Capital Facilities

Organization of this Chapter

The Capital Facilities Chapter is divided into the following sections:

The Introduction describes the intent of the Capital Facilities Chapter. It also describes the relationship of the Capital Facilities Chapter to the vision of Redmond’s future as well as to other Comprehensive Plan chapters.

The Planning Context describes how this chapter responds to the requirements of the Growth Management Act and the Countywide Planning Policies.

The Capital Facilities Inventory provides an overview of significant, publicly owned capital facilities that provide services to City of Redmond residents.

The Capital Facilities Policies are divided into the following areas:

A. Framework Policies summarize the vision for the City’s capital investment program and establish the fundamental goals to guide the development of that program.

B. Capital Facilities Investment Policies cover a range of capital facility issues areas, including development of functional plans for capital facility needs. These policies apply broadly to the entire City. Capital facility investment policies which are specific to a particular neighborhood can be found in the Neighborhoods Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan.

C. Capital Facility Financial Plan Policies discuss services standards, financing of capital facilities and other issue areas. These policies apply broadly to the entire City. Capital facility financial policies and facility plans which are specific to a particular neighborhood can be found in the Neighborhoods Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan.

D. Land Useful for Public Purposes discusses the process the City will pursue to identify and designate land to be used to satisfy broad public purposes.

(Ord. 1847)

Introduction

he intent of the Capital Facility Chapter is to establish policies to guide the development of the City’s capital investment program in support of the City’s vision for the future. The policies are designed to guide the actions of public agencies, such as the City, as well as private decisions related to individual developments.

The Capital Facility Chapter helps achieve Redmond’s vision by:

▀       Providing a clear definition of the role and purpose of the City’s capital investment program;

▀       Assuring that capital facility investments are prioritized to support growth in the locations targeted in the Land Use Plan;

▀       Identifying service standards for capital facilities which meet community expectations for municipal service delivery; and

▀       Requiring that adequate, long-term financial capacity exists to provide capital facilities needed to support expected growth while maintaining adopted service standards.

The Capital Facility Chapter is tied closely to other chapters of the Comprehensive Plan. For example, the Capital Facility Chapter provides a high priority for investment in the Downtown Urban Center and Overlake Advanced Technology Center in support of the Land Use Plan goals for focusing future growth in those areas. The Capital Facility Chapter also provides for reducing the mitigation charges placed on certain types of urban development, in order to support the affordable housing objectives of the Housing Chapter.

(Ord. 1847)

Planning Context

he Capital Facilities Chapter is a critical piece of the Comprehensive Plan puzzle. The policies contained within the Capital Facilities Chapter meet the need that every city has to have a clear understanding of the purpose of its capital investment program. The Capital Facility Chapter also addresses one of the cornerstones of effective growth management planning — assuring that adequate facilities are provided to support anticipated growth.

The State Growth Management Act (GMA) requires that the Capital Facilities Chapter include the following:

▀       An inventory of existing capital facilities owned by public entities, showing their locations and capacities;

▀       A forecast of future needs for such capital facilities;

▀       The proposed locations and capacities of expanded or new capital facilities;

▀       At least a six-year plan for financing such capital facilities within projected funding capacities and that clearly identifies sources of public money for such purposes; and

▀       A requirement to reassess the Land Use Plan if probable funding falls short of meeting future needs and to ensure that the Land Use Chapter, the Capital Facilities Chapter and its financing plan are coordinated and consistent.

The Countywide Planning Policies for King County suggest that the Capital Facilities Chapter include the following:

▀       Identify infrastructure financing strategies which support development of designated Urban and Manufacturing Centers and

▀       Provide a high priority to public health and safety when making capital facility investment decisions.

The Capital Facility Chapter fully complies with both the Growth Management Act and the Countywide Planning Policies. It addresses all mandates in a fashion that is consistent with the intent of the legislation and, at the same time, is consistent with the vision of Redmond’s future.

(Ord. 1847)

Capital Facilities Inventory

his section provides a brief summary of existing publicly owned capital facilities which support services to City of Redmond residents. The descriptions are necessarily brief; the reader should consult the documents listed at the conclusion of this chapter for more detailed information on existing capital facilities in the City of Redmond.

