Document Moscow_doc_e7b3f2bd78

2011 2012 Jen Pfiffner, City of Moscow Active Living Task Force 2011 2012 Active Living Task Force Final Report Recipient of the Association of Idaho Cities “Resilient City Award” and the Idaho Smart Growth “Grow Smart Award” ---PAGE BREAK--- This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- Table of Contents Executive Summary 1 Staff Education - Initiative for Bicycle and Pedestrian Innovation 3 Data Collection - iCount 4 Community Engagement – Neighborhood Greenway Assessment 5 Appendix A – Staff Education PowerPoint i Appendix B – iCount Report xxx Appendix C – Neighborhood Greenway Assessment Report xxxiii Appendix D – Budget Summary xxxiv ---PAGE BREAK--- This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 1 of 6 Executive Summary Overview In the fall of 2009, the Centers for Disease Control and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services issued announcements to state health departments about stimulus funding through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act for policies, systems, and environmental strategies to address obesity, physical activity, nutrition, and tobacco use. Idaho’s Department of Health and Welfare applied for, and was awarded, grant funding under the category of physical activity, and in July 2010, contracted with Idaho Smart Growth to manage the project. The implementation plan was for policies and infrastructure to support all modes of transportation, including active, non-motorized options. Moscow is one of five communities statewide to be selected as pilots for that effort. With guidance from Deanna Smith of Idaho Smart Growth and other pilot communities, Moscow is addressing public health concerns associated with sedentary lifestyles by providing people with healthful alternatives through community design, and policies, and programs that support active living. The City of Moscow would like to thank the Centers for Disease Control and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Idaho Smart Growth, Idaho’s Department of Health and Welfare, and most importantly Idaho Smart Growth for assisting in making this project possible. Goals The City of Moscow Active Living Task Force (ALTF) was formed for the purpose of this grant. The group proposed a plan to include three tasks to promote policies and implementation to enhance active living in Moscow to include staff education, data collection, and community engagement. The proposal was adopted in August of 2011. The long-term goal of this project was to lay the foundation for Moscow to become an increasingly healthier community by engaging the public and planning for infrastructure that supports active and healthy living. Staff education was achieved by the attendance of Kevin Lilly, City Engineer and Tyler Palmer; Street/Fleets Division Manager at the Initiative for Bicycle and Pedestrian Innovation, “Comprehensive Bicycle and Pedestrian Design and Planning” seminar in August of 2011. They presented their experience to the public in February of 2012 and that presentation is available online. The ALTF completed its first ever bicyclist and pedestrian count in October of 2011 as the data collection piece of the project. iCount, as the project was named, was a great success with more than 40 volunteers and 19 locations counted during two sessions on October 13, 2011. A report of results has been compiled and is available within this report and online. In April of 2012, the ALTF completed its final task, a community engagement project that focused on a Neighborhood Greenway Assessment. City staff determined two potential Neighborhood Greenway routes connecting downtown Moscow with the recreation centers and schools near the north east section of the city, parks and shopping, which are near to the south east part of downtown Moscow. The route was evaluated by community members who joined ALTF members. A report of results has been compiled and is available within this report and online. ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 2 of 6 A report on each of the tasks, successes and challenges, and results follows this summary. Appendices include more specific reports and materials for each task completed (Appendices A, B, as well as a budget overview (Appendix D) for the entire grant project. Active Living Task Force Member and Affiliations The ALTF was led by Helen Brown, Faculty Member in the Movement Sciences Department at the University of Idaho. Ellen Rouse, a University of Idaho student majoring in Exercise Science and Health was contracted with as a consultant to help develop training tools, compile data, and conduct research on best practices. Jen Pfiffner, Assistant to the City Supervisor was the City of Moscow staff liaison to the project. Seventy-five individuals representing healthcare, non-profits groups, economic development organizations, school districts and more from both the public and private sector participated and interacted with the ALTF on a regular basis throughout the project. Recommendations The ALTF was successful in the completion of each of each of its three tasks as outlined in the detailed review following this Executive Summary. Each task, taken in succession, provided a basis and foundation for the next project, with education providing a basis for a successful bicyclist and pedestrian count, both of which provided valuable information and background for the greenway assessment. From these tasks two specific recommendations were developed by the ALTF: 1. Host annual iCount events to provide a baseline of data for bicycle and pedestrian traffic counts in Moscow. 2. Implement a Neighborhood Greenway route in Moscow. The ALTF’s recommendations have been taken into consideration and as a result, the City of Moscow is excited to host the second annual iCount event in Moscow on September 13, 2012. Data will also be used by the Moscow on the Move – Multimodal Transportation Planning effort currently underway. Further, the Public Works Department is using the Neighborhood Greenway Assessment to review final plans for the installation of Neighborhood Greenway in Moscow, linking downtown, recreation facilities, transit, and business centers. From the IBPI Presentation Given by City staff, on the topic of "Design for ALL Uses" ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 3 of 6 Staff Education - Initiative for Bicycle and Pedestrian Innovation The Task The City of Moscow was dedicated to approaching this training opportunity from a desk to pavement mentality. For that reason the City Engineer Kevin Lilly and Streets/Fleet Division Manager Tyler Palmer both attended the Initiative for Bicycle and Pedestrian