Bothell parks board reviews 90% draft of PROS plan, flags walkshed and equity gaps and funding needs

At its May 2020 meeting, the Bothell Parks and Recreation Board reviewed the 90% draft of the city’s Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) plan and gave staff written and verbal feedback ahead of a June 11 meeting where the board will decide whether to forward a final recommendation to the City Council.

Staff told the board the plan update stems from a six‑year cycle required for grant eligibility and system planning. Erin Milner, parks planning and development manager, said the engagement process drew ‘‘over 700 respondents’’ and showed heavy park use: "our parks are highly used and highly valued with over 88% of community survey respondents saying they visit the parks weekly or daily," she said. The survey also showed strong interest in passive, nature‑based recreation, improved trails, dog parks and a year‑round indoor facility for programs.

Planner Kai Patnode presented the draft needs analysis and walkshed mapping and said the citywide picture is uneven: "50.7% of residences in the city are located within that 10‑minute or half‑mile walkshed to a city park or open space," Patnode said, adding that access is concentrated in the King County portion of the city while gaps are concentrated in parts of the Snohomish County area.

The draft plan pairs those analyses with strategic goals: maximize existing system potential through design and implementation, care for existing assets and staff capacity, expand and diversify recreation programming, and invest in future acquisitions, trails and funding sources. Staff emphasized the goals are planning guidance and that opportunity maps are not active acquisitions.

On funding and capacity, staff reported Bothell currently provides about 3.5 acres of parkland per 10,000 residents and, using the plan’s population projections, said keeping that level of service would require additional acreage (staff presented an example calculation that would require roughly 10.5 additional acres by 2029). Board members pressed for clearer explanation of how the acreage targets are calculated and urged staff to show decision rules for capital‑project prioritization and lifecycle costs of new facilities.

Board members also pressed staff to make plan language and visual materials more accessible for residents who will not read the full draft. They requested clearer, plain‑language definitions for terms such as "walkshed" and "open space," more explicit linking of goals to equity outcomes (for example, referencing sidewalks and transit access alongside acquisition goals), and clearer prioritization for trail connections — including completing segments of the North Creek Trail and distinguishing regional paved commuter trails from unpaved hiking trails.

Staff described several grant efforts tied to the plan’s priorities: applications to the Recreation and Conservation Office (WWRP) for an inclusive playground at Cedar Grove, a youth athletic field grant for a skate park at Bothell Landing, an aquatic‑access grant, and progress on a Tourism and Local Trails (TLT) grant with a scheduled state board presentation in early June. Staff said those grant pursuits are competitive but could help fund capital priorities identified in the draft plan.

On staffing, board members noted the department’s flat organizational structure and under‑resourcing. Staff said the consultant’s staffing scenario in the draft is an aggressive, aspirational hiring path that depends on future funding; they characterized it as a useful guide rather than an immediately implementable plan.

Several board members suggested the draft include a clear public‑facing summary or infographic and better imagery so residents can quickly grasp priorities. Staff said a refreshed draft will be distributed before the June 11 meeting and detailed appendices (including equity‑mapping methods and data sources) are available in the plan appendices.

No formal policy vote on the PROS plan occurred at this meeting; the board did approve the March minutes earlier in the agenda (motion by Malia; second by Laura) and adjourned after discussion. The board was reminded that its June 11 meeting is the target to finalize a recommendation to council and that council consideration is expected later in the summer.