Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Community Centers topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Spokane officials say three community centers need $17.4 million in capital work; council to weigh long-term funding
Summary
City staff presented an independent needs assessment saying three Spokane community centers require $17.4 million in capital investments with no other identified funding, and urged a community-engagement process to set the city’s long-term capital and operating role.
City staff told the Spokane council that an independent needs assessment found the city’s three community centers would require $17.4 million in capital investments over the next decade and that, at present, those costs have no other funding source than the City of Spokane. "They would need seventeen point four million dollars in capital investments that have no other funding source than the City of Spokane at this time," the presenter said.
The presenter and council members said operating-contract funding for the centers has been relatively stagnant for years—"around half a million" or about $450,000 to $500,000 annually—and that a mix of state grants, ARPA funds and other grants have been used for individual projects. Staff noted a roughly $1 million state-funded item and ARPA-supported work, including a solar project at the MLK center, but emphasized that the bulk of the $17.4 million lacks an identified external funding stream.
Council members and staff raised questions about whether the city should own facilities, the staffing and regulatory implications of public ownership, and what shared services from partners such as health districts, libraries and schools might look like. Sarah Clements Sampson, referenced by staff as the person assigned to the city’s human-services coordination role, was cited as a point of contact for improving communications with community-center leaders.
Council members asked that the administration and council begin a structured conversation about a long-term vision and funding process for community centers, including options to shift some investment away from the general fund and to consider grant or programmatic approaches. Staff suggested short-term one-year contracts with centers to allow time for that deliberation.
What happens next: staff agreed to provide additional detail on facility conditions, funding sources used to date, and options for a public engagement process that would inform budget assumptions for the next biennial budget cycle.