Fire and Emergency Medical Response

The Redmond Fire Department serves the City of Redmond with a full-range of fire suppression and emergency medical response services, as well as prevention and educational activities. The Fire Department serves an area comprising approximately 51 square miles and a population of about 55,000. The Fire Department utilizes five fire stations, four of which are staffed on a full-time basis. (See Map CF-1).

Map CF-1

The Fire Department also provides emergency medical services at the “basic life support” level. For additional information, consult the City of Redmond Fire Master Plan (1992).

Parks and Recreation Facilities

Public parks and recreational facilities serving the City of Redmond are owned and operated by either the City of Redmond or King County. The City’s facilities include a range of neighborhood, community and resources parks and a network of trails. The City also owns the City of Redmond Watershed, located northeast of the city limit, where equestrian, hiking and bicycling trails are located. Refer to the Parks and Recreation Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan as well as the City’s Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PRO) Plan for a more detailed discussion of the City’s parks and recreation facilities.

King County facilities serving Redmond residents include Marymoor County Park, which offers baseball and soccer fields, a velodrome, a “pea patch,” a climb-

ing rock, hiking, plane flying, dog exercise areas; the King County Historical Museum as well as the Sammamish River Trail, which offers walking, running and bicycling.

Police Facilities

The City of Redmond Police Department provides crime prevention and law enforcement in the City of Redmond. The Police Department’s primary capital facility is its operations center located in the City’s downtown Public Safety Building (See Map CF-2). That building contains a booking and temporary holding facility as well as a property impoundment area, classrooms and an evidence room.

Map CF-2

Public Educational Facilities

The City of Redmond is served by the Lake Washington School District (LWSD) for public elementary, junior and high school education. The locations of existing LWSD facilities are shown in Map CF-3. The Lake Washington School District Capital Facility Plan should be consulted for more detailed information regarding school facility development planning in the Redmond area. Portions of Redmond in the Viewpoint area are served by the Bellevue School District.

Sewer Facilities

The City of Redmond is the sole provider of sewer service within the Redmond city limits, providing this service through a Sewer Utility. The Redmond sewer system consists of a network of conveyance pipes and pumping facilities. The system works primarily on a gravity feed basis with some assistance from pumping stations. Larger transmission mains carry waste to METRO interceptors, with sewage ultimately treated at METRO treatment plants at either West Point (Seattle) or Renton. The City of Redmond operates a joint use system with the City of Bellevue to convey sewage from the Overlake neighborhood. For more detailed information on existing sewer facilities serving the City of Redmond, consult the Utilities Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan and the adopted wastewater facilities plan.

Storm and Surface Water Facilities

The City of Redmond Stormwater Utility Division manages surface water and stormwater facilities to prevent damage to properties and/or loss of life from storm runoff and to maintain water quality and a hydrologic balance. The stormwater facilities consist of conveyance pipes, treatment facilities to remove pollutants and natural drainage networks. Approximately 9,700 parcels within the City are served by the drainage system. The water from these parcels eventually discharges into one of four major drainage basins. For more detailed information on existing stormwater facilities serving the City of Redmond, consult the Utilities Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan or maps of facilities maintained by the Stormwater Utility Division.

Transportation Facilities

The City of Redmond is served by a wide variety of transportation facilities, ranging from equestrian trails and mountain biking trails to a major network of arterial and freeway facilities. The City is primarily responsible for the development and maintenance of facilities, such as streets and associated traffic control hardware, sidewalks and bicycle lanes. Public transportation facilities are operated by King County METRO and include a variety of park & ride lots and transit loading facilities. The Transportation Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan provides a more complete reference to existing and planned transportation facilities in the City.

Water Facilities

Water facilities serving the City of Redmond are developed and maintained by the City of Redmond through its Water Utility. Water is supplied through a combination of local wells and water purchased from City of Seattle Water. Redmond’s water system consists of five water storage tanks and 150 miles of water mains serving approximately 11,000 customers throughout the City. Water in the Overlake area is provided through a joint use agreement with the City of Bellevue. A more complete discussion of the City’s water system is included in the Utilities Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan. The City of Redmond Water Plan should also be consulted for detailed discussions.

Other Municipal Facilities

The City owns and operates a number of other capital facilities in order to provide administrative, maintenance or special services. Such facilities include City Hall on the Downtown municipal campus, where administrative departments are located, the City Council chambers in the Downtown Public Safety Building, the Senior Center on the municipal campus, where senior-oriented and other recreational activities are offered. See Map CF-2 for the location of these facilities and the Maintenance and Operations Center (MOC), which is the operating base for the City’s maintenance activities.

