities Needs and
Recommended Levels of Service
This Master Plan recommends levels of service for additional outdoor
recreational facilities, focusing on sports fields and courts. Levels of
service for specialized facilities (e.g., swimming pools, ice skating
rinks) provided by North Jeffco are not included in this plan. The
recommended levels of service allow the City to proactively develop
specific development programs for its parks to meet the current and
future needs of sports groups rather than being reactive. Key issues
considered to formulate recommendations for facilities included:
recent participation patterns in sports activities, demand for services,
levels of service offered in other communities, interviews with staff
and user groups and the Arvada Parks & Recreation Survey (EDAW,
1999).
One way to identify potential gaps in the provision of parks, trails and
recreational facilities is to compare Arvada with other communities.
Although each community is unique in its ability to fund and maintain
parks, trails and recreational facilities, the age distribution and recreational preferences of residents in communities in this region are fairly
homogenous. Table 3.24 shows a comparison of the level of service
offered in other communities. The communities along the Front
Range were: Fort Collins, Boulder, Aurora, Westminster, Lakewood,
Thornton, Denver, Colorado Springs, and Pueblo. Out-of-state communities providing comparison data included Bellevue, Washington
and Bellingham, Washington. The Washington cities were included
because they have a similar size population as Arvada and provide a
basis of comparison from outside the Front Range region.
As Table 3.24 shows, Arvada is higher than the average in all
categories and amongst the highest for tennis courts, in-line hockey
rinks and skateboard parks.
After considering all the factors, specific recommendations were
made regarding the number and location of specific facilities within
the City. Table 3.25 shows the suggested level of service for Arvada
and the additional facilities that are needed from existing latent
demand and application of that standard to the future population in
the year 2010. For the most part, the targeted level of service
standard closely matches the current level of service the City is
providing. In no case was a standard chosen that would reduce the
level of service below the existing service levels. Discussion of each
type of facility and the rationale behind the recommendations follows
the table.
Football Fields
150 ft X 240 ft or less
160 ft X 360 ft or more
Total Number of Football Fields/Population
Total Soccer/Football Game Fields
Total Number of Football/Soccer Fields/Population
3
2
1
0
0
0
0
2
1:50,000
1
1
1:100,000
1
2
1:70,000
1:140,000
18
25
1:3,256
7
11
1:7,778
13
7
20
1:7,000
4
4
1:17,500
26
1:5,385
6
12
18
1:7,777
City of
Lakewood
Population:
140,000
10
3
1:7,692
15
1
1:6,250
13
2
15
1:6,667
0
0
not applicable
15
1:6,667
9
6
15
1:6,667
City of
Westminster
Population:
100,000
Detailed data unavailable.
Arvada has 18 full-size fields used for soccer that are broken down into a total of 28 mixed size fields. 16 at Stenger and 2 at Ralston.
0
1
1:107,340
1
1:10,7340
1
4
32
1:2,982
10
0
1:10,734
1:10,8981
1:2,658
25
16
1:5,190
21
0
1:4,192
15
1
16
1:6,708
0
0
not applicable
11
1:9,758
Thornton breaks its 23 full-size fields down into approximately 35 fields of various sizes.
Inline Hockey Rinks
165 ft X 80 ft (indoor)
165 ft X 80 ft (outdoor)
Total Number of Inline Hockey Rinks/Population
Skate Parks
Total Number of Skate Parks/Pop.
Tennis Courts
With lights
Without lights
Total Number of Tennis Courts/Population
Outdoor Basketball Courts
Full-size
Half-size
Total Number of Basketball Courts/Population
Unfenced and 200 - 299-ft centerfields
300 - 360-ft centerfields or larger
Total Game Ball Fields
Total Number of Game Fields/Population
Softball/Baseball Fields
Game Fields
13
13
26
8
0
1:13,623
43
1:2,534
Total Game Fields
Total Number of Soccer Fields/Population
65 yds X 100 yds or greater
50 yds X 80 yds or less
3
9
11
1:9,758
City of Boulder
Population:
Population: 108,981
107,340
City of Fort Collins
19
16
35
1:3,114
Soccer Fields
Game Fields
Recreational Facility
April 26, 2000
Comparative Level of Service Between Communities for Selected Recreational Facilities
Arvada Parks, Trails and Open Space Master Plan
Table 3.24
not applicable
0
0
1:71,092
1
11
5
1:4,443
7
0
1:10,156
21 3
0
21
1:3,385
use soccer fields
use soccer fields
not applicable
35
1:2,031
23
1
35
1:2,031
0
4
1:80,933
2
1:161,866
12
33
1:7,194
49
0
1:6,606
18
10
28
1:11,562
27
19
1:7,036
138
1:2,346
59
33
92
1:3,519
0
0
0
1
1:100,000
22
13
1:2,222
36
0
1:2,778
8
0
8
1:12,500
0
1
1:100,000
11
1:9,091
7
3
10
1:10,000
City of Colorado
City of Thornton
Springs
City of Pueblo
Population:
Population:
Population:
71,092
323,731
100,000
Facility, Acres or Miles per Population
not applicable
0
0
1:106,000
1
9
26
1:3,029
14
4
1:5,889
5
9
14
1:7,571
0
2
1:53,000
20
1:5,300
6
12
18
1:5,889
Bellevue,
Washington
Population:
106,000
not applicable
0
0
1
1:61,070
0
27
1:2,262
34
2
1:1,696
14
7
21
1:2,908
not applicable
0
1
1:61,070
1
not applicable
private fields only
private fields only
Bellingham,
Washington
Population:
61,070
1:77,068
1:106,261
1:3,971
0
0
1:6,342
1:6,944
1:10,381
34,085
1:5,389
1:42,038
1:6,094
Avg. of Other
Communities
Providing
Facilities
1
1
1:56,543
2
1:56,543
8
35
1:2,630 (43)
3
27
1:3,770 (30)
1:8,076 (14)
1:9,424 (12)
26
1:4,349
1:22,617
33
1:3,427
5
0
18
28
1:4,039
Arvada
Planning Area
Population
2
Population:
113,086
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
Table 3.25 Recommended Levels of Service for Select Sports Facilities
1
2
3
Recreational
Facility
Average of
Communities
Providing
Data 1
Average of
Select
Communities
(Cities that are
in the upper
range of level
of service)
Arvada
Current
Level of
Service2
Latent
Demand/
Adjusted
Desired Level
of Service
Recommended
Level of
Service
Additional
Facility
Needs in the
Year 20103
(Needsexisting = net
additional
facilities)
Soccer Fields
1:6,096;
n=8
1:4,244;
n=5
1:4.039
Anticipated
increase in
participation by
young adults
Demand
currently being
met
1:3,900
32 – 28 = 4
Football
Fields
1:42,038;
n=6
1:22,617
Softball/Base
ball Fields
1:6,944
n=9
1:15,561;
n=2
most
communities
share with
soccer
1:5,054;
n = 6;
1:20,000
6–5=1
(all 6 should
be in one
location)
2 fields
currently
needed for 30
teams on wait
list
1:4,039
Demand
currently being
met
1:4,000
31 – 26 = 5
Outdoor
Basketball
Courts
1: 6,342;
n=10
Not Applicable
– no significant
difference
1:3,770
1:3,700
34 – 30 = 4
Tennis Courts
1:3,971;
n=9
Not
Applicable– no
significant
difference
1:2,630
Demand
currently being
met
1:2,630
48 – 43 = 5
Inline Hockey
Rink
1:77,068;
n=4
Not Applicabletoo few
communities
remaining to
compare
1:56,543
--
2-3, with one
at Long Lake
Ranch,
O’Kane and
future site to
be
determined
1:71,092 to
1:140,000;
n=7;
average =
104,773
1:113,086
As a growing
sport, most
community
parks and
some
neighborhood
parks should
incorporate
this facility.
Demand has
been
expressed for
several
additional
skateparks in
Arvada
Skate Park
1:106,261
n=9
1:50,000
3 – 1 = 23
1:6,096 = 1 soccer field per 6,096 people
City of Arvada - Year 1998 = 113,086 population
Monitor and adjust according to developing demand
1:5,140
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
Soccer and Football Fields
Currently soccer and football share space for game fields at Stenger.
Four flag football fields are being constructed at 74th and Carr, which
will free up space for additional soccer fields at Stenger. Although
additional fields are not currently needed, this will allow for rotation of
fields to reduce wear and tear. There will be additional need for soccer
fields over the next 10 years as more people move into the city and
teens carry their activities into adulthood. Flag football also needs to
have its fields consolidated, and actually needs a total of 6 fields to
run its programs. Therefore, it is recommended that 4 soccer fields
and 6 multi-purpose football fields be constructed at Long Lake Ranch
to meet the needs of the community.
If feasible, and in order to increase flexibility in programming, it is
recommended that all of these proposed fields be developed as larger
fields with movable goals that allow them to be used as smaller fields
when necessary. Only the soccer fields proposed within sports
complexes should be considered for night lighting. Soccer fields
developed in proposed community parks should be designed without
night lighting to reduce potential impacts to adjacent residential areas.
Also, some soccer practices should be moved back to neighborhood
parks, where possible, in order to reduce damage to the fields at
Stenger and reduce driving distances for area residents. Practices
used to occur in the neighborhood parks, but have in recent years
been scheduled at the sports complex instead. Practices should not
be scheduled in neighborhood parks that do not have on or off-street
parking available, which would significantly impact adjacent residents.
Softball/Baseball Fields
According to the adult softball league, they currently have 30 teams
on a waiting list. Other softball and baseball programs have sufficient
access to fields. To correct for existing deficiencies and to meet
additional demand to the year 2010 using the targeted standard, this
Plan recommends the development of 5 lighted ball fields at Long
Lake Ranch. To maximize flexibility the City should consider designing
the fields with movable outfield fencing and mounds to allow for
changes in needs over the years.
Chapter Three - 49
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
Basketball and Tennis Courts
The City currently has 30 outdoor basketball courts that are used for
drop-in play. Most are in neighborhood parks. The City also has 43
tennis courts. This Plan recommends the development of 4 outdoor
basketball courts and 5 tennis courts to meet anticipated future
demand to the year 2010. These courts should be incorporated into
new neighborhood and community parks and distributed evenly
across the City. The existing courts at the Arvada Tennis Center will
need renovation within a few years, and four additional courts are
needed to catch up and keep pace with demand. Private funding
sources are recommended for additional capital improvements.
Inline Hockey Rinks
Inline hockey is growing in popularity. Some communities have youth
and adult leagues. Although increases in participation are expected, it
is difficult to predict the
demand for these
outdoor rinks.
Basketball courts can
double as inline
hockey rinks with the
addition of perimeter
solid fencing. This
may be an economical
way to accommodate
the demand as it
develops. The City
should monitor the
demand for these
facilities and develop
In-line hockey rink at Secrest Park
playing surfaces as
needed. This Master
Plan anticipates the need for 2-3 additional facilities, however
emerging needs should be closely monitored to determine if further
facility development is needed.
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
Skate Parks
Skateboarding and inline skating continue to be popular among teens
and appear to be more than a passing fad. Skateboard parks provide
a place for teens to socialize and hone their skills. The City currently
has 1 skatepark and there is expressed demand for several additional
facilities in the near future.
Two representatives of the skateboarder community were contacted.
The skateboard facility at Memorial Park is considered to be a good
facility and experiences heavy demand after school and on weekends.
Use is provided on a first come, first serve basis and no formal
scheduling occurs. Both skateboarders and rollerbladers use the
skateboard park. It is suggested that Long Lake Ranch Park include
a skateboard park as well as 1 or 2 other locations distributed around
the City.
BMX Bicycling
The BMX track at the Stenger/Lutz Sports Complex provides
alternative recreation for many young adults in Arvada as well as the
larger region. It is estimated that 1,600 to 2,000 people participate in
the various events that are held over a 6-month period. The course is
open for public use when an event is not being held. At this time,
there is not expressed need for an additional BMX track, however the
City should continue to monitor its popularity and add facilities if use
increases significantly.
Other Specialty Recreational Facilities
The Master Plan recommends providing additional disc golf,
shuffleboard, horseshoe, sledding and exercise courses as
appropriate in selected community and neighborhood parks. Whether
a specific facility is needed or appropriate should be evaluated during
the master plan process for a given park.
Golf Courses
There are no specific recommendations for additional public golf
courses as part of this master plan. A separate study should be
conducted to determine the need for and feasibility of additional golf
courses. The city should explore partnerships with private developers
for future golf courses.
Chapter Three - 51
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
Other Outdoor Recreation and Environmental
Interest Group Needs
Outdoor Camps and Environmental Programs
North Jeffco also offers year-round classes, camps and outdoor
programs for youth of all ages. They have Secrest Youth Center with
“The Deep End,” a teen activity center catering primarily to middle and
high school students. Most Youth Services programs take place at
Secrest Youth Center or other North Jeffco Recreation Centers,
however some programs use city park facilities.
The following programs make use of outdoor parks in addition to the
indoor centers:
After 72nd Avenue is extended, North Jeffco plans to base all its
outdoor recreation programs out of the Majestic View Interpretive
Center.
Table 3.26 Outdoor Camps and Educational Programs in Parks
1
Program
Day Camp
Use
Characteristics
Ages 7-12
Park Used
Secrest
Teen Camp
Ages 11-14
Oak Park
Mini-Clinics
Ages 3-6
Secrest
Preschool
Ages 3-6
Lake Arbor,
Campbell
Cottage &
Ralston
Usage Type
Outdoor
games &
activities
Outdoor
games &
activities
Sports
classes
Playground
use only for
preschoolers
Participation is historic average for last 5 years where possible
Park Use
Times
M-F
20 hrs/wk
June-August
M-F
10 hrs/wk
June-August
M-F
8 hrs/wk
April-October
M-F
2 hrs/wk
September-May
1
Participation
50/wk x 10 wks
22/wk x 10 wks
180/yr
65/yr
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
A representative of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) was
contacted to discuss the needs and future plans for the Two Ponds
National Wildlife Refuge. USFWS would like to see the Two Ponds
Area linked to Majestic View Community Park and Standley Lake via
the canal corridors. Discussions with the City of Arvada, Jefferson
County and the City of Westminster have resulted in the
recommendation that these areas pursue a complimentary
environmental education program. At Majestic View Community Park,
the master plan includes
development of an
extensive environmental
education center. Each
of the 3 sites has been
discussed for the
development of a
connecting trail. At the
Two Ponds area this