Innovation (IBPI) training offered by Portland State University. Both reported that the program was dynamic and applicable in many ways to our community and appreciated that representatives from any community attending would benefit from the program. Successes and Challenges The City’s reasons for sending two representatives were two-fold. First, to meet our goal to provide education for individuals involved in the design process of infrastructure from start to finish, desk to pavement. Second, by involving more than one person from the organization the City was able to leverage the enthusiasm and education gained at the conference as our attendees each had an ally to help promote ideas learned at the conference. A challenge identified by both staff members was the reality of day-to-day work, including limits on time and resources. The implementation of new ideas can also be difficult and take time to properly ensure buy in at all levels including the organization and community. Results As noted in the approved grant proposal, this task would be considered a success once the training was attended and an Information Sharing Session on the training was held. Specific performance measures included completion of a report document (Appendix A) and hosting an Information Sharing Session to share highlights from the training with 30 individuals and 3 additional agencies. The Information Sharing Session, held on February 21, 2012, was a success and well attended with 27 individuals who signed in. More than 3 related agencies were in attendance, including the University of Idaho Parking and Transportation Department, the City of Moscow Transportation Commission, City of Moscow Parks & Facilities Department and Community Development Department, City Council Members, the Moscow Chamber of Commerce, and media representatives. At the Information Sharing Session a brief survey was completed to help gauge the participants’ knowledge of four key infrastructure elements, including active travel concepts such as Neighborhood Greenways, additional lane markings including sharrows, bike Corrals as a bicycle parking option, detectable surfaces required to enhance ADA accessibility including truncated domes. For items and two participants noted the element was “new to me”. For item four people noted the element was “new to me”. When asked to rate the items they would like to see in Moscow, 12 people noted they would like to see item and 11 people would like to see item and 8 people would like to see item in Moscow. ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 4 of 6 Data Collection - iCount The Task The City of Moscow used the National Bicycle Pedestrian Documentation project as basis to develop an active travel count process, which for our community was branded as iCount. This was designed to collect travel data for bicyclists and pedestrians in Moscow to provide information for the City of Moscow’s transportation plan and to provide a resource for additional community engagement on the topic of active living and complete streets. The first iCount project was carried out on Thursday, October 13th, 2011. It was designed to take into account both morning commuters and evening commuters by dividing counts into two time periods; 7:00-9:00 AM and 4:00-6:00 PM. There were approximately 20 count sites staffed by 40 volunteer counters. Successes and Challenges A true success of iCount was the amazing support from the community and volunteers that joined our efforts. With 39 volunteers on the street and many more behind the scenes, we were able to successfully count 20 locations in the morning and 19 locations in the afternoon. Without our volunteers, this task would not have been a success. A real challenge for the planning committee was a lack of user-friendly forms and materials. Forms provided by several agencies were reviewed but were all very cumbersome and confusing. The group’s response to this was to develop their own forms for both intersection and screenline counting. The forms in the end were very user-friendly and provided a method of collecting data that were easily adapted for reporting purposes. Results The final progress and process report for iCount is included in this report (Appendix and as noted in the original proposal for the grant is considered complete with the filing of this report. Data from the count has been reported to the National Bicycle and Pedestrian Documentation Project and has been provided to the Moscow on the Move – Multimodal Transportation Planning consultants, for the multimodal transportation planning effort currently underway. Outcomes and performance measures for this task as outlined in the approved grant proposal included providing the data to the City’s transportation planning efforts and to other agencies. The City of Moscow looks forward to hosting a second iCount event in the fall of 2013. iCount Volunteer Scott Fedale ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 5 of 6 Community Engagement – Neighborhood Greenway Assessment The Task The third task of the ALTF was to organize and host a community engagement program to promote public education and information sharing. Following the report by staff who attended the Initiative for Bicycle and Pedestrian Innovation (IBPI) training offered by Portland State University, and in conjunction with work that was being completed by the City of Moscow Transportation Commission on bike path networks, the ALTF decided to promote the idea of a Neighborhood Greenway in our community. To truly engage our community, the ALTF structured the approach to introducing the idea of a Neighborhood Greenway in Moscow by educating through experience, allowing community members to test out and provide feedback on two greenway route options. This Neighborhood Greenway Assessment was held on April 21, 2012. Neighborhood Greenways are defined as streets with low traffic volume and speed where bicycles, pedestrians, and neighbors are given priority. The goal of a Neighborhood Greenway is to provide a route throughout Moscow to allow for safer bicycling and pedestrian connections, help people cross busier streets, provide signage for direction or destinations, and the potential to reduce auto traffic and speeds in neighborhoods. Additional community engagement was achieved through the presentation given by City Engineer Kevin Lilly and Streets/Fleet Division Manager Tyler Palmer on best practices and information learned at the Initiative for Bicycle and Pedestrian Innovation (IBPI) training offered by Portland State University. Successes and Challenges The approach to the introduction of the concept of a Neighborhood Greenway worked extremely