(Ord. 1984; Ord. 1847)

Capital Facilities Policies

A. Framework Policies

he following Capital Facility Framework Policies represent the most basic principles which guide the development of capital facility plans, policies and strategies. Policy statements outlined in each of the Capital Facility Chapter subsections that follow relate either directly or indirectly to the Framework Policies.

FCF-1 The intent of the City’s capital investment is to provide capital facilities and infrastructure which are needed by the community for civic purposes and which cannot be readily provided by individuals or groups other than City government.

FCF-2 When planning, developing and administering the City’s capital investment program, primary consideration shall be given to the following goals:

A. Providing infrastructure to support the vision of Redmond’s future as articulated in the Comprehensive Plan;

B. Supporting the provision of City services consistent with the expectations of the community, as expressed in the City’s declared level of service standards;

C. Protecting public health and safety;

D. Rehabilitating or replacing the City’s facilities and infrastructure as necessary to extend the useful life of existing facilities and ensure continued efficiency, and

E. Providing facilities which meet special needs of the community, such as those supported by voter-approved bonds.

FCF-3 The cost of new capital facilities and capacity improvements should be borne by those who benefit most directly. Those who benefit from a new facility should bear costs in proportion to the benefit received. The cost of facilities which respond to and mitigate the impacts of growth should be borne by those generating that growth.

B. Capital Facility Investment

uccessfully planning for the development of major capital facility systems, such as water, sewer, public safety or parks systems requires a disciplined and comprehensive process. That process traditionally is accommodated through the development of functional plans (often called functional master or comprehensive plans). The City of Redmond Water Comprehensive Plan and Fire Master Plan are examples of such functional plans. Developing functional plans for capital facility needs provides the opportunity for a detailed professional assessment of background information, current and future needs and alternative strategies for meeting those needs. Done well, functional plans also may incorporate significant public involvement through the use of citizen advisory boards, such as the Redmond Parks Board, as well as public hearings, open houses and other outreach efforts.

CF-1 Functional area plans for City-operated capital facilities shall be developed to comprehensively assess functional area needs and strategies for addressing such needs. Functional area plans shall guide the development of capital priorities and investment decisions within each functional area.

CF-2 The City shall maximize opportunities for public involvement when developing functional area plans.

CF-3 To the maximum extent that fiscal considerations permit, the City shall develop and regularly update functional area plans for the following functional areas:

A. Fire protection and emergency management response;

B. Police protection;

C. Stormwater and surface water management;

D. Water system;

E. Sewer system;

F. Parks, recreation, and open space;

G. Transportation; and

H. General government facilities.

CF-4 Functional area plans shall be developed or amended as necessary to ensure consistency generally with the adopted Comprehensive Plan and specifically with its planning assumptions, growth projections, service area phasing and annexation policies.

Revenues available for capital investment within the City of Redmond’s Capital Improvement Program include a significant portion of revenues which are unrestricted in their use. That is, the City is free to apply the revenues to any of a wide range of project types, from parks to roads to fire stations. However, in order to better facilitate long range capital planning and year-to-year consistency within the City’s capital investment program, the City may allocate unrestricted funds to various functional areas on a percentage basis. Doing so permits the community to clearly assess the funding commitment of effort that the City has committed to particular functional areas, and also permits those responsible for development of capital facilities to rely on specific revenue streams and phase facility development accordingly.

CF-5 The City shall allocate unrestricted capital revenues to functional areas on a percentage basis, as indicated in the following chart, to promote consistency and stability in capital planning and programming.

Functional Area Percent

Transportation 45% Park 20% Fire 15% Police 10% General Government 5% Contingency 5%

In order to promote orderly growth and ensure that adequate facilities are available to serve new growth, the Growth Management Act (GMA) provides the City of Redmond with authority to collect impact fees for (a) public streets and roads; (b) parks, recreational facilities and open space; (c) school facilities, and (d) certain fire protection facilities. Collection of impact fees for other public facilities may be possible but is not expressly permitted by the GMA.