would mean expanding
the trail system on the
west and providing
limited access to the
area on the east via
bridges over the canals.
Two Ponds National Wildlife Refuge
Arvada Historical
Society
The Arvada Historical Society uses the pavilion in McIlvoy Park for the
annual “Old Timers Picnic” the last Sunday of August. This event
attracts between 90 to 120 people and uses the pavilion to capacity.
According to the Society, if an additional pavilion structure were
available, then more participants could attend. Condition of the site
was reported as good and the location as convenient. The Society
has had involvement with the design of the proposed Gold Strike Park
near the confluence of Ralston Creek and Clear Creek, but does not
plan to directly use the proposed classrooms in the museum/visitor
center at Gold Strike Park for society functions.
Chapter Three - 53
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
McIlvoy is the oldest park in the City of Arvada. It was recently
renovated by the City of Arvada with a new pavilion and playground
area. This park is the site for the Council main event – the Harvest
Festival – on the 1st weekend after Labor Day. Use of the park works
well for this event.
Arvada Modelers
This group has used the same private property to fly model airplanes
for the last 18 years. A proposed development on the Modeler’s
current site requires the group to search for a new location.
Opportunities for park use have not been available in the past and
would require an approximate 50-acre site. This Modelers group is
the largest in the country and has over 250 members. City staff is
working with this group to explore use of land north of the Arvada
Reservoir.
Parkland and Trail Comparisons
The amount of parkland provided in other communities provides
another basis for determining if Arvada is providing adequate parks
for its residents. The level of service as expressed in acres per 1,000
population of neighborhood and community parkland, as well as each
community’s adopted standards are listed in Table 3.27.
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
Table 3.27 Comparative Level of Service and Current Parkland
Standards in Surveyed Communities
Name of City
(1997 or 1998 population)
Amount of Parkland
Provided
(ac/1,000 pop.)
Parkland Standards
(ac/1,000 pop.)
FRONT RANGE COMMUNITIES
Boulder (pop. 107,340)
Neighb.
Comm.
Total
3.0
1.6
4.6
Neighb.
Comm.
Total
Colorado Springs (pop. 323,731)
Neighb.
Comm.
Sports Compl.
Total
Neighb.
Comm.
Total
Neighb.
Comm.
Total
Neighb.
Comm.
Total
Not available
2.4
2.3
0.8
5.5
2.0
3.0
5.0
2.4
2.8
5.2
2.8
3.5
6.3
Neighb.
2.5
Comm.
3.0
Sports Compl. n/a
Total
5.5
Neighb.
None
Comm.
None
Denver (pop. 500,000)
Fort Collins (pop. 108,981)
Lakewood (pop. 140,000)
Westminster (pop. 100,000)
Pueblo (pop. 100,000 )
Neighb.
Comm.
Total
Average of Front Range
Neighb.
Communities
Comm.
Sports Compl.
Total
OTHER COMMUNITIES
Bellevue, Washington
Neighb.
(pop. 106,000)
Comm.
Total
Bellingham, Washington
Neighb.
(pop. 61,070)
Comm.
Total
Arvada
Neighb.
Comm.
Sports Compl.
Total
5.0
1.0
4.3
2.9
2.4
n/a
5.3
3.4
10.2
13.6
1.2
8.7
9.9
3.6
0.6
1.7
5.9
Neighb.
Comm.
Total
Neighb.
Comm.
Total
Neighb
Comm.
Total
Neighb.
Comm.
1.5
1.5
3.0
2.5
5.5
8.0
3.0
5.0
8.0
2.8
2.5
5.3
None
None
Neighb.
2.1
Comm.
3.5
Sports Compl. n/a
Total
5.6
Neighb.
3.0
Comm.
13.0
Total
16.0
Neighb.
1.6
Comm.
10.0
Total
11.6
Neighb.
3.81
Comm.
5.01
Sports Compl. n/a
Total
8.8
1 City standard prior to adoption of this plan. Proposed standards are 3.6 acres and
4.5 acres for neighborhood and community parks respectively.
Chapter Three - 55
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
Although some variation is shown in Table 3.27, the majority of Front
Range cities surveyed provide between 1.0 acre and 3.5 acres of
community parkland per 1,000 population with an average of
2.4 acres/1,000 population. The two out-of-state comparisons provide
a substantially greater amount of community parkland per population.
The City of Arvada offers a substantially lower amount of community
parkland (0.7 acres/1,000 pop.) than the average Front Range
community when sports complexes are not considered. When Arvada
adds in the sports complexes total the average is similar to other
communities with 2.3 acres/1,000 pop. All communities fall short of
their community parkland standards and Arvada falls far below its
previous standard of 5 acres/1,000 population.
Most communities do not have as much parkland devoted to sports
complexes as Arvada does. Many cities have just recently begun to
separate sports complexes from their community parks. These
existing sports complex facilities are not synonymous with community
parks because they serve only a select portion of the population and
not the community at large. However they do play an important role in
meeting overall community needs.
The amount of variation in neighborhood park acreage is less. As
shown in Table 3.24, the Front Range cities surveyed provide between
2.0 acres and 5.0 acres of neighborhood parkland per 1000
population. The average amount of neighborhood parkland provided
is 2.9 acres per 1000 population. The two out-of-state comparisons in
this case provided a similar proportion of neighborhood parkland as
found along the Front Range. The City of Arvada provides an above
average amount of neighborhood parkland (3.6 acres/1000). This is
also very close to the current City’s standard of 3.8 acres/1,000
population.
Urban trail mileage in Arvada was also compared with the miles
provided in select comparable communities. The Primary Off-street
trails as well as other on and off-street trails were included in the
totals for Arvada. If only Primary Off-street trails were used, the level
of service would be 0.24 miles/1,000 population, which is very similar
to many of the other communities. Table 3.28 shows that the City of
Arvada provides an above average amount of trails for its population.
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
Table 3.28 Comparison of Trail Mileage Offered within Select Front Range Communities
Communities
Existing
Urban Trails
Existing Trails per Population
Front Range/Colorado
City of Boulder
City of Colorado Springs
City of Fort Collins
City of Lakewood
City of Pueblo
City of Westminster
Front Range Community
Average
City of Arvada
47.5 miles
65.0 miles
24.4 miles
20.0 miles
22.0 miles
40.0 miles
0.10 miles/1,000 population
51.3 miles
Chapter Three - 57
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
CHAPTER FOUR
RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE MASTER PLAN
T
his chapter presents the recommended Master Plan. The Plan
is based on the inventory of existing resources and the needs
and priorities identified by the public and City staff. The
recommendations are presented in the following sequence:
n
Goals and objectives define the parameters for decision making
and prioritization of projects.
n
Parklands are discussed both in terms of introducing a new
classification system as well as recommending level of service
standards and park development projects.
n
Open Space areas are classified in order to define an appropriate
management framework for the various types of properties the
City acquires. Specific properties are identified as Park
Preserves. Other open space areas are generally identified and
will be protected as financing and willing sellers allow.
n
Trail design guidelines and standards are defined, and additions to
the City’s urban trail system are identified.
Goals and Objectives
The purpose of goals is to reflect, at the most general level, the
community’s values, intentions, and aspirations for the physical
growth and development of the City. They form a fundamental
building block for the development of recommendations and
standards.
The following goals and objectives are consistent with the 1995
Arvada Comprehensive Plan and have been developed specifically for
this plan.
Chapter Four - 59
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
Mission: Provide a high quality parks, trails and open space system
for citizens of the Arvada area.
Goal 1. Develop a safe and comprehensive multi-purpose trail
system.
Objectives:
1.1
Acquire and develop an extensive network of trail corridors
throughout the city.
1.2
Provide off-street trail connections, where practical, to
neighborhoods, parks, open space areas, schools, commercial
and employment areas, and other key destinations.
1.3
Incorporate trail corridors into roadway designs, especially
where alternative, off-street connections are not feasible.
1.4
Coordinate with adjacent cities and counties to ensure
connectivity within the regional trail system.
1.5
Utilize existing corridors, such as irrigation canals, power line
easements and stream courses for trail locations.
1.6
Provide trail underpasses or signalized crossings at major
roads (arterial streets and highways).
1.7
Provide parallel soft-surface trails, where feasible and
appropriate, to meet diverse user needs, including walkers,
bird watchers, joggers, mountain bikers and equestrians.
1.8
Provide supporting facilities and amenities along trails,
including trailhead parking, restrooms, benches, picnic tables,
interpretive signs and drinking fountains.
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
Goal 2. Protect and enhance the natural environment, and
develop parks, trails and outdoor recreational facilities in an environmentally sensitive manner.
Objectives:
2.1
Place greater emphasis on the use of non-irrigated
landscapes, native species and low water-requiring plant
materials.
2.2
Preserve areas of high quality natural vegetation.
2.3
Avoid environmentally sensitive areas in locating trails and
other developed facilities.
2.4
Protect water quality through implementation of “Best
Management Practices” in the design of storm water
conveyance and detention facilities.
2.5
Use permeable pavements, recycled materials, locally
manufactured products, locally available materials and low
energy requiring facilities and technologies to the greatest
extent practicable.
2.6
Along key wildlife movement corridors, provide wildlife
underpasses at major road crossings.
2.7
Provide city residents with information on the benefits of
sustainable landscapes through demonstration gardens,
backyard wildlife programs, and interpretive signage.
2.8
Implement area-specific resource management plans for open
space properties that define the appropriate level of public use
and ecosystem management strategies.
Chapter Four - 61
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
Goal 3. Provide parks and recreational facilities to meet the
programmed and unprogrammed recreational needs
of Arvada area residents.
Objectives:
3.1
Acquire and develop an adequate amount of parkland to meet
the diverse needs of the community.
3.2
Design balanced parks that address the need for a variety of
programmed and unprogrammed uses.
3.3
Ensure that existing unmet demands and future demands are
met through the development of new outdoor recreational
facilities.
3.4
Renovate degraded and outdated park and trail facilities, as
appropriate, to meet current design standards, including the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Consumer Product
Safety Commission (CPSC) and ASTM standards.
3.5
Continue to support North Jeffco Park and Recreation
District’s efforts to provide programming for outdoor recreation.
3.6
Participate in historic preservation projects related to parks or
open space properties.
3.7
Provide opportunities for environmental education within parks
or open space areas.
3.8
Provide community festival spaces and outdoor performance
areas within the park system.
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
Goal 4. Protect important open space areas in and around
the City.
Objectives:
4.1
Target and protect open space areas that are priorities for
protection, including:
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
Riparian areas and drainage corridors
Important wildlife habitat and corridors
Areas with threatened or endangered species
Areas of unique natural vegetation
Agricultural areas and uses
Water bodies
Community buffers
Scenic areas
View corridors
Strategically located undeveloped land within already
developed areas of the city
Historic and cultural resource sites
Work with other public and private organizations to study
and identify critical natural areas for preservation
4.2
Utilize the development review process and appropriate
regulations to avoid development of sensitive areas such as
ridge lines, riparian zones, and other environmentally sensitive
areas.
4.3
Cooperate with other jurisdictions to promote the protection of
larger, consolidated areas and to leverage available funding.
4.4
Preserve existing trees and native vegetation where possible.
4.5
Conduct landowner outreach programs and other activities
designed to promote donations and voluntary conservation of
open space.
Chapter Four - 63
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
Goal 5. Equitably distribute and provide convenient access to
parks, outdoor recreational facilities and trails
throughout the City.
Objectives:
5.1
Locate neighborhood parks within safe walking distance of the
residents they are intended to serve.
5.2
Provide all city residents with convenient vehicular and trail
access to community parks.
5.3
Cooperate with other jurisdictions in the development of
regional parks to provide Arvada residents with additional
recreational opportunities.
5.4
Connect parks to residential areas with off-street, multi-use
trails and complementary on-street trails to the greatest extent
feasible.
5.5
Locate specific outdoor recreational facilities (e.g. practice and
game fields, trails, tennis courts, etc.) within a reasonable
distance of the people who use them.
Goal 6. Maintain parks, trails and open space areas at a high
level of quality, appropriate for the type of use and
nature of the facility.
Objectives:
6.1
Establish maintenance standards for the various types of parks
and other properties the city maintains.
6.2
Annually assess needed maintenance and renovation projects
system-wide.
6.3
Manage fields to prevent overuse and irreparable damage to
playing surfaces.
6.4
Select durable materials for construction of new facilities.
6.5
Maintain properties and facilities in accordance with an
adopted management plan.
6.6
Identify those areas with native vegetation, wetlands or wildlife
habitats as exempt from the portion of the City’s weed ordinance that requires mowing.
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
Goal 7. Develop an adequate level of funding for planning,
acquiring, developing, enchancing and maintaining
parks, trails and open space.
Objectives:
7.1
Aggressively seek funding from GOCO and other grant
sources.
7.2
Identify alternative long-term funding sources for maintenance.
7.3
Explore the feasibility of establishing a foundation for supporting parks, open space and trails projects.
7.4
Explore the level of community support for a sales tax increase
to fund specific parks, trails, and open space projects.
7.4
Adopt impact fees or other funding mechanisms based on a
policy that new growth should pay for the additional parks and
recreational facility demands it creates.