well. By educating the participants while asking them to be involved in the determination of how this new approach could work in Moscow, we were able to get good citizen buy-in from a grass roots level. Our main challenge was recruiting folks to participate in an event on the first really nice day of the year! Results As outlined in the grant proposal, success of this task included measuring the number of attendees at the public input sessions and contacts via media vehicles. We had a great turn out of community members for the Neighborhood Greenway Assessment including all ages from babies to seniors, several modes of transportation from pedestrians, to recumbent trikes, to scooters, to bikes. More than 30 people came out to learn more about greenways and provide input on the potential for a greenway to be installed in their own community. Assessment Volunteers ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 6 of 6 The ALTF successfully reached out to the community through the following media outlets: • Media vehicle coverage area o The area targeted was not limited to just Moscow, but included those who live in neighboring communities who may work or recreate in Moscow, primarily Moscow, Pullman, Lewiston and Clarkston • Newspaper Coverage/Readership o Moscow-Pullman Daily News with 6,500 subscribers o Lewiston Tribune with 24,400 subscribers • Social media views o 300 Fans o 93,156 Daily Friends of Fans • Flyers o Delivered to more than 70 individuals with a “please share” request included • Public, Educational, and Government Access (PEG) Channel o Reach not able to be determined • City of Moscow Website o 5,926 unique visits during the week of October 13, 2011 The project itself provided the means for feedback on the proposed Neighborhood Greenway application and the thoughts and opinions of the community are included in the final Neighborhood Greenway report included as Appendix C of this report. At the request of the Sustainable Environment Commission Chair Scott Fedale, the completed project report was presented to the commission, which in turn provided a great letter of support for the project. A presentation was also made to the Paradise Path Task Force as the project relates to the existing path system in the community; the PPTF also provided a very nice letter of support. Finally, the report was presented to the Transportation Commission which has been working on bike path network system within Moscow. The Commission received the Neighborhood Greenway report favorably and has taken it into consideration in their research and recommendation of the development of a larger bicycle and pedestrian system in Moscow. The City hopes to install a pilot Neighborhood Greenway system in the fall of 2012, pending other priorities, and looks forward to continuing the discussion of the benefits of such endeavors for active living. Assessment volunteers reviewing and providing feedback on the final Survey Question for the Neighborhood Greenway Assessment ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix A – Staff Education PowerPoint Page i ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix A – Staff Education PowerPoint Page ii ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix A – Staff Education PowerPoint Page iii ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix A – Staff Education PowerPoint Page iv ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix A – Staff Education PowerPoint Page v ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix A – Staff Education PowerPoint Page vi ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix A – Staff Education PowerPoint Page vii ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix A – Staff Education PowerPoint Page viii ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix A – Staff Education PowerPoint Page ix ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix A – Staff Education PowerPoint Page x ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix A – Staff Education PowerPoint Page xi ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix A – Staff Education PowerPoint Page xii ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix A – Staff Education PowerPoint Page xiii ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix A – Staff Education PowerPoint Page xiv ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix A – Staff Education PowerPoint Page xv ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix A – Staff Education PowerPoint Page xvi . ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B – iCount Report Page xvii iCount 2011 Planning and Process Report, Submitted by Helen Brown, Active Living Task Force Chair Introduction In the fall of 2009, the Centers for Disease Control and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services issued announcements to state health departments about stimulus funding through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act for policies, systems, and environmental strategies to address obesity, physical activity, nutrition, and tobacco use. Idaho’s Department of Health and Welfare applied for, and was awarded funding under, the category of physical activity, and in July 2010, contracted with Idaho Smart Growth to manage the project. The implementation plan developed by Idaho Smart Growth was for development of complete street policies and infrastructure to support all modes of transportation, including active, non-motorized options. Moscow was one of five communities statewide to be selected as pilots for that effort. With guidance from Deanna Smith of Idaho Smart Growth and other pilot communities, Moscow addressed public health concerns associated with sedentary lifestyles by providing people with healthful alternatives through community design activities. The City of Moscow Active Living Task Force proposed a plan to include three tasks to promote and enhance active living in Moscow. The three tasks included City staff education, community education and promotion activities, and a bicycle and pedestrian travel count project, to also be submitted to the National Bicycle Pedestrian Documentation project. The long-term goal of this project is to lay the foundation for Moscow to become an increasingly healthier community by engaging the public and planning for infrastructure that supports active and healthy living. The City of Moscow used the National Bicycle Pedestrian Documentation project as basis to develop an active travel count process, which for our community was branded as iCount. This was designed to collect travel data for bicyclists and pedestrians in Moscow to provide information for the City of Moscow’s transportation plan and to provide a resource for additional community engagement on the topic of complete streets. The first iCount project was carried out on Thursday, October 13th, 2011. It was designed to take into account both morning commuters and evening commuters by dividing counts into two time periods; 7:00-9:00 AM and 4:00-6:00 PM. There were 20 count sites manned by 40 volunteer counters. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B – iCount Report Page xviii Participants Core Group A core group was established to lead the ALTF and make key decisions in the iCount planning process. Deanna Smith - Idaho Smart Growth, Grant Administrator, Facilitator • Helen Brown – Movement Sciences, University of Idaho • Nancy Chaney – City of Moscow Mayor, City of Moscow • Mary Dupree – Mobility Task Force, City of Moscow • Steve Hacker – Executive Director, Moscow Chamber of Commerce • Brooke Lowry – Coordinator, Safe Routes to School • Kelly O’Neill – Community Relations Director, City of Moscow Stakeholders The Active Living Task Force had several different stakeholder groups that represented a variety of viewpoints on active travel. • City of Moscow Mobility Task Force • Moscow City Hall • University of Idaho • Safe Routes to School • Gritman Medical Center • Moscow City Council • Bike for Life Planning Process The Active Living Task Force (ALTF) held seven meetings that dealt with the planning of the iCount event. In addition to ALTF meetings, there were also several small meetings of core group members that were held in order to make key decisions in the planning process. Meetings were best attended in the late afternoon and took place at Moscow’s City Hall. They were led by the Assistant to the City Supervisor, Jen Pfiffner, and the Chair of the group, Helen Brown. Several meetings were also attended by Deanna Smith of Idaho Smart Growth. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B – iCount Report Page xix Steps 1. May 20th, 2011: A project was proposed to develop a plan with the assistance of pre- developed program by Idaho Smart Growth to collect data on bike and pedestrian activity throughout the city to be considered in the analysis for development of the City of Moscow Transportation Plan. a. ALTF core group meeting was held to select preliminary sites for the counts. Selections were based on criteria from the National Bicycle and Pedestrian Documentation Project. These criteria emphasized choosing areas of high density, areas with recent improvements, and areas of concern. 2. September 13th, 2011: A Stakeholder meeting was held to introduce the overall grant goals, an overview of the Moscow project, and background/best practice models for the active travel documentation project. The overall grant goals were presented by Deanna Smith of Idaho Smart Growth, overview of the Moscow project was presented by Jen Pfiffner of the City of Moscow, and background information and best practice models for active travel documentation were presented by University of Idaho student, Ellen Rouse. Helen Brown covered decision points for the project; logo choices, date of count, training of volunteers, and the recruitment of volunteers. 3. September 27th, 2011: A meeting was held to introduce iCount and the National Documentation Project to the larger stakeholder group. The logo for iCount was chosen. The group also discussed the list of groups to contact as potential volunteers, several ALTF members volunteered to contact these groups. It was decided that four listening stations will be hosted by four different entities including the City of Moscow, University of Idaho, Gritman Medical Center, and the Chamber of Commerce. Locations will be spread throughout the City in locations pertinent to counts and the businesses. Training PowerPoint were designed and presented by University of Idaho Student, Ellen Rouse. 4. A meeting with University of Idaho Transportation Engineers was held to select intersection and screen line counting locations that would help aide in gaining information useful for the City’s already existing transportation plan. 5. There eight distinct Safe Route to School sites chosen as count sites. The count day was preceded by the International Walk to School Day; information from the count was used to compare the numbers from the walking event with every day counts of bicyclists/pedestrians. It was shown that the International Walk to School Day event did sustain an impact on the levels of people walking or biking to school. 6. Small core group meetings and communication between ALTF leaders to finalize training tools, volunteer recruitment, volunteer training planning, on-line training tool, count site finalizations, and listening station logistics finalized. 7. A meeting was held October 12th to train volunteer counters for count the next day. For those who were unable to make the meeting an online training tool was provided. 8. A meeting was held on November 8th to debrief the iCount process and get input on the count locations and the count forms. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B – iCount Report Page xx Volunteer Recruitment 1. A list of potential volunteer sources was established at a stakeholder planning meeting. • Safe Routes to School • Coop Mamas and Papas • Dept of Health and Welfare Medical Reserve Corps • UI Parking and Transportation Department • Bike Shops • Chamber of Commerce • Moscow Food Coop • Latah Trail • UI Greek Life • Bill Chipman Trail • Paradise Path Task Force • Center for Volunteerism • Good Samaritan • High School Environmental Club • City Council • City of Moscow • Civic Organizations • Legislators • MAMBA • Palouse Road Runners • PCEI • Boy Scouts/Girl Scouts • Disability Action Center • Friendly Neighbors • MSD Honor Society • Retired Seniors and Volunteer Program (RSVP) • Gritman Medical Center • Kid’s Safety Fair • League of Women Voters • Mobility Task Force • Transportation Commission • Bike for Life • UI Bicycle Club • UI Cycling Team • University of Idaho Engineering Class 2. Volunteers were recruited through several methods using both word-of-mouth and advertisement of the iCount event. • On-line sign-up method on the City of Moscow website. This allowed people who did not attend regular ALTF meetings to sign up. • Volunteers were recruited and signed up at ALTF meetings • Volunteers were recruited by word-of-mouth through friends or acquaintances who attended or knew of the ALTF iCount project. • Press-releases • Mailing lists • Newspaper articles Training Methods Volunteers were given the choice between counting at a screenline location or an intersection location. A counter training PowerPoint presentation was developed by the University of Idaho student consultant on active travel. This was presented at City Hall on October 12th, 2011 the evening before the count day and was also found online at the City’s website for volunteers who could not make the training meeting. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B – iCount Report Page xxi Count Day Logistics a. Packets were assembled for each counting site, both AM and PM. The packets contained count forms attached to a clipboard, a laminated hard copy of an overview of counting instructions, iCount stickers, business card with contact information and quick facts about iCount, pencils, and a safety vest. b. A coffee gift card and granola bar for the volunteer counter 2. Training of the volunteers occurred the night before the count day. At this training meeting they received their count day packet. 3. On the count day volunteers were asked to arrive at their assigned locations approximately 15 minutes before the start times. The count times were 7:00-9:00 AM and 4:00- 6:00 PM. They spent the next two hours tallying bikers and pedestrians and making any necessary comments. Volunteers were able to volunteer to cover either one shift or both of the shifts for the day. 4. The counters were supervised by University of Idaho and City Hall officials who roamed the locations offering assistance and troubleshooting. 5. Among the count locations, there were also four listening stations available for bikers/pedestrians to write on comment cards, voice concerns, and provide information on their travel routes. These listening stations were located at Friendship Square, Gritman Hospital, and the University of Idaho Student Union Building. 6. At the conclusion of the count day volunteers were asked to return their packets and completed forms to Moscow City Hall. Marketing Campaign The Active Living Task Force made the active travel counting project unique to the city of Moscow by branding the event with a name and a recognizable logo. The name, iCount, was decided by the ALTF core stakeholder group and the logo was designed by a University of Idaho design student. Marketing endeavors undertaken to promote iCount included: 1. University of Idaho list serves 2. Logo development 3. Stickers 4. Flyers 5. Media releases 6. City of Moscow social media sites 7. iCount webpage Stakeholder list serve iCount Tools 1. Unique count forms - iCount took the forms used by the National Bicycle and Pedestrian Documentation Project and adapted them to suit the iCount Logo iCount Sticker ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B – iCount Report Page xxii specific needs of the Moscow count. There were two forms; intersection and screenline. These forms were already designated to specific locations and were used in fifteen minute increments. a. Screenline - original form only takes into account the number of bicyclists/pedestrians and their sex. The iCount adapted forms take into account the number of bicyclists/pedestrians, their direction, helmet use, and if the individual was traveling on the sidewalk or the street. b. Intersection - The original form accounts for direction but denotes directions with “leg” letters. The iCount adapted form allows the counter to mark the bicyclist/pedestrian and their direction on a blown up image of an intersection. 2. Training tools a. Counter Training PowerPoint - A PowerPoint was developed and presented in a counter training meeting the night prior to the count day. b. Instructions incorporated into count forms - the count forms had brief instructions covering the basics in order to remind counters of important points. Following the Count 1. There was a debriefing meeting held on November 8th, 2011 at City Hall. This meeting allowed the count day volunteers to discuss the outcomes of the count, what to continue and what to improve upon for future counts. 2. Data from the count was compiled into spreadsheets according to the type of form (intersection or screenline) and whether the count was AM or PM. 3. Comments from the volunteer counters were compiled into a spreadsheet. 4. A summary report of iCount was compiled by Mike Lowry and Aaron Buckley of the University of Idaho Bioregional Planning and Design Program. The report summarized preliminary findings from the count data and makes recommendations for future iCount events. Data Tables Data for the project has been compiled according to the National Bicycle and Pedestrian Document and has been submitted to that group for inclusion in their efforts. This data has also been provided to the Moscow on the Move - Multimodal Transportation Plan consultants for use in developing the City of Moscow’s transportation plan. This data is also available to any other interested agency, group or individual by request. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix C – Neighborhood Greenway Assessment Report Page xxiii Neighborhood Greenway Assessment Report and Recommendations Submitted by: Helen Brown, Active Living Task Force Chair Introduction The City of Moscow Active Living Task Force (ALTF), a City of Moscow coalition of over 70 members (7 core and 60+ stakeholders), was charged to assess active travel modes and make recommendations for increasing active travel opportunities for all citizens. Over the course of a year, the task force conducted a successful pedestrian and biking count (iCount) and completed a Neighborhood Greenway Assessment for at a potential bicycle and pedestrian friendly route connecting the downtown area to populated residential areas and popular destinations. The work of the ALTF occurred concurrently with the initial phases of the Multi-Modal Transportation planning process and other important assessment and planning efforts taken on by the Mobility Task Force, Bike for Life and the Paradise Path Task Force, as well as the Transportation Commission’s efforts to identify bike routes throughout the community. Assessment findings and citizen input from ALTF will be included in transportation planning efforts. Neighborhood Greenways are defined as streets with low traffic volume and speed where bicycles, pedestrians, and neighbors are given priority. Goals of the Neighborhood Greenways are to provide a route throughout Moscow to allow for safer bicycling and pedestrian connections, help people cross busier streets, provide signage for direction or destinations, and the potential to reduce auto traffic and speeds in neighborhoods. The goal for the Neighborhood Greenway Assessment was to involve citizens interested in active travel to assess two routes identified by City staff (Engineering and Streets Department) for their potential as a designated walkable and