CF-6 Any imposition of impact fees on new development by the City of Redmond shall adhere to the following guidelines:

A. Fees shall be imposed only for system improvements that are reasonably related to the new development;

B. Fees shall not exceed a proportionate share of the costs of system improvements that are reasonably related to the new development;

C. Impact fee revenues must be balanced with other public revenue sources in order to finance system improvements which serve new development;

D. Proceeds shall be used for system improvements that will reasonably benefit the new development; and

E. Proceeds shall not be used to correct any existing capital facility deficiencies.

CF-7 When adopting any impact fee ordinance, the City shall consider exempting from payment of impact fees certain land uses which have broad public purpose.

The City of Redmond has the authority to impose impact fees to pay for new school facilities that are necessitated by future growth. The imposition of school impact fees is conditioned, however, on the development of a school capital facility plan by the responsible school district, in this case, the Lake Washington School District. The City must exercise diligence in assuring that the facility plans developed by the school district are consistent with the amount and location of growth envisioned in the Redmond Comprehensive Plan. Similarly, the City must determine that the school service standards used by the school district in development of the school facility plan are consistent with community expectations and values.

CF-8 School districts which propose to have the City of Redmond impose impact fees for them shall prepare capital facility plans that include:

A. A long-range plan for capital improvements and construction over a 20-year horizon;

B. A demonstration of how facility and service needs are determined;

C. At least a six-year finance plan, to be updated on an annual basis, that demonstrates how capital needs are to be funded;

D. Population and demographic projections consistent with those used in developing the City of Redmond Comprehensive Plan;

E. A strategy for achieving consistency between the land use and capital facility plan beyond the six-year capital improvement program, including identified improvements; and

F. An assessment and comparison of the condition and functional characteristics of school facilities across the entire District.

Map CF-3

CF-9 School districts which propose to have the City of Redmond impose impact fees for them shall submit new adjusted capital facility plans to the City of Redmond within one year from the date of adoption of the Redmond Comprehensive Plan.

Facility phasing is a method of identifying the infrastructure necessary to support a specific amount and type of growth and for committing the financial resources needed to supply the necessary infrastructure. Under such a system, development approval is streamlined on the basis of the advance identification of necessary capital facilities to support projected growth. Detailed infrastructure and environmental analysis may not be required when permitting individual private developments where facility phasing plans are in place. Facility phasing plans provide an important opportunity to integrate the concurrency requirements of the Growth Management Act (GMA) with the environmental assessment requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA).

The facility phasing system also is useful for high growth areas since establishing “pre-planned” development levels will simplify the development approval process. To the extent that an environmental review is conducted on the facility phasing plan itself as part of its adoption, then strict limitations on the scope of environmental review can be established at the project development review stage. This type of system is strongly encouraged under the Countywide Planning Policies, particularly for use in high-growth areas such as Downtown and Overlake. Growth phasing provides a high level of predictability to both developers and the community regarding what type of development will be permitted, and what infrastructure will be provided to support that development.

CF-10 Facility phasing plans should be established for specific land use districts in order to support maintenance of infrastructure service standards, implement the district land use plan and streamline the development review process. Priority for development of district facility phasing plans shall be given to designated Urban and/or Manufacturing Centers.

CF-11 Facility phasing plans shall be designed to provide for a broad analysis of infrastructure needs in relation to anticipated land development. To the maximum extent possible, facility phasing plans should identify all infrastructure improvements necessary to support planned growth.

CF-12 Where facility phasing plans are in place, efforts shall be made to restrict infrastructure analysis required under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) to on-site impacts and/or infrastructure in proximity to the proposed development.

CF-13 Facility phasing plans shall identify any specific types of proposed development which, by virtue of their size, use or location, shall be reviewed outside of the facility phasing plan and which may be required to conduct a full analysis of infrastructure impacts under provisions of the State Environmental Policy Act.

CF-14 The development of facility phasing plans shall incorporate a strong citizen participation program early in the process, and should be pursued in conjunction with the development of neighborhood plans.

The City is faced with many opportunities to obtain funding for capital facilities from outside sources, such as state and federal grants. Securing these outside funding sources usually requires supplying some local funds as a match to the grant funds. Using local funds as a match to grant funds, as opposed to using local funds as the sole source of funding of projects, provides opportunities for significantly leveraging the City’s financial resources.

CF-15 The City shall aggressively pursue funding from other levels of government and private agencies to accomplish its capital investment program while optimizing use of City resources.