7.5
Coordinate with other agencies and seek partnerships to
leverage available funding.
7.6
Support funding for additional park staff positions as the open
space, parks and trails system grows.
Open Space Classifications
Various types of open space have been categorized in order to define
the appropriate management emphasis for a specific property as
shown in Table 4.1. Some properties may have sensitive environmental resources that would be compromised if extensive use were
allowed. Another management philosophy may be more appropriate
for limited facility development and public use. All areas would need
to be exempted from the City’s weed ordinance in order to avoid
mandatory mowing heights. The proposed classification system is as
follows.
Chapter Four - 65
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
Table 4.1 Open Space Classifications
Classification
Park Preserve
Acreage
100 acres or
greater
Natural Areas
10 acre
minimum
Special Resource
Areas
Varies
Purpose/Function
Protects large areas with
natural resource values of
community-wide
significance. Provides
opportunities for natureoriented, outdoor recreation.
Protects natural values on
parcels smaller than the
park preserves. Often
located along stream
corridors. Provides
opportunities for natureoriented, outdoor recreation,
which may include multipurpose trails.
Protects areas with
important natural, cultural,
and other community values.
These may include areas of
significant vegetation,
important and sensitive
habitats, scenic areas, or
areas that contribute to the
urban shaping and buffering
goals of the community.
Management Guidelines
Emphasis is on achieving an
appropriate balance between resource
protection and public use.
Emphasis is on resource protection with
some public access provided.
Limited site area can be dedicated to
park-like uses, including roads, parking,
trails, environmental
education/interpretive areas, picnic
sites, and visitor support facilities.
Emphasis is on protection of the values
that qualify the area for designation as a
special resource area. Where
detrimental to the protected resource,
public access will not be provided and
no facilities will be developed. If public
access is not desirable or needed,
conservation easements may be a
suitable preservation tool.
Open Space Projects
Approximately 3,800 acres of open space are conceptually shown on
Map 8, Master Plan. The open space is focused on the drainages,
water bodies, visible ridges, expansions to existing open space areas
and key wildlife habitat. The open space includes areas that have not
yet been categorized
as either Natural Areas
or Special Resource
Areas, as well as
specific areas that
have been designated
Park Preserves. For
areas that have not yet
been classified,
specific designations
should be developed
when the property is
protected and a
management plan
developed that is
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
specific for that property. Open space areas have been identified
based on their lack of existing development, scenic value and value
as wildlife habitat. Many of these areas also serve as buffers between
Arvada and adjacent communities or as trail corridors to connect with
adjacent communities. Open space areas may be owned outright by
the City or other preservation group, conservation easements may be
placed on the properties, or other methods employed to protect the
land from development.
Open space that has been classified as Park Preserve is shown on
the master plan map. These areas are specifically identified as
follows:
Park Preserves
Arvada Reservoir and
Tucker Lake (788
acres). Arvada
Reservoir is owned
and managed by the
Arvada Utilities
Department. The land
surrounding Tucker
Lake is partially owned
by Jefferson County.
This land will be
transferred to the City
of Arvada and
additional access
Arvada Reservoir
developed. These
sites provide wonderful
opportunities for public recreation including fishing, wildlife
observation, picnicking and other passive outdoor recreation activities.
Boating and body-contact sports are not allowed at the Arvada
Reservoir due to the requirements for preserving water quality in the
Arvada reservoirs.
Leyden Lake Area (96 acres). This lake and surrounding lands will
soon be owned by Arvada. Development of this site may include a
parking lot, trails, picnic facilities, fishing docks and interpretation and
visitor support facilities. Flood control structures are planned for this
site and must be constructed prior to allowing public access.
Hyatt Lake (125 acres). This lake and surrounding lands may be
acquired and made available for wildlife enhancement projects and
public access.
Chapter Four - 67
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
Trail Classifications, Design Guidelines and Standards
The following discussion has been based on a recent publication of
Colorado State Parks entitled, “Planning Trails with Wildlife in Mind –
A Handbook for Trail Planners” (1998). The construction of a trail
always results in some impact. Specifically, the vegetation is removed
in the process of building a trail. In addition, once the trail is built its
presence can change the surrounding environment. For example, the
trail is likely to have created a new ecological edge, perhaps
increasing the intensity of sunlight and prompting a shift in the
composition of wildlife and plant species affecting biological diversity.
If trail users stay on a trail they are more likely to be perceived as
acting in a predictable fashion and therefore viewed as less of a
threat. However, there may be sufficient disturbance along a trail for
some wildlife species to abandon their nests, decline in parental care,
shorten feeding times, and/or move away permanently.
Trail corridors should be designed from a regional perspective in an
effort to balance across the landscape the needs of wildlife and
recreationists. In order to maintain natural processes along a stream
corridor, provide an upland buffer on both sides of a stream, which is
wide enough to control overland flows from the surrounding
landscape, provide a conduit for upland species, and offer suitable
habitat for floodplain species displaced by beaver flooding or channel
migration.
In addition, the following design considerations are recommended:
n
Minimize the zone of influence by reducing the width of the trail to
the extent that a balance is achieved between the development of
a multi-use trail system and the preservation of wildlife habitat.
n
Align a trail along or near an existing human-created ecological
edge rather than bisecting undisturbed areas or large areas of
wildlife habitat to minimize habitat fragmentation.
n
Restrict the density of trails within and near high quality wildlife
habitat areas.
n
Select degraded areas with potential for restoration.
n
Leash pets or seasonally exclude to reduce conflicts with wildlife.
The following is a description of the various trail types in Arvada
followed by a table that summarizes their specific design standards.
All trails shall be designed and constructed to current ADA standards
and City of Arvada specifications.
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
Primary Trails
These trails are the backbone of the city-wide trail system. They are
public, multi-purpose trails for paved, non-motorized recreational
uses, such as hiking, biking, jogging, strolling, skating, and nonpaved, non-motorized recreational uses, such as mountain biking,
walking, hiking and horseback riding. Primary trails are also used as
alternative transportation corridors for bicyclists who prefer trails to the
on-street system. Typically, these trails are located along natural
stream corridors or canals. Primary trails typically consist of a
minimum 10’ wide concrete trail plus a parallel attached or
meandering soft-surface trail.
Community On-Street Trails
These trails are public trails along roadways that are part of the City’s
arterial street and transportation system. They tend to be more
transportational than recreational and connect residents to
destinations like primary trails, shopping, parks and schools.
Local Off-Street Trails
There are two types of local off-street trails: Secondary or Intraneighborhood Trails; and Local Access or Connector Trails.
Secondary or Intra-neighborhood Trails are public, detached, offstreet trails connecting residents and neighborhood groups to destinations like schools, parks and shopping within and/or beyond the limits
of the residential development. These trails will also connect residents to primary trails which provide access throughout the community.
Local Access or Connector Trails are public or private detached, offstreet trails connecting homeowners to internal neighborhood destinations like RTD stops or mail clusters.
The following are design criteria for the 3 types of trails proposed in
the City.
Chapter Four - 69
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
Table 4.2 Trail Design Criteria
Primary Off-street Trails
Community On-street
Trails
Local Off-street Trails
Main Trail Width
10’ Minimum.
Main Trail Surface
Concrete. No openings
greater than ½” per ADA
5’ with 3’ shoulders nonpaved
Crushed granite or natural
surface
130’ preferred
6.5’ (8’ if no on-street bike
lane possible)
greater than ½” per ADA.
7’ on-street striped bike lane
(5’ with 2’gutter)
Same as roadway pavement
6.5’ local access
8’ secondary
greater than ½” per ADA.
NA
50’ preferred
NA
5% maximum for extended
grades. Other grades per
ADA standards unless no
alternatives are available due
to steep terrain.
1 - 3% max.
12’. Adequate signage
where clearance is shorter.
3’ mowed on each side of
trail. Design for pruning and
occasional mowing for 10’ on
each side of trail.
40’ min. at tight corners and
switchbacks. More gentle
elsewhere. Adequate
signage where radius is
shorter. 12’ min. for soft
surface trails.
15’ corner radius to
accommodate maintenance
vehicles. 8’ where vehicles
are not anticipated.
10’ or more where feasible.
grades. Other grades per ADA
standards unless no
to steep terrain.
1 - 3% max.
12’. Adequate signage where
clearance is shorter.
3’ zone clear of hazards either
side.
grades. Other grades per
ADA standards unless no
to steep terrain.
1 – 3% max.
12’. Adequate signage
where clearance is shorter.
3’ zone clear of hazards
either side.
Center lane striping where
use levels warrant.
10’ min. 14’ preferable.
Guardrails or fencing along
steep drops within 5’ of trail.
As needed for regulations
and desired for interpretation
and wayfinding
Restrooms and drinking
fountains/water jug fillers at
strategic trailheads and as
provided by nearby
commercial uses. (see
trailheads) Benches and trail
markers at strategic points.
Parallel Trail Width
Parallel Trail Surface
Sight Distance on Main
Trail
Grades
Cross Slope
Vertical Clearance
Shoulders
Trail Centerline Radius
Radius at Intersections
of Trails
Separation from
Roadway
Striping
Underpass width
Guardrails
Signage
Amenities
NA
NA
8’
NA
8’ or more where feasible
20’ min. where feasible
NA
NA
As needed for regulations and
desired for interpretation and
wayfinding
As appropriate.
As needed for regulations
and desired for interpretation
and wayfinding
As appropriate.
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
Trail Projects
This plan recommends continuing the acquisition of the right-of-way
for and construction of paved and unpaved trails through the
community. Priority should be placed on acquiring the right-of-way for
trails in areas that are threatened by development. The goal is to
complete the trails along Van Bibber Creek, Little Dry Creek, Ralston
Creek and Leyden Creek, from east to west across the community, as
well as to develop a trail along the Farmers Highline and Croke Canal
Ditches from Standley Lake to Van Bibber Creek. Specific design
criteria for these trails are discussed later in this report. The new
Primary Off-street trails shown on the master plan total approximately
30 miles, which would result in a total of approximately 57 miles
throughout the City and its surrounding area. These form the spine of
the City’s trail system.
Canal Trail
This corridor has been
identified as a
regionally significant
trail. It also provides
good north-south
access through Arvada
and connection to
Westminster.
Approximately 8 miles
of trail are within the
City. Specific links are:
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
Van Bibber Creek
Proposed canal trail
north to 64th
Avenue.
64th Avenue north to 72nd.
72nd Avenue north to Indiana Equestrian Center.
Indiana Equestrian Center north and east to Alkire Street.
Alkire Street underpass and east to Simms Street.
Simms Street east to Kipling Street.
Kipling Street underpass at 72nd Avenue.
Kipling Street east to Majestic View Park
Majestic View Park north to Standley Lake Park.
Canal trail trailhead near Standley Lake Library
Chapter Four - 71
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
Ralston Creek Trail
Much of the Ralston Creek Trail is complete through the developed
portion of Arvada. Specific segments that are targeted as part of this
Master Plan are:
n
n
n
n
n
Through Westwoods Golf Course along Ralston Creek and north
to Tucker Lake
Through O’Kane Park.
Ward Road underpass
Pierce Street to Lamar Street
Pierce Street underpass
Leyden Creek Trail
This trail corridor is largely undeveloped. This plan recommends
completion of the trail from the city to SH 93. Specific segments are:
n
n
n
n
n
n
Leyden Creek Park north and west to Alkire Street
Alkire Street underpass
Alkire to Indiana Street
Indiana Street underpass
Leyden Lake to Quaker Street
Quaker Street to SH 93
Van Bibber Creek Trail
A large segment of this trail exists through Van Bibber Open Space,
west of Ward Road, and along the creek east of Ward through the
Stenger Sports Complex. Segments need to be constructed at either
end to connect to the Ralston Creek Trail, Canal Trail and ultimately to
Long Lake Ranch and County open space west of SH 93. Specific
segments include:
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
Lutz east to North Jeffco Park as part of drainage improvements
Ward Road underpass
Indiana Street west to McIntyre Street
McIntyre Street underpass
McIntyre Street to Easley Road
Easley Road to Long Lake Ranch
Long Lake Ranch to SH 93
Other Off-Street Trail Connections
n
n
Indiana west along Moon Gulch to Tucker Lake (by developer)
Tucker Lake north along Tucker Ditch to Leyden Creek (by
developer)
u
n
n
n
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
Little Dry Creek from Lakecrest Park to Michael Northey Park
Little Dry Creek from Alkire Street to Indiana Street (by developer)
Indiana Street Trail/80th Avenue to Little Dry Creek Trail (CDOT
widening of Indiana Street should incorporate a trail link and
railroad underpass at 84th.)
Park Classifications and Standards
Park classifications allow the city to establish criteria for their location
and level of service standards, as well as to define appropriate
facilities within the various parks. The value of these classifications
and standards is to provide guidance in the development and
management of various types of parks and to promote development
of a parkland system that offers consistent and equitable service to