bikeable route. To give our project an identity, University of Idaho student Amber Sirk, designed the Neighborhood Greenway logo. Greenway Assessment Planning ALTF core members searched the literature to find Neighborhood Greenway Assessment tools, forms and guidance. The ALTF stakeholders were also consulted on tool selection and the marketing ad design of the assessment. Assessment tools were modified based on AARP’s pedestrian guide. With input from the biking community, a unique tool was designed to assess the Greenway routes for biking. Assessment Team Leaders were recruited from the ALTF, City Commissions and from other active travel related groups and organizations. Idaho Complete Streets Project Coordinator, Deanna Smith offered helpful guidance in the planning and execution of the assessment. Greenway team leaders were asked to recruit walkers and bikers to assess the routes. Greenway assessors were also recruited via press releases, on the City of Moscow’s website and social media sites, as well as through email contacts and by word of mouth. Planning activities were based on a matrix of activities developed by Intelligent Energy Europe (Appendix a; http://www.eltis.org/docs/tools/Guidance_on_conducting_walking_audits.pdf) and included the following category ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix C – Neighborhood Greenway Assessment Report Page xxiv tasks including: identify your audience, identify and train leaders, select your location, design you walk, materials for the walk, marketing, and debrief after the walk. Team Leader Training Biking and walking team leaders were trained the day before the Greenway Assessment. The training took place on the Hamilton Lowe Indoor Recreation Center to Fairgrounds leg of the proposed greenway (see the following section for a description of the routes evaluated). Discussion occurred prior to the assessment to familiarize the leaders with the maps (Appendix b) and forms (Appendix c) used. Modifications were made to the assessment forms based on feedback from the trainers. ALTF chair, Helen Brown, City of Moscow Assistant to the City Supervisor, Jen Pfiffner and Deanna Smith, Project Coordinator from Idaho Smart Growth conducted the training. Neighborhood Greenway Assessment The Greenway Assessment took place on April 21, 2012 at 10:00 a.m. Participating walkers and bikers met in Friendship Square where they were given instructions, assessment tools (Appendix route maps and water. A brief introduction to the concept of Neighborhood Greenways was provided by the City Engineer and ALTF leaders. The 22 walkers and bikers spanned diverse ages (the youngest was 2 and in a stroller), and included community members, business and health constituents, University of Idaho faculty and students, City staff, and members of City Commissions. As noted, two routes were considered and were labeled red and green. The route itself consisted of three legs, and created a loop from Friendship Square in downtown Moscow, east to the Hamilton Indoor Recreation Center and Hamilton Lowe Aquatics Center, south to the fairgrounds near Eastside Marketplace, and west back to Friendship Square. As noted, training of team leaders occurred on the leg from the Recreation and Aquatic Centers to the Fairgrounds at Eastside Marketplace as this leg had no alternative route options. The remaining two legs were labeled as north (Friendship Square to the Recreation and Aquatics Center) and south (Friendship Square to the Fairgrounds and Eastside Marketplace) consisted of two options. These two options were treated as round trips for pedestrians on the day of the assessment and walkers were asked to travel out on the red north route and return on the green north route or out on the red south route and back on the green south route. Two groups of bikers each rode the entire route, one red, one green. This method ensured that all legs and alternatives of the route were assessed by both modes. Route maps can be found in Appendix A. The assessment tools indicated designated assessment stops to measure sidewalks, safety and driver behavior, streets and intersections, and a separate bike assessment. Each item was assessed by choosing one of three options, “great”, “fair”, and “poor.” At each stop, the assessors discussed and weaknesses of the routes and made recommendations to improve the route for all modes of active travel. See the compilation of these results in Appendix C. At the conclusion of the bike ride or walk, all assessors returned to Friendship Square. A large poster board provided an opportunity to rate their route based on comfort and appeal using a simple colored coded “dot” method along with comments. A large map of the entire route was also available to add further comments on possible Neighborhood Greenway routes and/or suggestions for general improvement. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix C – Neighborhood Greenway Assessment Report Page xxv Neighborhood Greenway Assessment Findings Overall, the support for a Neighborhood Greenway was very positive and all participants were optimistic that Greenways would enhance active travel in Moscow. Predictably, most of the comments made by pedestrians cited the lack of sidewalk along the potential Neighborhood Greenway routes. All responses to the assessment are available in Appendix e of this document. The cumulative totals of the two routes assess including streets and intersections, sidewalks, and safety and driver behavior ranked the red route for both north and south options as the preferred with 27% and 15%, respectively ranking those routes as “great”. Additionally, the bike assessment rated the red route at 77% “great” over the green route which was rated by 31% as “great”. The percent of “great” ratings each route received cumulatively and in each category is displayed in the chart below. As the chart indicates, for each category when considering “great” responses the red route was rated more favorably with more individuals noting the streets and intersections and sidewalks were considerably more favored with 51% of respondents noting streets and intersections on the red route were “great” compared to 8% of respondents noting the green route was “great”. Similarly, for sidewalks, 47% of respondents noted sidewalks were “great”, while 0% noted sidewalks on the green route were “great”. Safety and driver behavior for both routes in total did not show a large difference between routes, however, the south green route was the preferred south route over the south red route with 14% of respondents noting the south green route was “great” and 0% of respondents noting the south red route was “great”. When comparing the ratings including “great” and “fair” responses preference for the north red route remains highest. However, there was higher percent of individuals who rated the south green route as “fair” when compared to the south red route. Specifically, the south green rated was “great” and “fair” by 76% for sidewalks and 90% for safety and driver behavior. The south red route rated “great” and “fair” at 54% for sidewalks and 56% for safety and driver behavior. The cumulative ratings for each segment of the routes assessed, north green, south green, north red, and south red considering both “great” and “fair” were 87% (north green), 67% (south green), 95% (north red), and 58% (south red). The final Comfort and Appeal survey indicated that in reference to shade trees, landscaping and amenities, the red route was preferred as a whole with 50% of respondents noting they felt the comfort and appeal of the route was “great”. The green route was rated “great” in the area of comfort and appeal by 8% of respondents. Comments gathered from the Comfort and Appeal survey are included in Appendix f of this document. 52% 51% 47% 27% 50% 7% 8% 0% 14% 8% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Overall Streets & Interesections Sidewalks Safety & Driver Behavior Comfort & Appeal Percent of "Great" Ratings for Routes Red Route Green Route ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix C – Neighborhood Greenway Assessment Report Page xxvi Considering the big picture the assessment provided the Task Force, the route of choice was determined to be the red route for both legs evaluated. While the south green leg received some higher ratings in two categories overall when considering the comfort and appeal ratings, the south red leg seemed to be preferred. Recommendations Cities across the nation are increasing safe and enjoyable opportunities for biking, walking, and other active travel modes by developing Neighborhood Greenways that support low traffic volume and speed where bicycles, pedestrians, and neighbors are given priority. The City of Moscow has a well-respected and admirable commitment to design and development of multi-modal transportation. Designing a pilot Neighborhood Greenway route would provide an initial access from popular destinations and populated neighborhoods to the downtown area and other attractions along the way. The Greenway would re-direct travel away from busy arterials that present health and safety concerns, especially for children and those with mobility limitations. The ALTF supports the development a pilot Neighborhood Greenway to encourage safe and active modes of travel. This recommendation supports the multi-modal transportation vision of the City and would take an important first step in the designation of a Neighborhood Greenways. Throughout the transportation planning process, citizens have voiced clear and strong support for routes dedicated to active travel modes for all users. The development of a pilot Neighborhood Greenway would enhance other efforts across the City including promoting safe walking and biking to school (Safe Routes to School), and increasing the health and safety of our community for citizens and visitors alike. The Active Living Task Force would like to formally recommend the installation of pilot Neighborhood Greenway route in the summer of 2012 so that the community can have something tangible to experience. We are concerned that if we do not start that the project will stagnate in the theoretical phase and never make it onto the ground. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix C – Neighborhood Greenway Assessment Report Page xxvii Appendix A Preparing for Your Walking Audit/Walkabout Adapted from: Intelligent Energy Europe http://www.eltis.org/docs/tools/Guidance_on_conducting_walking_audits.pdf Steps and Questions Notes Step 1: Define your purpose What is the goal of this walkabout? Educational, Engagement of community around active travel. How will you inform people about your project? Engage people in active travel support and planning How will you use information gathered during the walk? To identify and barriers to active travel in Moscow. Information will inform the transportation plan and help prioritize needed improvements. Will it be the only one or the first of many? We hope the first of many as the City improves infrastructure for active travel. Other Notes Step 2: Identify your Audience List stakeholders to invite and identify key people Active Living Task Force and other interested parties. What do they need to know to support your project? Benefits of Greenways and how this is related to current transportation planning efforts. Also the mechanics of conducting a Greenway Assessment. Who might help you to engage them? City Commission groups, SR2S, other active travel key leaders in the community. Other notes Step 3: Identify and train leaders Who are natural walk leaders, bike and ped? ALTF members, Community wellness leaders, City Commission members, UI students, City staff and leaders. What training is needed to lead the walk? ALTF leaders will provide a 2 hour training for the biking/walking team leaders the day prior to the event. How will we plan training content? The training will occur on the suggested Greenway route between the HERC and the Fairgrounds. The ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix C – Neighborhood Greenway Assessment Report Page xxviii training will be led by the ALTF chair, City staff and Complete Streets staff. A brief description was given to team leaders prior to walking the Greenway leg. Trainers were provided with assessment forms , maps and other training tools. When will we hold training? The day prior to the Greenway assessment. Description of the training was help prior in an ALTF meeting to discuss tools/forms and maps. What resources/materials are needed for training walk leaders? Assessment tools for each leg of the route for both walking and biking, route maps, guidance for leading assessors in conversation about the route. Other resources: clipboards, pens, sunscreen, etc. Other notes Step 4: Select your location This was accomplished by the City Engineer and the Street Supervisor. These routes were presented to the ALTF and reviewed. The group accepted these routes to assess for potential Greenways. Where do you want to walk/bike? Select the area outside the center Completed What issues do you want to highlight during the walk? We will modify the AARP 5 sector assessment What destinations do you want to include? Link the Greenway to downtown coming from the high density residences. Is it an area in need of infrastructure repairmen? Yes, all