C. Capital Facility Financial Plan

ervice standards represent a yardstick against which to measure the performance of a particular type of capital facility. Service standards may be defined by state or federal law, as is the case with water systems; may be recommended by national professional associations, as is the case for parks; or may be locally defined based on community preferences, such as police standards. Once service standards are established for capital facilities, they become a benchmark which dictates what type and level of investment must be made to maintain the standards. Higher levels of growth, in the form of population and employment, for example, will generate the need for higher levels of capital investment to keep capital facilities performing up to standard.

CF-16 Capital facility service standards are hereby established for the following types of facilities in order to determine long-term (CFP) facility and funding requirements, as follows:

A. Water system: As described in policy UT-35 of the Utilities Chapter.

B. Sewer system: As described in policy UT-54 of the Utilities Chapter.

C. Transportation facilities: As described in policy TR-10 of the Transportation Chapter.

D. Parks and recreational facilities: Shall be based on the following ratios:

▀     Neighborhood parks: 1.0 acres per 1,000 population

▀     Community parks: 3.0 acres per 1,000 population

▀     Resource parks: 2.5 acres per 1,000 population

▀     Trails: 0.25 miles per 1,000 population

E. Fire protection: Total response time of five and one-half minutes or less for 80% of fire and emergency medical calls in the City.

F. Police protection: No capital facility standard. (Police operations are guided by an objective of providing 1.7 uniformed officers per 1,000 residents.)

G. Stormwater: As described in policies UT-60 and UT-62 of the Utilities Chapter.

Fulfilling the City’s vision for the future is highly dependent on the City’s ability to provide adequate capital facilities. The City must be able to demonstrate that it can afford to construct the facilities that are needed to support growth anticipated by the Land Use Plan — both to preserve the high quality of life offered by Redmond as well as to meet mandates of the Growth Management Act.

A critical concept on which the success of the Comprehensive Plan hinges is that of “plan-level concurrency.” Simply put, this term means that the City has the financial capability to construct adequate facilities at the time they are required, in support of growth anticipated by the adopted Land Use Plan through the planning period (year 2012). Demonstration of “plan-level concurrency” does not require that the details or timing of every capital project be identified in advance. Rather, it calls for general comparison of anticipated capital improvements to be made against reasonably expected revenues to make sure they are in balance. New financing mechanisms required to generate needed revenues should be identified, though they might be instituted only when the financial need arises.

The City must monitor whether “plan-level concurrency” is being maintained by continuously reassessing its long-range capital needs and expected revenues. Should they become out of balance, the City must either identify additional revenues for capital projects, reassess the Land Use Plan to either temporarily or permanently reduce the need for capital facilities, or modify service standards.

CF-17 A long-term Capital Facility Plan (CFP) shall be maintained which demonstrates “plan-level” concurrency. “Plan-level” concurrency shall mean the demonstrated financial capacity to provide adequate capital facilities in support of the adopted Land Use Plan, 20-year growth targets and facility service standards. Table CF-1 represents the City of Redmond Capital Facility Plan (CFP), and is incorporated into this section.

CF-18 Functional plans adopted by reference in the Utilities Chapter are hereby also adopted by reference as part of the Capital Facilities Plan. The Transportation Facility Plan, Local Public Transportation section, Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation section, Arterial Functional Classification and Street Plan, the Arterial Functional Classification Summary from the Transportation Chapter, and the Capital Improvement Program in the Parks & Recreation Chapter are also adopted by reference as part of the Capital Facilities Plan.

CF-19 To the extent that the City has an adopted Comprehensive Plan Capital Facility Plan which demonstrates “plan-level” concurrency, concurrency determinations shall not be required at the project level. This policy does not apply to transportation concurrency assessments, whose requirements are defined in the Transportation Chapter, Policies TR-9 through TR-13.

CF-20 The Capital Facility Plan (CFP) shall be reassessed at least biennially to confirm that long-term financial capacity exists to provide adequate capital facilities and to ensure consistency between the CFP and the Land Use plan. In the event that financial capacity to provide necessary capital facilities for all or part of the City is found to be insufficient, the City shall take one or more of the following actions:

A. Reassess the Land Use Plan to adjust the capacity for growth;

B. Institute mechanisms for phasing or deferring growth; and/or

C. Reassess service standards for capital facilities.

CF-21 The City’s six-year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) shall serve as the short-term budgetary process for implementing the long-term Capital Facility Plan. Project priorities, funding allocations and financing strategies incorporated in the CIP shall be consistent with the long-term CFP.