City residents. The classification system for parks is categorized as
follows:
Table 4.3
Parkland Classifications and Standards
Classification
Neighborhood
Park
Desirable
Acreage
5-12 acres
Purpose/Function
Site Characteristics
Provides nearby recreation and leisure
opportunities within walking distance (onehalf mile) of residential areas. Should serve
as a common area for neighbors of all ages
to gather, socialize and play.
Locate adjacent to
elementary or junior
high schools when
possible.
Typically would include a paved, multipurpose area for court games/in-line skating
or two tennis courts, a multi-purpose play
field with backstop, play equipment, ADA
accessible trails and shaded areas for
picnics and sitting within a landscaped
setting that is a blend of full irrigation for
active uses and xeriscape. Features such
as interpretive signs, water bodies, and
areas of natural vegetation may also be
included where appropriate. In most cases,
programmed sports activities should be
limited to practices. On-street parking is
typically adequate, unless a rental picnic
pavilion is included, or other feature that
generates a large volume of automobile
traffic that cannot be accommodated on the
available street frontage.
Mini-Parks
Less than
3 acres
School/Park facilities include many of the
same neighborhood standards, except that
school/parks should include: game fields
(preferably two), off-street parking that is
situated for school and park purposes, and a
playground designed for age groups not
served by school playgrounds.
Serves a neighborhood where opportunities
for a larger park site are unavailable.
Typically considered to serve residents
within one-quarter mile of the park. Due to
limited size, may only contain a few of the
elements typical of a standard neighborhood
park.
Level of
Service
3.6 acres /
1,000 pop.
Centrally locate within
area served around
existing natural
habitat, along trail or
drainage corridors, or
at urban centers.
Accessible via trail.
Portions of the site
should be relatively
flat to accommodate
fields and facility
development.
Similar
to those required for
neighborhood parks.
Part of
neighborhood
park standards.
Chapter Four - 73
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
Table 4.3 Parkland Classifications and Standards (continued)
Classification
Community
Park
Desirable
Acreage
30-100
acres
Purpose/Function
Site Characteristics
Provides opportunities for community wide
activities and facilities. Should maintain a
balance between programmed sports
facilities and other community activity areas
such as urban forests, gardens, water
features, performance areas, festival
spaces, plazas, etc. and have features that
appeal to the broader community. Sports
complexes do not serve the same
recreational functions as community parks.
flat to accommodate
fields and facility
development. Special
site features such as
streams, lakes,
forests, rock outcrops,
historic or archaelogic
sites and other
interesting elements
may add to the
unique character of
the park.
Community Parks should generally be
located so as to provide all residents
access to a community park within 2 miles
of their home. Community Parks may also
serve as the local neighborhood park for
residential areas within ½ mile.
Sports
Complexes
Regional Park
Varies
Varies
Provides opportunities for community-wide
programmed and non-programmed sports
such as: baseball, softball, soccer, tennis,
in-line hockey, and skateboarding in higher
intensity use facilities. Limited areas for
passive recreation uses and other features
that appeal to the broader community.
Strategically located to fill service gaps for
specialized sports facilities.
Provides facilities and recreational
amenities intended to serve city residents
as well as the surrounding region. As such,
regional parks typically involve partnerships
involving several jurisdictions who come
together to provide a service or benefit that
they can’t individually afford or that they
can provide more economically through a
partnership. Typically, regional parks
contain a mix of active sports fields, open
space and other amenities.
Community park functions can be included
to meet community park demands within a
2-mile radius.
Level of
Service
4.5 acres /
1,000 pop.
Includes sports
complex
acreage.
Target a
minimum of 2.5
acres/1,000 of
Community
Parkland not
including Sports
Complexes.
Ideally, will have good
access from a
collector or arterial
street.
Direct access to
regional trail system
desirable.
Majority of site should
be relatively flat to
accommodate sports
fields.
Locate away from
residential areas to
avoid light and noise
conflicts.
flat to accommodate
fields and facility
development. Special
site features such as
streams, lakes,
forests, rock outcrops,
historic or archaelogic
sites and other
interesting elements
may add to the
unique character of
the park.
Part of
Community
Parkland
Standard
Not applicable,
but some park
acreage may be
used to satisfy
community park
needs and
therefore be
calculated into
the total
community
parkland
available in the
City.
Direct access from an
arterial street.
Special
Purpose Parks
Varies
Serves a singular or very focused
community need, such as a horticulture
center, environmental education center,
working farm, performance area, urban
plaza, equestrian center and civic park.
Direct access to
regional trail system
Varies
Not applicable
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
Parkland standards and locational criteria are defined for
Neighborhood and Community Parks because they form the
backbone of the park system in the community, providing basic parks
for the majority of Arvada residents. These standards are used to
establish a fee basis for new development to ensure that it pays for its
proportional share of the system. The Community Parkland standard
is based on the inclusion of Sports Complexes, since the facilities
located in Sports Complexes accommodate community needs that
frequently are provided in community parks as well (e.g., sports fields,
picnic, etc.). It is recommended that improvements be made to
include more typical community park facilities in selected sports
complexes.
Parkland standards are not defined for Mini parks, Regional parks or
Special Purpose Parks. Mini Parks are considered part of the
neighborhood park system and are included in the overall standard for
neighborhood parks.
Regional Parks are either natural resource based or unique projects
that present themselves through partnerships with other jurisdictions,
and as such, do not require an acreage standard. Similarly, Special
Purpose Parks are focused on a specific need or user, and cannot be
translated to a standard throughout the community.
Proposed Park Projects
Map 8 of the Master Plan shows the location of proposed parks for
the City. Development of these projects as described below would
result in a total of 286 acres of Community Parkland and 186 acres of
sports complexes. This, together with approximately 60-80 acres of
Long Lake Ranch Regional Park, results in a total of 550 acres of
parkland that serves all Arvada residents. Development of this
recommended project would basically meet the proposed 4.5 acre/
1,000 population standard proposed for Community Parks.
Neighborhood parks are currently available to City residents at a level
of 3.6 acres/1,000 population. To meet the anticipated population
growth and still maintain the same standard, approximately 43
additional acres of neighborhood parkland would need to be
developed. The City currently has 77 acres of undeveloped
neighborhood parkland, and the projects listed below represent
development of approximately 46 acres. In addition, new
neighborhood park sites will be acquired as developments occur.
Chapter Four - 75
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
Neighborhood Park Projects
This Plan recommends that a neighborhood park be located within 1/2
mile of all Arvada residents at a neighborhood parkland standard of
3.6 acres per 1,000 population. Although Arvada is generally well
served in existing areas, there are specific areas with deficiencies,
such as the southeast and northwest areas. In order to meet the
anticipated future demand for neighborhood parks, and correct
existing deficiencies, this Plan specifically recommends financing the
following:
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
Purchase of property and development of a neighborhood park in
the south central portion of the city, which is now underserved by
parks. (est. 5 acres)
Completion of the park at 74th and Carr. (7 acres)
Develop Skyline Estates Park, (18 acres)
Complete Rainbow 1 Park
Develop landscaping and trail at Garrison Lake (1 acre)
Acquire and develop neighborhood park for residents south of
Standley Lake open space (est. 8 acres) near the Hills at Standley
Lake development in the northwest area of the City
Develop Meadows at Westwood neighborhood park. (4 acres)
Acquire and develop new neighborhood parks as new development occurs.
This plan also recommends adjustment of the neighborhood park
development impact fee to ensure that it completely covers the costs
of designing and constructing neighborhood parks.
Community Park Recommendations
This Plan recommends that community parks be developed within 2
miles of all city residents to equitably distribute this type of park
throughout the community. The Plan also recommends a combined
community parkland and sports complex acreage standard of 4.5
acres per 1,000 population, a figure comparable to other communities.
In order to meet the anticipated future demand for community parks,
this Plan recommends the following:
n
Development of Majestic View Community Park and acquisition of
remaining private lands in the Majestic View Master Plan, total 75
acres, including 17 acres existing park.
u
n
n
n
n
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
Development of a
first phase of
O’Kane Community
Park, total 100
acres.
Development of the
28 acres of vacant
land associated
with Lake Arbor
Park.
Development of
Gold Strike Park
and acquisition of
10 or more acres of
additional lands to
create a community O’ Kane Park site
park in the
southeast area of the City.
Continued development of Community Park amenities in Long
Lake Ranch Regional Park as budgets allow.
Within these proposed parks, the acreage devoted to sports facilities
and their associated parking should be balanced with other types of
individual and group recreational opportunities. Adequate room
should be provided for group picnic areas, water features,
performance plazas and amphitheaters, natural areas, open-play turf
areas, gardens and open meadows.
It is also recommended that the City adopt a community facilities
impact fee for acquisition and development of community parks and
sports facilities to ensure that new development pays for its share of
needed community parkland. This fee would apply only to residential
units, as this type of development and its occupants drives the need
for additional parkland.
Sports Complexes
Currently the City has 186 acres of Sports Complexes. This plan
recommends the development of a first phase of Long Lake Ranch
Regional Park to meet the sports facility needs of the community for
the next 10 years as well as to contribute to community park needs for
this area of the City. The area identified for first phase of
development is approximately 60 acres in size and would include 5
ballfields, 4 soccer fields and 6 flag football fields as well as needed
parking and support facilities. The recommendations were based on
a recommended level of service for specific sports fields and courts,
which are discussed later in this plan.
Chapter Four - 77
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
Stenger, Lutz, Pioneer and Youth Memorial Parks are all in need of
upgrades to either complete projects that have been already started,
or to improve the function and appeal of the parks to the larger, nonsports oriented
community. The
specific information
regarding each of
these projects is
included later in this
plan. In total, this
would result in
approximately 246
acres of sports
complex land in the
city (including the 60
acres in Long Lake
Ranch Regional Park
discussed above).
Stenger Sports Complex
Combined with the
community park
projects the total level of service would be approximately 4.5 acres per
1,000 population.
As mentioned earlier, the proposed Community Facilities Impact Fee
should cover the cost to acquire, design and develop sports facilities
associated with new growth.
The Master Plan recommends that a new category of park be created
to accommodate parks such as the Equestrian Center and the newly
proposed Dog Park. These are the only parks currently in this
category. The recommended projects are to improve the equestrian
center property to add a trailhead with parking and a picnic pavilion,
and to participate in the private effort to develop a park for off-leash
dog use.
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
Capital Enhancements to Existing Parks
Approximately $5 to $8 million dollars worth of improvements to
existing parks have been identified by the Parks Maintenance
Division. These improvements include items such as irrigation system
replacements, walk reconstruction, play area renovations to meet new
safety and accessibility standards, landscape renovations to reduce
water use, and picnic shelter renovations, as well as minor
enhancements in existing parks to make them more attractive to the
users. These enhancements are needed to maintain the high quality
of park design that the City currently enjoys and values.
Chapter Four - 79
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
CHAPTER FIVE
IMPLEMENTATION
T
his chapter summarizes the existing and potential revenue
sources, costs and implementation strategies for realizing the
master plan by the year 2010. Priorities for the projects to be
financed were established by the Citizen’s Advisory Committee.
Financing Plan
A specific financing plan has been developed to fund each priority
project proposed for construction within the next ten years. More
general financing recommendations are offered for projects proposed
for funding in years 11 through 20. The financing plan has been
developed with help from a financing subcommittee of the Master
Plan Citizens’ Committee. Ideas presented in this section were
discussed within the subcommittee and then brought forth to the full
Committee for further review and adoption.
This section summarizes the financial philosophy that underlies the
plan, and summarizes the recommendations. The appendix contains
a matrix that describes each financing resource that has been
considered.
Current Financing of Park Improvements
The City uses ten primary sources of funding to finance its park
acquisition, development, operations and maintenance activities.
—
The General Fund helps finance park planning and park
maintenance.
—
Park Development Fees fund a substantial portion of
neighborhood park land acquisition and development that is
needed to serve new development.
—
Fees-in-Lieu, which are contributed in lieu of land dedication,
also help fund neighborhood park land acquisition and
development.
—
Jefferson County “City Attributable Share,” which is a formulabased allocation of the half-cent county-wide open space sales
tax, is used to fund park planning, operations and
maintenance.
Chapter Five - 81
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
—
Jefferson County Open Space Joint Venture Project revenues,
which are available on a competitive basis, are used to fund
land acquisition and park development for specific projects.
—
Jefferson County Open Space Trails 2000 Program revenues,
which are also available on a competitive basis, are used to
fund a portion of the County trails system which is in Arvada.
—
Jefferson County Open Space - Regional Sports Program
funds are currently available to fund a portion of Long Lake
Ranch improvements; fields for future sports field development
may be available.
—
Jefferson County R-1 School District is not a source of
revenue but represents a cost savings through its in-kind
contributions for athletic fields at school parks.
—
The Conservation Trust Fund is a formula-driven source of
funds from the State through the Colorado Lottery. Arvada
uses these funds to acquire, develop and maintain local park,
trail and open space areas.
—
Great Outdoors Colorado is a source of state funds available
through the Colorado Lottery on a competitive basis. Arvada
has received grants for a variety of projects from this source
during the seven years that funds have been available.
—
Jefferson County Open Space - Save Open Space (SOS)
Bond Issue Revenues. Jefferson County voters approved
using a portion of the 0.5 percent sales tax revenues for the
issuance of debt for open space acquisition. Funds are
available from 2000 to 2002. Arvada anticipates using this
revenue source to fund eight priority land acquisition projects,
totaling about $9.3 million.
Financing Plan Objective and Policy Considerations
The financing plan objective is to fund all priority projects within ten
years using resources that are predictable and have a strong
likelihood of availability. Several broad policy considerations
influenced the recommended sources of funding for the priority
projects. These are:
a. insuring that new residential development pays for its fair share of
neighborhood and community parks;
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
b. funding open space land acquisition quickly to avoid the rising
cost of land;
c. packaging State and County grant applications with matching
funds that insure a high probability of success;
d. providing funds for operations and maintenance of recommended
projects, and;
e. remaining opportunistic as new funding opportunities emerge
which enable the City to leverage its financial resources.
—
New Residential Development Pays Its Fair Share. The
financing plan includes a recommendation that the
neighborhood park fee be adjusted upward to fund all
neighborhood park improvements needed to serve new
growth. This is the only recommended funding source for new
neighborhood parks. However, there are substantial proposed
funds to improve, expand, refurbish and complete
neighborhood parks in existing neighborhoods.
In addition, the financing plan recommends the establishment
of a community park fee, perhaps as an increase to the
neighborhood park development fee. This community park fee
would help fund improvements to community parks only.
Currently there is no funding source specifically designated for
community park improvements.
—
Funding Open Space Quickly. There is some significant
urgency in funding projects that have an open space
component. The land designated for open space acquisition
might not be available for acquisition as development
pressures in the City intensify. Also, there is concern that the
cost of land may increase more rapidly than the general rate of
inflation, making future acquisition more difficult.
—
Packaging Grant Applications. There are excellent
opportunities to leverage City funding in competitive State and
County grant applications. The probability of obtaining grants
is a function of having available matching funds. The
financing plan identifies high profile projects for potential
grants and identifies sources of substantial matching funds to
boost the probability of success.
Chapter Five - 83
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
—
Funding Operations and Maintenance Costs. This plan
proposes financing for not only one-time capital costs
associated with land acquisition and park development, but
also ongoing operations and maintenance costs.
—
Remaining Opportunistic. This plan has been developed as of
a point in time, using the best available information. Over the
next ten years, other funding sources and funding priorities will
emerge. There may be future opportunities to restructure this
financing plan in a way that leverages local dollars more
appropriately or ways to fund additional projects currently
slated for years 11 through 20. The plan recommends staff
remain vigilant and responsive to future opportunities not
known at this time.
Proposed Project Costs
As described in the table that is located at the end of this chapter
(Table 5.1), the Master Plan calls for $102,131,000 in park projects.
Of this total, $68,131,000 are for priority projects to be funded within
the first ten years. The remainder is for projects to be funded in years
11 through 20.
In addition to capital costs, the priority projects will require an
estimated $1,030,500 in annual operations and maintenance plus
$458,000 in additional maintenance equipment.
Recommended Sources of Funding for Priority
Projects
Table 5.1 identifies the capital costs and priority projects to be funded
with the proposed sales tax. In this report, no inflation is applied to
the cost of capital projects and no inflation is used in estimating future
revenues. As discussed in the remainder of this section, much of the
funding required for priority open space projects will be provided by
existing sources, such as Jefferson County Open Space funds.
The remainder of this section discusses the 13 sources of funding
recommended to finance the priority projects. The appendix contains
a more detailed discussion of each funding resource.
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
Sales Tax Increase
The cornerstone source of funding for the priority projects is a
recommended increase in the sales tax rate of 0.25 percent for twenty
years. (This would increase the City’s tax rate from 3.21% to 3.46%.)
Because of the urgency in funding land acquisition projects and the
importance of funding other urgent needs, the plan further
recommends the issuance of sales tax revenue bonds in year one of
the sales tax increase. Increasing the sales tax rate and issuing debt
requires a favorable vote of Arvada citizens.
The City’s investment banker has estimated that these revenues
would enable the City to issue debt with about $14,701,000 available
(after issuance costs) to fund construction projects. In addition,
annual sales tax revenues would generate an additional $3,604,600
after debt service during the first ten years and an additional $3.6
million in revenue during the second ten years. After much careful
thought, the Master Plan Citizens Advisory Committee recommended
using these funds for land acquisition, and improvements to regional,
community and neighborhood parks and trails that are likely to have
high voter approval and are spread throughout the City.
2000 Arvada Parks and Recreation Survey4
The anticipated level of support for the master plan recommendations
and specifically a ¼ cent sales tax was tested via a telephone survey
of 300 registered voters in June 2000. The following is a summary of
the survey.
Voters chose a sales tax (41.9%) as the preferred way to finance
projects in the City over property tax (13.0%) and utility tax (9.3%).
Some people (8.9%) thought that North Jeffco and Arvada both
provide parks and athletic fields in Arvada. More people thought that
North Jeffco provided the parks and athletic fields in Arvada (31.2%)
than the City does (23.9%). These results indicate that there needs to
be more education on the respective roles of the two organizations.
When asked what respondents would like to see added or improved
upon to make parks and recreation better in Arvada, the largest
response was “nothing” (22.9%). The most frequent responses
offered for specific improvements were “more trails” (7.3%) and “more
open space” (7.3%). Other types of facilities were mentioned, but
none were mentioned by more than 4% of the respondents.
4
2000 Arvada Parks and Recreation Survey, Centennial Research, Inc.
Chapter Five - 85
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
Before giving the respondents any specifics, 56.5% said they would
support a ¼ cent sales tax to expand park facilities, trails, open space
and athletic fields.
The survey asked about some specific elements of the proposed ¼
cent sales tax.
n
n
n
n
n
64.4% said that improving existing and building new neighborhood
parks was worth it.
44.2% said that developing the Long Lake Ranch athletic fields
were worth it.
66.8% said that buying additional open space was worth it.
61.8% said that building 30 miles of additional trails was worth it.
52.2% said that building large community parks and regional
parks was worth it.
After this series of questions, the question of whether or not they
would support a ¼ sales tax was asked again. The response was
60.8% in favor. 56.8% were specifically in favor of using tax dollars to
buy undeveloped land to preserve it from private development.
In summary, there is a very good likelihood that a majority of voters
will approve a ¼ cent sales tax to finance a portion of the master plan
recommendations.
Neighborhood Park Development Fees
The financing plan recommends that the existing park development
fee schedule be adjusted upward to fund all neighborhood park
developments costs generated by new development. Improvements
to three priority neighborhood parks would be partially funded by this
source. Other priority neighborhood park improvements that would be
funded with other financing resources.
Community Park Development Fees
The finance plan recommends the establishment of a community park
development fee, which would fund community park improvement
needs generated by new residential development. There is one
community park (O’Kane) that would be partially funded by this
source. Other proposed community park improvements are needed
to correct existing deficiencies and may be funded with other
resources.
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
Conservation Trust Fund
This is a revenue source from the Colorado lottery. Funds are
distributed annually by the State, based on population. The plan
anticipates future revenues will be the same amount as historic
revenues, $450,000 per year. These funds are recommended for
capital improvement enhancements and maintenance improvements
throughout the City.
Jefferson County Open Space – Joint Venture Park
Development Funds
Funds are awarded on a competitive basis for park development.
Anticipated revenue from this source, about $572,000 per year, is
comparable with historic revenues. This revenue source is used to
supplement funds for a variety of priority projects.
Jefferson County Open Space – Joint Venture Land
Acquisition Funds
Funds are awarded on a competitive basis for land acquisition. While
Arvada has received about $2.1 million annually for the last few years,
it is anticipated that future revenues will be substantially more limited
because of the SOS Bond Issue program, which is also available to
fund open space.
Jefferson County Open Space - Save Open Space (SOS) Bond
Issue Revenues
Jefferson County voters approved using a portion of the 0.5 percent
sales tax revenues for the issuance of debt for open space
acquisition. Funds are available in 2000 to 2002. Arvada anticipates
using this revenue source to fund eight priority land acquisition
projects, totaling about $9.3 million.
Jefferson County Open Space — Trails 2000 Program
The Trails 2000 Program began in 1990. Revenues are available to
fund hard surface trails on the County’s planned trail system.
Forecasted revenues are consistent with historic funds received from
this source, about $262,500 per year.
Chapter Five - 87
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
Jefferson County – Regional Sports Facilities Program
Funds have been set aside for a one-time only regional sports facility
program. Arvada anticipates receiving $2.0 million from this program
to fund a portion of Long Lake Ranch improvements.
Jefferson County Open Space — Attributable Share
The Open Space program distributes one-third of the annual
revenues among cities on the basis of prior year motor vehicle
registration. Arvada has received about $2.4 million annually.
Currently, Arvada uses these funds for ongoing operations and
maintenance (O&M.). The Plan calls for these funds to be used for
operations and maintenance until an alternative source of revenue
becomes available. It is recommended that a portion of the Arvada
Urban Renewal Authority tax increment revenues, available to the City
in 2005, be used to fund parks operations and maintenance, thereby
making JCOS Attributable Share revenues available to fund park land
acquisition and open space.
Great Outdoors Colorado (GOCO) Trust Fund
This is a statewide pool of revenue from Colorado Lottery proceeds.
Funds are available on a competitive grant basis for park and open
space land acquisition and development, outdoor recreation,
environmental education and capacity building. Seven high profile
and priority projects have been identified for partial funding through
this source.
State Trails Program
Established in 1971, this program is funded with revenue from GOCO,
TEA-21 Section 1112 Recreation Trails Program, and Off-Highway
Vehicle (OHV) registration fees. Funds are available for trails for on a
competitive basis. A 25 to 50 percent match is required. Since the
state funding pool is relatively small, this resource is proposed for a
small component of the trails system.
Brownfields
“Brownfields” are lands that are vacant or underdeveloped because of
real or perceived environmental contamination. Through the US
Environmental Protection Agency, funds are available to enable
communities to clean up environmental contamination problems so
redevelopment may proceed. Funds might become available for
improvements in Southeast Arvada.
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21)
Section 1202, “Enhancement Grants” are available from the federal
government through the Denver Regional Council of Governments on
a competitive basis to fund bicycle transportation, wetlands
improvements and historic preservation, among other things. These
are a possible and supplemental source of revenue for some trail
improvements, especially trail underpasses at arterial streets.
Planning, Operations and Maintenance
As the City continues its growth, additional staff will be needed to plan
and maintain the new parks and facilities required to serve its new
residents. At the present time, the City has 32 full-time and 41 parttime (21 full-time equivalents) responsible for maintaining 1,743 acres