D. Lands Useful for Public Purposes

and is needed for public purposes to adequately provide public facilities and services. To ensure that adequate lands are available for public uses, the Growth Management Act requires local governments to identify lands useful for public purposes. Lands useful for public purposes means land that is suited to and needed for governmental functions, such as parks and recreation areas, streets, fire stations, other governmental buildings and utilities.

Redmond’s primary strategy for identifying lands useful for public purposes is to identify them in functional plans. Many of these sites are also identified in general terms in the various chapters of the Draft Comprehensive Plan. As the city acquires these properties, they may be identified more specifically in functional plans or, if they are large, they may be identified on the Land Use Plan Map. The following policy implements this strategy.

CF-22 Lands useful for public purposes should be identified in functional plans and may be identified in the appropriate chapters of the Comprehensive Plan. Where acquisition is not immediate, these lands may be identified generally or alternative sites may be identified. When acquired, these lands may be identified more specifically. Large areas of lands suitable for public purposes may be identified on the Land Use Plan Map. For public purposes for which the City or other governmental agency does not prepare functional plans, lands useful for public uses should be identified in the appropriate chapter of the Comprehensive Plan.

In addition to identifying lands useful for public purposes, the Growth Management Act also requires the local governments in a county to cooperatively develop a prioritized list of lands required for public facilities which serve more than one jurisdiction. These “shared needs” public facilities may include joint use facilities or facilities that serve a region or the whole county. Local capital acquisition budgets must be consistent with this prioritized list. The following policy commits Redmond to participate in the process of identifying shared needs properties. This process will likely be carried out through the Growth Management Planning Council or its successor. Redmond participates in the Growth Management Planning Council.

CF-23 Redmond shall work with nearby cities, King County, neighboring counties, the state, the Puget Sound Regional Council, the school district, special purpose districts, and other government agencies to identify share needs and the lands that may be needed to meet these shared needs. The City’s capital acquisition budget shall reflect the jointly agreed-upon priorities and time schedule for lands useful to provide shared needs.

(Ord. 2058; Ord. 2016; Ord. 1847)

Additional Capital Planning References

he following references may be consulted for more detailed information regarding existing and planned facilities, service standards, and facility development issues:

▀       City of Redmond Capital Facility Plan Technical Report

▀       City of Redmond Comprehensive Plan Draft Environmental Impact Statement

▀       City of Redmond Capital Improvement Program (CIP)

▀       City of Redmond Park, Recreation and Open Space (PRO) Plan

▀       City of Redmond Water Comprehensive Plan

▀       City of Redmond Comprehensive Sewer Plan

▀       City of Redmond Fire Master Plan

▀       Transportation Chapter of the Redmond Comprehensive Plan

▀       Parks and Recreation Chapter of the Redmond Comprehensive Plan

▀       Utility Chapter of the Redmond Comprehensive Plan

▀       King County Solid Waste Management Plan

▀       Lake Washington School District Capital Facility Plan

Table CF-1
Capital Facility Plan, 1995-2012
Data in 1998 dollars except where noted.
Public Safety
					Project Costs, by Type			1995-2000	2001-2012	Total
						Fire Station Development		501,000	1,001,000	1,502,000
						Fire Apparatus/Equipment		578,000	1,156,000	1,734,000
						Police Facilities/Equipment		1,396,000	998,000	2,394,000
							Total Project Costs	2,475,000	3,155,000	5,630,000
					Project Revenues, by Source
						Voter Approved Bonds		–	–	–
						General Fund Transfers/Other Local Revenues		1,068,000	2,135,000	3,203,000
						Developer Contributions/Impact Fees (See Note #2)		809,000	1,618,000	2,427,000
							Total Project Revenues	1,877,000	3,753,000	5,630,000
Parks
					Project Costs, by Type			1995-2000	2001-2012	Total
						Parks		6,841,000	13,682,000	20,523,000
						Trails		1,453,000	2,907,000	4,360,000
							Total Project Costs	8,294,000	16,589,000	24,883,000
					Project Revenues, by Source