of parkland. This works out to a ratio of one full-time staff per 53
acres of parkland. If the current staff to acres maintained ratio of 1:53
acres is continued, development of the approximately 325 acres of
neighborhood, community and regional park land would require 6
additional maintenance staff positions for the parks and potentially
more to maintain the open space areas.
The Park and Urban Design Division of the Parks, Golf and Hospitality
Services Department currently has 4 staff planners that review
development applications, work with landowners and developers to
acquire trail corridors, parkland and open space, prepare grants for
funding, coordinate with North Jeffco on facility needs, and plan and
design new parks, trails and open space. Adding new parkland and a
significant quantity of trails and open space to Arvada’s system will
require additional planning staff as well.
Chapter Five - 89
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
Table 5.1
Priority Project Costs: 0.25% Sales Tax Increase
Total Project
Cost
Project
Community & Regional Parks
Type
Long Lake Ranch Regional Park
O’Kane
Lake Arbor
Majestic View
Gold Strike
Gold Strike Expansion
Equestrian Center Enhancements
Subtotal
Regional Park
Community Park
Community Park
Community Park
Community Park
Community Park
Special Purpose Park
Priority
Project
Costs
Priority
Projects
O&M
Potential
Projects
Funded by
0.25%
Sales Tax
$17,500,000
$8,500,000
$3,800,000
$5,325,000
$2,500,000
$4,500,000
$750,000
$42,875,000
$11,100,000
$2,300,000
$2,000,000
$3,350,000
$2,500,000
$2,000,000
$250,000
$23,500,000
$94,125
$78,000
$66,600
$10,500
$11,250
$2,375
$47,500
$310,350
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
Sports Complex
Sports Complex
$3,000,000
$4,100,000
$3,000,000
$1,775,000
$13,500
$0
$1,500,000
$1,000,000
Sports Complex/Park
Tennis Facility
$750,000
$900,000
$8,750,000
$0
$100,000
$4,875,000
$0
$4,500
$18,000
$0
$100,000
$2,600,000
Neighborhood Park
Neighborhood Park
Neighborhood Park
Neighborhood Park
Neighborhood Park
Neighborhood Park
Neighborhood Park
Neighborhood Park
Neighborhood Park
$1,000,000
$856,000
$1,267,000
$275,000
$1,500,000
$175,000
$250,000
$1,425,000
$100,000
$6,848,000
$1,000,000
$856,000
$1,267,000
$275,000
$1,500,000
$175,000
$250,000
$1,425,000
$100,000
$6,848,000
$22,500
$27,000
$47,650
$9,000
$40,500
$9,325
$13,500
$83,175
$0
$252,650
$300,000
$856,000
$700,000
$275,000
$1,000,000
$100,000
$250,000
$1,070,000
$100,000
$4,651,000
$1,600,000
$2,500,000
$2,500,000
$2,500,000
$300,000
$2,100,000
$8,250,000
$2,010,000
$1,200,000
$2,500,000
$1,200,000
$26,660,000
$1,000,000
$2,500,000
$2,500,000
$300,000
$300,000
$2,100,000
$2,300,000
$2,010,000
$1,200,000
$2,500,000
$1,200,000
$17,910,000
$1,500
$12,000
$4,500
$14,500
$2,000
$15,000
$75,000
$75,000
$0
$0
$0
$199,500
$200,000
$1,000,000
$0
$200,000
$200,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,600,000
$8,040,000
$500,000
$8,040,000
$500,000
$0
$0
$3,500,000
$500,000
$0
$8,000,000
$458,000
$1,000,000
$5,000,000
$458,000
$0
$0
$250,000
$1,000,000
$0
$458,000
$102,131,000
$68,131,000
$1,030,500
$18,309,000
$4,000,000
Sports Complexes
Lutz Sports Complex Completion
Stenger Sports Complex
Enhancements
Pioneer Park Enhancements
Arvada Tennis Center
Subtotal
Neighborhood Parks
South Central
th
74 & Carr
Skyline Estates
Rainbow I
Hills at Standley Lake
Garrison Lake
Meadows at Westwood
Future Neighborhood Park
Dog Park
Subtotal
Open Space
Tucker Lake
nd
Leyden Creek Open Space n.o. 72
Hyatt Lake
Leyden Lake
VanBibber West of Stenger
Pearce Property
North of Leyden Gulch
South of Leyden Gulch
Northwest of Arvada Reservoir
Drainage West of Standley Lake
Highline Canal West of Kipling
Subtotal
Park Preserve
Park Preserve
Park Preserve
Park Preserve
Open Space
Open Space
Open Space
Open Space
Open Space
Open Space
Open Space
Trails
Wildlife Enhancements &
Trails
Management
Maintenance
Endowment
Capital Improvement Enhancement
Maintenance Equipment
Grand Total
Estimated Revenue Available Over 10 Years with 0.25% Sales Tax
$18,305,600
Appendix
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
APPENDIX
CURRENT, PRIMARY SOURCES OF REVENUE THAT FUND ARVADA PARKS, OPEN SPACE AND
TRAILS
SOURCE
SOURCE/RATE/
DISTRIBUTION
ARVADA GENERAL
FUND
(City revenue source)
PARK DEVELOPMENT
FEES
Revenues placed in Park
Development Escrow
Fund
FEES-IN-LIEU
Revenues placed in Lands
Dedicated Fund.
REVENUES
REVENUE
OUTLOOK
BUDGET
PRACTICES
The General Fund totals about 1998 (a): $41,913,897
1999 (e): $41,325,696
$40 million. The principle
2000 (b): $40,492,190
source of revenue is sales and
use tax (56%) of the total
budget.
City staff estimate
that revenues will
increase at 2% per
year.
Arvada uses the
General Fund to help
finance park planning,
and park maintenance.
$1,000 per single-family and
$840 per multi-family unit;
recently increased from $300
for single-family homes and
duplexes and $400 for multifamily units.
1997(a):$159,800
1998 (a): $197,900
1999 (e): $489,950
2000 (b): n/a
Revenues will trend
directly with
residential
construction.
Arvada uses revenue
for neighborhood park
acquisition and
development
Funds contributed by smallscale residential developments
in-lieu-of land dedication in
situations where the land
dedication will not provide an
adequately sized neighborhood
park (10 acres or more).
1997 (a): $ 199,000
1998 (a): $ 79,000
1999 (e): $455,137
2000 (b): n/a
Relatively
unpredictable from
year to year, but
trends with
residential
development.
Revenues based on
appraised value of
land.
$50,000 is transferred
annually to the Parks
Fund for park
maintenance. The
remainder is for
neighborhood park
acquisition and
development.
Appendix - A-1
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
TRAILS
JEFF CO OPEN
SPACE
ATTRIBUTABLE
SHARE (County revenue
source)
Revenues placed in Parks
Fund
JEFF CO OPEN
SPACE
JOINT V ENTURE
PROJECTS
(County revenue source)
Revenues placed in Grants
Fund
JEFFCO OPEN SPACE
TRAILS 2000
PROGRAM
Fund
Source is 0.5% sales and use
tax throughout Jefferson
County.
1997 (a): $1,919,159
1998 (a): $2,403,689
1999 (e): $2,495,249
2000 (b): $2,414,000
All cities receive about 33% of
total revenues. Distribution
among cities is based on prior
year vehicle registration. In
1999, Arvada received 9.2% of
total revenues or 29.4% of the
municipal share.
Revenues for land acquisition
and park development projects
are awarded on a competitive
basis. Over the last 23 years,
about 80% of the grants in
Arvada have been for land
acquisition and 20% for park
development. The City match
may range from 0% to 50%,
depending on the grant.
Land Acquisition
Grants:
1997 (a): $5,209,600
Arvada match: $80,600
1998 (a): $1,955,300
Arvada match: $0
1999 (e):
The Trails 2000 program
began in 1990. These
revenues are available to fund
improvements to hard surface
trails on the County’s planned
trail system. Cities can apply
to facilitate construction of the
designated trails in their
community. Sometimes a
local match is required to be
competitive.
Trails 2000 Grants:
(100% JCOS; 0% Arvada)
1997 (a): $600,000
1998 (a): $225,000
1999 (e): n/a
A-2 - Arvada Parks, Trails and Open Space Master Plan
Park Development
Grants:
1997 (a): $1,083,000
1998 (a): $413,109
1999 (e): n/a
City staff estimate a
2% annual increase
in revenues through
2004. Countywide
sales tax increasing
at about 6.1%
annually.
Historically, Arvada
has received about
the same portion of
JCOS attributable
share revenues.
Arvada currently uses
these revenues for
park planning,
operations and
maintenance.
Land acquisition
grants have totaled
$13.5 million since
1975. Acquisition
grants have
averaged $2.1
million per year
over the last 5 years.
Arvada uses these
revenues for specific
projects.
Park development
grants have totaled
$3.1 million since
1983.
Development grants
have averaged
$572,200 per year
over the last 5 years.
Between 1993 and
1998, Trails 2000
grants have totaled
$1.3 million or
$262,500 per year.
In the future, these
funds might be more
appropriately used for
land acquisition
and/or park and trails
development.
It recently received
two joint venture
grants that have
funded the first two
phases of the
Lutz/Stenger Sports
Complex.
Trails 2000 grants
have been for the
Ralston Creek trail.
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
TRAILS
This is a 5-year (1999 to 2004)
$10 million program to fund
regional sports facilities in
Jefferson County cities. The
cities must work together to
distribute the revenues.
1997 (a): not applicable
1998 (a): not applicable
1999 (a): $0
2000(b): $2,000,000
Arvada might
capture an
additional $2 million
in the last year of
funding (2004). The
first four years are
“spoken for.”
2000 revenues are for
Long Lake Ranch
athletic field
development.
JEFFERSON COUNTY
(R-1) SCHOOL
DISTRICT
(County in-kind source)
This is a source of cost
savings, not a revenue source.
No revenues. In-kind
services, only.
This is not a source
of revenue.
School District has (a)
built the 1st phase of
Long Lake Ranch
athletic fields and (b)
provided a 20-acre
land lease (Pioneer
Park, 82nd & Simms)
and build athletic
fields.
CONSERVATION
TRUST FUND
(State revenue source)
Statewide fund. Revenues are
from Colorado lottery.
1997 (a): $481,159
1998 (a): $449,723
1999 (e): n/a
2000 (b): n/a
Revenues have been
relatively constant
for a number of
years.
Arvada has
purposefully
accumulated a sizeable
fund balance to
acquire land for
O’Kane Park.
JEFFCO OPEN SPACE
- REGIONAL SPORTS
PROGRAM
To Grants Fund
Revenues placed in
Grants Fund
GREAT OUTDOORS
COLORADO
Fund
Each government receives a
portion of Conservation Trust
Fund revenues on the basis of
population and its per person
share.
These funds are distributed on
a competitive basis in response
to grant application for
specific projects.
Funds may be used to
acquire, develop, and
maintain local parks
and recreation
programs.
1997: $0
1998: $0
1999: $0
2000: $0
Arvada has received
3 grants since 1993;
17 grant
applications have
been made.
Arvada places
revenues in the Grants
Fund.
Appendix - A-3
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
The following table summarizes potential new source of funding for the master plan.
POTENTIAL, SUPPLEMENTAL FINANCING SOURCES OF REVENUE AND TOOLS FOR CONSIDERATION
SOURCE &
EXPLANATION
REVENUE POTENTIAL
BEST
APPLICATION
EXAMPLES:
WHERE USED
NEXT STEP?
EARMARKED SALES & USE
TAX (local revenue source)
Voters may approve an
increase in the City sales and
use tax up to 4.0% and may
earmark revenues for any
public purpose. The initiative
may be for a fixed time
period or indefinitely.
If desired, the City could
request voters to increase
the sales and use tax up to
0.79% to reach 4.0%
This action requires
a vote of Arvada
citizens.
Pay-as-You-Go:
Jefferson County,
0.50%
Boulder County,
0.25%
Douglas County,
0.17%
Larimer County,
0.25%
Colorado Springs,
0.10%
Boulder (city), 0.98%
Broomfield, 0.25%
Fort Collins, 0.25%
Lafayette, 0.25%
Louisville, 0.375%
Thornton, 0.50%
Westminster, 0.25%
Wheat Ridge, 0.50%
The next step is to
determine if there is
sufficient local desire
to pursue this
significant revenue
source.
Arvada’s current sales and
use tax rate is 3.21%.
For comparative information, other
sales tax rates:
Broomfield, 3.75%
Golden, 3.00%
Lakewood, 2.00%
Thornton, 3.75%
Westminster, 3.25%
Wheat Ridge, 2.50%
City staff estimate 2000
taxable retail sales will total
$698,772,586. If the
increase were applied in
2000,
0.10% = $ 698,773 per
year
0.20% = $1,397,545 per
year
0.25% = $1,746,931 per
year
0.50% = $3,493,862 per
year
City staff estimate sales and
use tax revenues will
increase 2.3% annually.
The immediate impact of
this tax can be multiplied if
the voters also authorize
the issuance of sales tax
revenue bonds.
For high profile and
lasting
improvements that
have broad citizen
support.
Bond Issue Authority:
Boulder, Douglas &
Jefferson County
Boulder (City),
Broomfield
Westminster
Some tax
authorizations have a
sunset provision after
a fixed number of
years. Examples:
Westminster,
Colorado Springs,
Douglas County.
Arvada residents
turned down an
initiative to increase
the sales tax rate by
0.5% for open space
in 1994.
Others have passed
park/open space sales
tax increases after
several attempts:
Douglas County - 2
attempts, Larimer
County - 3 attempts,
Colorado Springs - 2
attempts.
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
SOURCE &
EXPLANATION
REVENUE POTENTIAL
BEST
APPLICATION
EXAMPLES:
WHERE USED
NEXT STEP?
EARMARKED PROPERTY
TAX REVENUES
(local revenue source)
Arvada currently imposes a
mill levy of 4.310.
Arvada’s assessed valuation
is $678,048,450
This source might
be particularly
appropriate for park
development
projects that correct
existing deficiencies,
rather than serve
new growth and
development
projects that
benefit retail, office
and industrial areas.
Pay-As-You-Go: City
of Boulder - 0.9 mills
for park capital
projects.
Would require a vote
of the people to
increase the mill levy.
For comparative information, the
municipal mill levy in a sampling
of other cities:
Broomfield, 13.894
Golden, 12.340
Lakewood, 4.711
Thornton, 10.210
Westminster, 3.650
Wheat Ridge, 4.714
REAL ESTATE TRANSFER
TAX (RETT) (local revenue
source)
This is a tax imposed on the
value of real estate when
sold. It is paid by either the
buyer or the seller.
This tool was available to
local governments in
Colorado. More recently,
the legislature removed this
authority. The tax is being
reconsidered for use by local
governments for open space
acquisition.
As an illustration, a one
mill increase would
generate about $678,048 in
2000.
1 mill (.001) = $678,058
½ mill (.0005) = $339,024
Manitou Springs= 0.8
mills
Routt County: -Yampa Valley
Greenway
Bond Issue Authority:
Bow Mar
Denver
Summit County
The revenue potential is
extraordinary.
For example, a 0.5%
RETT on the sale of a
$100,000 home would be
$500.
This revenue source
is applicable for a
wide variety of
purposes, since
revenues are
generated not only
from new growth
but also from
established portions
of the City.
A few resort
communities passed a
RETT when the tool
was available. These
include Vail, Crested
Butte, Aspen and
Avon.
Barnstable County
(Cape Cod)
The tool is not
available at this time.
There is no pending
legislation.
However, a coalition
of environmentalists
and home builders are
pursuing this idea.
Counties in North
Carolina and
Vermont.
Appendix - A-5
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
SOURCE &
EXPLANATION
REVENUE POTENTIAL
BEST
APPLICATION
USER FEES (local revenue source)
The opportunity for
Arvada to impose or
increase user fees is
limited.
User fees typically
recoup some
portion of
operations costs.
These are fees for the
provision of services or
facility use and include
recreation programs, athletic
facility rentals, concessions,
and the like.
Under its intergovernmental agreement
with North Jefferson Park
and Recreation District ,
the District manages nearly
all of the programs in
Arvada for which there is a
user fee.
Concessions and fees at the
Arvada Reservoir are
exceptions.
PARK DEVELOPMENT
(IMPACT ) FEES (local revenue
source)
These are fees imposed on
new development to pay for
capital costs to serve new
development.
Arvada has a park
development fee of $1,000
per unit. This was recently
increased. Arvada could
increase its fee more
and/or impose the fee on
nonresidential property.
EXAMPLES:
WHERE USED
NEXT STEP?
Portland’s goal = adult None are
user groups financing recommended at this
time.
their full share of
parks maintenance
costs (direct and
Sometimes, user fee indirect) Youth
rates are set to cover groups - subsidized.
not only operations
Boulder increased
but also cover a
soccer ass’n user fees
portion of park
and applies
maintenance and
minor capital outlay. incremental revenues
to build upgraded
sand-based fields.
For regional events,
both Boulder and Fort
Collins impose user
costs that cover 100%
of direct and indirect
costs.
Capital investments
(land and park
development) that
serve growth-related
needs, rather than
correct existing
deficiencies.
Widely used through
Colorado. Some
communities have
higher fees than
Arvada. A few
impose a fee on
nonresidential
properties.
Since this issue was
brought before City
Council in 1999, it
may not be
appropriate to revisit
the fee structure soon.
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
SOURCE &
EXPLANATION
REVENUE POTENTIAL
BEST
APPLICATION
USER FEES (local revenue source)
The opportunity for
Arvada to impose or
increase user fees is
limited.
User fees typically
recoup some
portion of
operations costs.
These are fees for the
provision of services or
facility use and include
recreation programs, athletic
facility rentals, concessions,
and the like.
Under its intergovernmental agreement
with North Jefferson Park
and Recreation District ,
the District manages nearly
all of the programs in
Arvada for which there is a
user fee.
Concessions and fees at the
Arvada Reservoir are
exceptions.
PARK DEVELOPMENT
(IMPACT ) FEES (local revenue
source)
These are fees imposed on
new development to pay for
capital costs to serve new
development.
Arvada has a park
development fee of $1,000
per unit. This was recently
increased. Arvada could
increase its fee more
and/or impose the fee on
nonresidential property.
EXAMPLES:
WHERE USED
NEXT STEP?
Portland’s goal = adult None are
user groups financing recommended at this
time.
their full share of
parks maintenance
costs (direct and
Sometimes, user fee indirect) Youth
rates are set to cover groups - subsidized.
not only operations
Boulder increased
but also cover a
soccer ass’n user fees
portion of park
and applies
maintenance and
minor capital outlay. incremental revenues
to build upgraded
sand-based fields.
For regional events,
both Boulder and Fort
Collins impose user
costs that cover 100%
of direct and indirect
costs.
Capital investments
(land and park
development) that
serve growth-related
needs, rather than
correct existing
deficiencies.
Widely used through
Colorado. Some
communities have
higher fees than
Arvada. A few
impose a fee on
nonresidential
properties.
Since this issue was
brought before City
Council in 1999, it
may not be
appropriate to revisit
the fee structure soon.
Appendix - A-7
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
SOURCE &
EXPLANATION
REVENUE POTENTIAL
BEST
APPLICATION
EXAMPLES:
WHERE USED
NEXT STEP?
DISTRICTS (local revenue source)
Revenues (property taxes,
and charges) would be
imposed within a district.
Park improvements
that would primarily
serve a particular
geographic area.
New York uses a park
enhancement district.
Local residents and
business owners tax
themselves for parks
and open space
improvements.
Identify Master Plan
projects that might be
funded with a district.
General Improvement
District (GID), CRS 31-25601+)
Business Improvement
District
(BID) (CRS 31-25-1201+)_
The amount would be a
function of the specific
project requirements.
Metropolitan districts
have been used to
fund park
improvements.
Metropolitan Districts
(CRS 32-3-101+)
Downtown Denver,
Inc. created the 16th
Street BID.
Nonresidential
property owners pay
for substantial
landscape
maintenance to the
16th Street Mall.
SOURCE &
EXPLANATION
REVENUE POTENTIAL
BEST
APPLICATION
EXAMPLES:
WHERE USED
NEXT STEP?
ENDOWMENT OR TRUST
ACCOUNT (combination of
sources)
It is difficult to anticipate
the revenue potential of
this source.
Perpetual
maintenance of
specific parks, park
facilities, trails and
open space.
Colorado Springs has
30 different trust
accounts for donor
contributions to
specific parks.
Identify high profile
and popular projects
in the Master Plan
that could benefit
from an endowment.
This is a tool through which
individuals and organizations
can make tax-exempt
contributions that are
guaranteed for a specific
purpose.
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
SOURCE &
EXPLANATION
REVENUE POTENTIAL
BEST
APPLICATION
EXAMPLES:
WHERE USED
NEXT STEP?
FOUNDATIONS
Under Colorado law, a local
government may establish a
supporting foundation to
solicit and receive gifts and
grants from individuals,
corporations, other private
foundations and the federal
government. Foundation
contributions may be exempt
from federal income tax.
Foundations may qualify to
receive funds under federal
programs available only to
501(c)(3) organizations.
Funds are received on a
competitive basis, based on
requests-for-proposals.
Most foundations like its
resources leveraged with
other sources.
This tool may be
particularly
attractive for highimage high-profile
facilities.
North JeffCo Park &
Rec District has a
foundation.
A detailed review of
the established
purposes of
foundations should be
prepared and matched
with proposed
projects.
Gifts are excluded from
the spending and revenue
limitations of TABOR.
A project with an
education emphasis
may also be a viable
match for
foundation money.
Other foundations
that have contributed
to park and open
space projects in
Colorado include: El
Pomar Foundation,
Gates Family
Foundation, Joseph
Henry Edmonson
Foundation and
Recreation Equipment
Inc, (REI)
Foundation.
Depending on the
foundation, requestsfor- proposals may be
considered on a fixed
time schedule or on an
as-submitted basis.
High image or high
visibility projects
where there is an
opportunity for
their name to be
displayed.
Denver’s docent
programs fund and
provide volunteer staff
for the Denver
Botanic Gardens, the
Denver Zoo, the
Natural History
Museum, the Art
Museum and the
Library
Identify projects or
activities that could be
funded in part with inkind or financial
support from
individuals.
This tool is useful
when the ultimate
use is known, the
need is urgent and
acquisition funds
are limited or will
become available in
the future.
In Mecklenberg
County, NC, a
corporation leased
inner city land to the
County for ten years
for development of a
park. The project was
co-sponsored by
known professional
athlete.
Identify properties for
which this tool would
be applicable.
Some corporations, affluent
individuals and families have
established foundations with
purposes that include park
development, open space
acquisition and land
conservation.
AFFLUENT INDIVIDUALS,
DOCENTS
This includes individuals who
want to contribute to a
project or activity in dollars
or in-kind. Typically,
financial contributions are
tax-advantaged.
LEASE PURCHASE
AGREEMENT (local financing
tool)
This is an agreement where
land is leased with an option
to purchase at some future
date.
The revenue and costsavings potential is
unknown but can be
substantial for established
and successful programs.
These programs can take
years to season and grow.
Gifts and in-kind services
are excluded from the
spending and revenue
limitations of TABOR.
This is a financing tool not
a revenue-generating tool.
It would enable the City to
control and use land for a
smaller initial outlay than
an outright purchase.
Boulder has a Park
and Recreation
Foundation.
The tool is also
useful if there is a
short-term need for
the land.
Appendix - A-9
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
SOURCE &
EXPLANATION
REVENUE POTENTIAL
BEST
APPLICATION
EXAMPLES:
WHERE USED
NEXT STEP?
INSTALLMENT PURCHASE
(local financing tool)
This is a financing tool, not
a revenue generating tool.
This tool enables a City to
tie up property and protect
it from future development
for a lower price than
outright acquisition.
Virginia Beach has
used this technique. It
make offers to
purchase 25 years in
the future at a fixed
price, and makes
interest-only tax-free
payments for 25 years.
The City guarantees
payment by buying
principal-only
Treasury Bonds with a
25-year maturity.
Identify properties for
which this tool would
be applicable.
This is a contract to buy
property (or buy
development rights) at an
agreed price where interest
only payments are made until
the contract is closed.
This tool best fits
property that is
vulnerable to nearterm development
SALE - LEASEBACK WITH
DEBT
(local financing tool)
This is not a new source of
revenue. However, using
the Boulder example, it is a
way to use future revenues
to issue debt to purchase
large or expensive parcels
of land.
This tool works to
purchase large or
expensive parcels
when there is an
established,
earmarked source of
future revenue, such
as sales tax.
City of Boulder
created the Boulder
Municipal Property
Authority. The
Authority may go into
debt to purchase land
using the stream of
future sales tax
revenues and lease it
back to the City.
Arvada needs an
established, earmarked
source of revenue to
use this technique.
This is not a new source of
revenue. Arvada could
establish a fund and build
revenues over a number of
years.
This tool could be
used to put property
under option or to
purchase property
for future resale to
the City.
Calvert County
Maryland
If Arvada establishes
an on-going working
relationship with a
private non-profit, this
tool can be very
effective.
Under this technique, a City
managed authority or private
non-profit would purchase
property and lease it back to
the City.
REVOLVING LOAN FUND
(local financing tool )
This is a fund that would be
used by eligible private
nonprofit organizations to
secure property that is
eventually purchased by the
City.
It is useful if funds
are limited and the
need is urgent.
JeffCo Open Space,
GOCO or other
revenues could be
used to activate this
technique.
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
SOURCE &
EXPLANATION
REVENUE POTENTIAL
BEST
APPLICATION
EXAMPLES:
WHERE USED
V OLUNTEER INVOLVEMENT
(local in-kind source)
This is a cost savings
program that reduces City
expenditures on
maintenance.
Athletic field
operations, such as
lining soccer fields.
Aurora has a “tree-oflife” program whereby
a tree can be donated
in someone’s name.
This includes programs such
as adopt-a-park, friends-ofthe-park, and park
stewardship programs.
Safety watch
program
Limited
neighborhood park
maintenance.
NEXT STEP?
This concept takes
years to develop into a
tool that truly saves
money. The first steps
would be to (a)
identify a volunteer
Colorado Springs
coordinator , (b)
estimates that its
describe (carve out)
“adopt-a-park” and
“adopt-a-median” save specific volunteer
opportunities and (c)
$800,000 in wages,
recruit existing or new
alone.
organizations to take
on the assignment.
Portland encourages
athletic associations to The concept will grow
from early successes.
purchase their own
field equipment and
chalk their fields prior
to play.
Indianapolis has a
cooperative
arrangement with
churches where
churches maintain
nearby neighborhood
parks with
reimbursement.
CONSERVATION
EASEMENTS (local in-kind
source)
This is a legal document
written in the form of a deed,
in which a landowner donates
the development rights to his
or her property to a nonprofit land trust or
governmental entity, thereby
protecting the land in
perpetuity. The easement
entitles the land owner to
state and federal income tax
deductions.
This is a land conservation
technique. It does not
generate revenue or require
dollars.
This is appropriate
for trails and open
space which will
remain natural.
The value of conservation
easements to the City may
be extraordinary. The
potential tax savings to
owners can also be
extraordinary, depending
on their circumstances.
Land might be
available for limited
public use,
depending on the
uses allowed in the
site specific
easement document.
Douglas County has
made extensive use of
conservation
easements to multiply
land protected from
development.
Coors has contributed
easements for trails
and wildlife habitat in
JeffCo.
Identify target
locations and talk with
property owners about
merits of conservation
easements
Identify non-profit
organizations who can
manage conservation
easements in Arvada.
Some local
governments (in
Maryland, North
Carolina) offer
property tax
abatements.
Appendix - A-11
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
SOURCE &
EXPLANATION
REVENUE POTENTIAL
BEST
APPLICATION
EXAMPLES:
WHERE USED
NEXT STEP?
CHARITABLE REMAINDER
TRUST (local in-kind source)
A willing land owner gives
land to a land trust, remains
on its land until death, and
reduces the estate tax burden.
This is a land conservation
technique. It does not
generate revenue or require
dollars.
This is appropriate
for any property
that is desired for
park and open
space.
Montana Land
Reliance, a private
nonprofit
organization, has used
this and conservation
easements to preserve
170,000 acres.
Arvada could
“market” the
advantages of this
concept to property
owners who own land
that the City desires
for park and open
space.
TRANSFER DEVELOPMENT
RIGHTS (local in-kind tool)
This is not a revenue
source.
This is a concept wherein the
right to develop is transferred
from one property to
another. The transfer can be
within a parcel or
development rights can be
sold and transferred from
one owner to another.
However, this is a tool to
conserve land for open
space at no public cost.
JEFFERSON COUNTY OPEN
SPACE ATTRIBUTABLE
SHARE
Like conservation
easements, the value can be
extraordinary.
Unlike conservation
easements, land
probably cannot be
used until the trust
transfers ownership.
This may be
particularly useful
where protecting a
view is important.
TDRs have been sold
in Lower Downtown
from contributing
buildings in the
historic district.
Arvada receives about $2.4
million per year.
JCOS prefers but
does not require
that this money be
used for acquisition
and development.
These funds are
available to all
municipalities in
Jefferson County and
are shared in
proportion to
population.
Over time, Arvada
might find other
substitute revenue
sources for park
maintenance and
administration and
free up this money for
acquisition and
development.
Joint Venture Grants are
available on a competitive
basis from the County’s
share (2/3rds) of sales tax
revenues. Historically,
Arvada has received $16.7
million since 1975.
Acquisition grants averaged
$1.7 million over the last
five years; development
grants averaged $572,200.
Applications may be
for open space
acquisition,
construction, and
maintenance of
capital
improvements.
Acquisition Grants:
1998: Long Lake
Ranch
1997: Stenger Sports
Complex, Ralston
Creek, Luts Sports
Complex
This is a primary
source of future
funding for Master
Plan projects.
See current sources of
financing discussion.
JEFFERSON COUNTY OPEN
SPACE JOINT V ENTURE
GRANTS
Annually, JCOS awards funds
to cities and recreation
districts on a project-specific
and competitive basis.
Development Grants:
1998: Lutz Sports
Comples
1997: Long Lake site
Plans, Ralston Creek
Trail
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
SOURCE &
EXPLANATION
REVENUE POTENTIAL
GREAT OUTDOORS
COLORADO (GOCO) TRUST
FUND. (State revenue source)
General Introduction. Distribution of Colorado
Lottery Revenues: Conservation Trust Fund, 40%
; CO State Parks, 10%; GOCO, 50%. GOCO
received about $40 million in FY2000.
This statewide fund was
approved by voters via
Constitutional Amendment
in 11/92. A portion of
Lottery revenues are
earmarked for funding for
parks, wildlife, outdoor
recreation, environmental
education, open space and
natural areas.
BEST
APPLICATION
EXAMPLES:
WHERE USED
NEXT STEP?
Review feedback information from grants
denied and retarget grants effort.
State staff expressed willingness to visit with
City staff and provide technical support.
By State Constitution, 25% of GOCO funds
awarded must be applied to these four categories:
Wildlife, Outdoor Recreation, Open Space and
Local Government. Since 1994, $225.3 million in
grants have been awarded for 1,369 projects
In some categories, only the State agencies may
compete, in some categories, only local
governments can compete, in some categories,
state and local governments can compete. This is
described more specifically below.
Arvada has applied for 17 grants since 1993 and
has received 3. No grants have been awarded
since 1997.
GOCO - LOCAL
GOVERNMENT PARKS,
RECREATION &
ENVIRONMENTAL
EDUCATION PROJECTS.
These grants are for the
“acquisition, establishment,
expansion and enhancement
of park and outdoor
recreation facilities, including
environmental education
facilities.”
GOCO - OPEN SPACE
PROJECTS (State revenue
source)
These grants are for open
space and land conservation.
GOCO has funded 506
projects totaling $19.4
million since 1994; partner
contributions = $58.7
million.
This criteria suit a
wide variety of
projects.
Local governments
(counties, municipalities,
and districts) are eligible.
Alamosa: Renovation
of existing park, Cole
Park
1st Cycle:
Applications were due
3/3/00.
South Suburban
Metro District: Senior
activity area at
Cornerstone Regional
Park
2nd Cycle:
Applications are due
9/1/00.
Establishment of a
new environmental
facility, Sombrero
March Environmental
Center
GOCO has funded 99
million.
Grants may be awarded to
local governments, CO
State Parks, CO Division
of Wildlife, and non-profit
organizations.
Open space and
conservation
easement projects
— particularly those
where GOCO
dollars would be
matched with other
resources.
Colorado Springs:
acquisition of open
space in urban area.
Boulder County:
expansion of a buffer
around Ward
1st Cycle: Applications
due 4/1/00
2nd Cycle:
Applications due
9/1/00.
Larimer County:
Parrish Ranch
conservation easement
Appendix - A-13
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
SOURCE &
EXPLANATION
REVENUE POTENTIAL
BEST
APPLICATION
EXAMPLES:
WHERE USED
NEXT STEP?
GOCO TRAIL PROJECTS
GOCO has funded 199
million.
Multi-use trails,
single-use trials,
trails for hikers,
bicyclists and
equestrians and
ADA accessible
trails.
Larimer County:
Rawah Wilderness
Trails
Applications are
typically due in
December of each
year.
Denver Urban
Gardens: six-county
urban garden network
in metro area.
One grant cycle: due
in Fall 2000
Building staff
capacity to seek
foundation support,
structure volunteer
giving programs,
solicit conservation
easements, etc.
Land Trust Alliance:
funding for a new
Southwest Regional
Office to help train
new land trust board
members and staff.
One grant cycle: Due
Fall 2000
Application must fit
two or more
funding categories
(open space, parks,
outdoor recreation
and wildlife).
Clear Creek Corridor:
Jefferson and Gilpin
Counties
Additional Legacy
concept papers are
due in the Fall of
2000.
Grants are available for
“construction of new
recreational trails,
enhancements to existing
trails and trailhead facilities.”
local governments and
non-profit organizations.
This program is coordinated
and a part of the Colorado
Trails Project, see below.
GOCO - PLANNING
GRANTS (State revenue source)
These are grants to “support
planning efforts related to the
preservation and
enhancement of Colorado’s
open space, outdoor
recreation and wildlife
heritage.”
GOCO - CAPACITY
BUILDING GRANTS (State
revenue source)
These grants support the
organizational development
of institutions “that further
the preservation and
enhancement of Colorado’s
open space, outdoor
recreation and wildlife
heritage.”
GOCO - LEGACY GRANTS
These are large-scale projects
of statewide or regional
significance and place strong
emphasis on the preservation
of land.
GOCO has funded 181
million.
State Parks, CO Division
of Wildlife and non-profit
organizations.
Funding included in
planning grants, above.
state Parks, CO Division of
Wildlife and non-profit
organizations.
GOCO has funded 22
legacy projects totaling
$101.4 million since 1994;
partner contributions have
totaled $123.4 million.
The Clear Creek Corridor
is a legacy project.
Multi-jurisdictional
partnerships are
encouraged.
Sand Creek Corridor
Greenway: Adams,
Arapahoe Denver
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
SOURCE &
EXPLANATION
REVENUE POTENTIAL
BEST
APPLICATION
EXAMPLES:
WHERE USED
NEXT STEP?
STATE TRAILS PROGRAM
City, county, district, State
and non-profit
organizations are eligible
for funding through an
annual competitive
process. Annually,
$1,500,000 is available for
non-motorized trails and
$700,000 for motorized
trails. A 50/50 match is
required for grants >
$10,000.; a 25% match is
required for smaller grants
Expand or enhance
the City’s trail
system.
Recent Grant Recipients:
Arvada has not
received a grant for at
least the last six years.
It does have a grant
application pending
for Ralston Creek.
State staff are
particularly supportive
and welcome the
opportunity to assist
Arvada improve its
competitive chances.
Competitive grants are
available for scientific
research to local
governments that have a
designated natural area .
Natural areas are
original and unique
locations that
contain native plant
communities,
geologic formations
or processes,
paleontological
localities or habitat
for rate plants or
animals.
Established in 1971, this
program is funded with three
primary revenue sources:
GOCO - Local Gov. Funds,
GOCO - State Parks Funds,
TEA-21 Section 1112
Recreation Trails Program,
and Off-Highway vehicle
(OHV) registration fees.
COLORADO NATURAL
AREAS PROGRAM (State
revenue source)
In 1977, The Colorado
Natural Areas Program was
created by the legislature.
The intent is to preserve the
best examples of Colorado’s
original and unique
landscapes. Funding is from
State Parks gate receipts, the
CO Parks allocated share,
GOCO, and competitive
grants from the federal
government.
FISHING IS FUN IN
COLORADO. (federal government
revenues)
This is the CO Department
of Natural Resources Division of Wildlife’s federal
matching funds program.
Revenues are from federal
excise taxes on sales of
fishing equipment, boats and
motorboat fuels.
GAMING REVENUES . (State
revenue source) A portion (28%)
of gaming revenues are
available for projects of
historic significance.
Arvada does not have a
designated natural area at
this time.
This is a competitive grant
program which has been in
existence since 1987. A
minimum 25% match is
required. The largest
program funded has been
$125,000.
State authorization for this
program is being reduced
from $900,000 in FY 99-00
to $300,000 in FY 02-03.
Funds are awarded on a
competitive basis by the
Historical Society of
Colorado.
Commerce City: Sand
Creek Greenway
concrete underpass,
$150,000
South Suburban: Big
Dry Creek Trail link,
$100,000
Tred Lightly, Inc.:
rehab of Dutch Fred
Area in Douglas
County, $83,200
There are 61
designated sites; none
are in Jefferson
County.
The closest sites are
the Colorado Tallgrass
Prairie (269 acres in
Boulder), and the
Plains Conservation
Center in Arapahoe
County.
Determine if any
Master Plan projects
would qualify as a
“designated natural
area.”
Funds for aquatic
education,
motorboat access
and fisherman
access, stream or
lake reclamation or
access and related
improvements.
Determine if any
might be eligible.
Gold site park
improvements may
be eligible for
Gaming Revenues
Determine if any
might be eligible.
Appendix - A-15
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
SOURCE &
EXPLANATION
REVENUE POTENTIAL
BEST
APPLICATION
SHARED BENEFIT WITH
PUBLIC WORKS AND
UTILITY AGENCIES . (regional
in-kind source)
This is an in-kind source of
cost savings, not a new
revenue source.
Extension of the
trials system.
Nationally, the Land and
Water Conservation Fund
has authorization to spend
about $900 million per year
but Congress rarely
appropriates the full
amount.
Projects must be
dedicated to
outdoor recreation.
Applicant must own
land that is being
improved.
EXAMPLES:
WHERE USED
NEXT STEP?
Aurora Reservoir
received funds for tree
planting.
CO Parks is gearing
up to administer this
program again. Funds
must be committed by
September 2000.
Agencies such as CDOT,
The UDFCD, railroads, ditch
companies, and utilities have
projects which offer trail and
open space opportunities as a
by-product.
LAND & W ATER
CONSERVATION FUND.
(federal revenue source distributed
by the State)
When funds are available, the
CO Parks assists the National
Park Service in administering
grants available from the
Land and Water Act or the
Conservation Act of 1965
TRANSPORTATION EQUITY
ACT FOR THE 21 ST
CENTURY (TEA-21) (federal
revenue source distributed by
DRCOG)
“Enhancement” grants are
available for Bicycle
Transportation (§1202) and a
variety of other
enhancements. These funds
are distributed through the
Denver Regional Council of
Government’s
Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP)
First time since 1995,
Congress has appropriated
funds to the state-grant
program ($40 million to be
distributed to states in early
2000.) Under the (prior)
state grant program, State
retains 50% and makes
50% available on a
competitive matching-grant
basis.
Revenues are allocated
from the federal
government to the Denver
metropolitan area and are
awarded annually on a
competitive basis to local
governments by DRCOG.
The State may change
its grant process. The
old process relied on
the SCORP
(Statewide
Comprehensive
Outdoor Recreation
Plan). The State may
need to recertify its
1992 SCORP to meet
the time constraints.
Funds may be made
available for a threeyear period.
Funds may be used
for bicycle
transportation,
aesthetic
improvements to
roadways, wetlands
improvements, and
historic
preservation.
Recent Enhancement
Projects:
– Skunk Creek Trail:
Broadway Bike/Trail
in Boulder County
– Ralston Creek Trail:
56th to Clear Creek in
Arvada
Apply annually
through the TIP
planning process.
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
SOURCE &
EXPLANATION
REVENUE POTENTIAL
BEST
APPLICATION
EXAMPLES:
WHERE USED
NEXT STEP?
BROWNFIELDS
(federal revenue source)
Funds are available from
the Environmental
Protection Agency on a
competitive grant basis.
Arvada has submitted for a
$200,000 Pilot Assessment
Grant for Southeast
Arvada.
Southeast Arvada
has land eligible for
Brownfields grants
that, when cleared
of environmental
constraints, can
enhance the City’s
planned park, open
space and trails
system.
Westminster,
Lakewood and Denver
have recently received
Pilot Assessment
Grants.
In February 2000
Arvada submitted an
application for a Pilot
Assessment Grant for
Southeast Arvada.
Arvada contains one
of five wildlife
refuge areas in the
state: Two Ponds,
which is at 80th east
of Kipling. It is a
62-acre area
The US Fish and
Wildlife Service
manage Two Ponds,
using Endangered
Species Funds.
Large projects that
conserve wetlands
In 1999, The San Luis
Valley Wetland
Restoration project
received a $1,000,000
grant to acquire 1,760
acres of wetland. It
was matched with $3.4
million in partner
funding.
Brownfields are land that is
vacant or underdeveloped
because of real or perceived
environmental
contamination.
US Environmental
Protection Agency sponsors
the Targeted Brownfields
Assessment, which enables
communities clear up
environmental contamination
problems so redevelopment
can proceed.
Follow-up grants may be
available, pending the
outcome of the
assessment.
THE ENDANGERED SPECIES
ACT OF 1973
CO Division of Wildlife
receives an apportionment
from the US Fish &
Wildlife service for fish
and wildlife restoration.
(See Fishing is Fun) States
can also compete for
grants through the
Cooperative Endangered
Species Conservation
Fund.
This act (16U.S.C. § 15311544), as amended, provides
broad protection for fish,
wildlife and plants that are
threatened or endangered.
Funds are generated from
excise taxes paid by hunters,
CO Division of
Wildlife has small
grants available.
Funds are not available
directly to municipalities.
NORTH AMERICAN
W ETLANDS CONSERVATION
ACT OF 1989.
This Act encourages
voluntary public - private
participation to conserve
North American wetland
ecosystems.
Grants to conserve
wetlands and wetlanddependent fish and wildlife
through acquisition,
restoration and
enhancement are awarded
to any organization on a
competitive basis. Grants
must be matched on a 1to-1 basis.
Identify Master Plan
projects that might
qualify for wetlands
grants.
Appendix - A-17
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
SOURCE &
EXPLANATION
REVENUE POTENTIAL
BEST
APPLICATION
EXAMPLES:
WHERE USED
NEXT STEP?
TRUST FOR PUBLIC LAND.
This is a private nonprofit
organization dedicated to
land conservation.
Trust for Public Land is a
technical resource.
Trust for Public
Land can facilitate
the assembly of land
to be used for park
or open space and
help raise or
coordinate funding
resources.
TPL assisted (a) Teller
County in acquiring
Catamount Ranch, (b)
Boulder County in
acquiring Hall Ranch
(near Lyons), (c)
Grand Junction to
acquire Matchett
Farm, and (d) JeffCo
OS in acquiring
Mount Lindo
Confer with TPL and
evaluate how they
might facilitate
Arvada’s open space
program.
The Nature Conservancy is
a technical resource.
Provides staffing on
projects and
performs studies.
The Nature
Conservancy has lent
money to the City of
Boulder Open Space
Program.
Confer with TNC and
evaluate how they
might facilitate
Arvada’s open space
program.
TPL can assist by placing
options on land, securing
funding, negotiating
purchases prices, and land
assembly. TPL typically does
not take title but will tie up
property.
THE NATURE
CONSERVANCY (TNC)
(national in-kind and revenue
source) This private non-profit
raises funds through
membership, and grants from
GOCO grants, Trust for
Public Land, and the Land
and Water Conservation
Fund.
Provides loans for
acquisition.
TNC has partnered
with JCOS to provide
staffing and
preparation of studies.

chapter four recommendations of the master plan

Transcription

Similar documents

Community Prosperity Appendix 3 - Donner Summit Area Association

November 2015

dickinson county recreational trails dickinson county recreational

Independence Day and More in Arvada!

2015 CPC-PSL Course Brochure_v.3

Slotomania Big Win - Bingo Card Game For Ipad

Wild Capeb.indd - World Wide Creative

Dual Sport Motorcycle Trail Map

Parks and Recreation

2016 Summer Newsletter - Friends of the South Slopes Society FOSS

Coupon Offers - Jackson County Parks + Rec, MO

The Arvada Report