potential routes are in need of sidewalk and other infrastructure improvements. How does the location fit the goal(s) for the walk audit? Yes, other routes are high traffic areas. Other note Step 5: Design the walk How long will it be? Remember allow lots of time to stop and talk 45 min to 1 hour. Select start and finishing points. Is there somewhere to gather? The final gathering will occur in Friendship Square. Because groups will not all return at the same time, there will be opportunities to discuss the walk with team leaders and provide written comments. Walk the route- are there any serious risks? Is the route child friendly? The most serious risk is lack of sidewalk, however these are low volume routes. Children must be supervised by their parent/guardian. Children and families with strollers are highly encourage to participate. Other notes Step 6: Materials for the walk Prepare a map of the walking route Jen will do this with help from Kevin and Tyler. Make a list of issues and highlights against points on the map. Maps could indicate lack of sidewalk. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix C – Neighborhood Greenway Assessment Report Page xxix Capture the experience with a digital camera We are planning to capture the walk with cameras. Bring images of potential solutions to illustrate the opportunities or other strategies ( sketch artist) We hoped to do this but did not find a person willing to be a sketch artist. We will instead have a large map and encourage people to offer input. Materials for the walk Pens, assessment forms, clipboards, camera, maps Safety items for leaders First aid kit, cell phone, safety vest Safety items for walkers/bikers Sunscreen, hat, helmets, comfortable shoes Other notes Provide more water and snack bars at Friendship Square. Step 7: Marketing Prepare press release for walk/advertising for organizations Jen will do this. Design walk logo/tag Amber Sirk created a Greenway logo/tag Design marketing materials/incentives Materials will include the logo/tag and be marketed via the City Hall website, City Facebook site, press releases and via list services of parties interested in active travel. UI students will participate for course credit. Other notes We will not purchase paid media to reduce costs. Step 8: Debrief after walk Create a short comment survey We decided against a comment survey and rather created an opportunity for feedback on large posters using a simple to use “dot” system. Decide how to debrief Friendship Square- de-brief in small groups as not all groups returned at one time. Ask participants to suggest the three best and worst things they saw on the walking route Groups will make comments that are recorded as they walk; also individuals will use “dots” and comments to highlight positives and negatives for each leg of the route. Highlight on a wall map most and least desirable places to walk in town A large city-wide map will be available at Friendship Square. Ask participants what they can do for walking in your town. Participants will receive information on participating in future active travel activities. Invite participants to be involved in you project and identify how they will be committed All participants will be asked for contact information on a sign-up sheet and will receive on- going information of activities. Provide all participants with a summary of walk/bike findings Results will be made available on the City website, via City Commissions and direct email. Other notes ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix C – Neighborhood Greenway Assessment Report Page xxx Appendix B Red and Green Routes ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix C – Neighborhood Greenway Assessment Report Page xxxi Red Route ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix C – Neighborhood Greenway Assessment Report Page xxxii Green Route ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix C – Neighborhood Greenway Assessment Report Page xxxiii Appendix C Condition Statement Explanation Sheet As you walk point out evidence for positive conditions, or lack of positive conditions under each of the four assessment topic areas. Leaders, please also take notes on the maps and highlighted areas that are particularly positive or negative for each condition area. Example Talking Points for sidewalk conditions: • Discuss presence or absence of sidewalk on both sides of the street • Point out how the sidewalk is a comfortable width, two people can walk side by side • Point out sidewalk is heaved, cracked, or broken • Note the buffers between the sidewalk and traffic (tree strips, etc.) • Point out any visual obstructions (poles, bushes, low hanging trees) o “As we walk I would like to point out the comfortable width of this sidewalk, note how my fellow leader and I can walk side by side” Example Talking Points for positive intersection conditions: • Point out present or missing crosswalks. • Note if the push-to-walk signals are working. • Discuss how the group felt making their way across the intersection. How would they feel if they were older or differently abled? o “As we continue on our assessment I would like you to pay attention to how you feel as you cross the intersection, do you feel that you had adequate time to safely cross the road?” Example talking points for positive Safety and Driver Behavior conditions: • Point out positive and negative driving behaviors- obeying traffic signals, yielding to pedestrians, traveling at safe speeds, stopping as required, etc. • Notice if drivers are not distracted by talking on cell phones or eating while driving. • Note the speed of the drivers and how it feels safe o “In this portion of the walk I would like to point out how the drivers stop at traffic signals and at crosswalks to allow pedestrians to cross” Example talking points for positive Comfort and Appeal conditions: • Point out the shade trees, landscaping, and places to rest along the walk. • Point out the availability or lack of public restrooms facilities nearby. • Discuss the routes’ appeal- e.g., is free of trash and litter, pleasant landscaping, etc. o “Please note the well-maintained landscape along this portion of the route” ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix C – Neighborhood Greenway Assessment Report Page xxxiv Appendix D Sidewalks Please check just one option rating each item: Great Fair Poor There is continuous sidewalk along the route. Comments: The sidewalk has well-marked curb cuts making access easy. Comments: The sidewalk is wide enough for two people to walk comfortably. Comments: The sidewalk has no obstacles (garbage cans, trees, poles). Comments: The sidewalk is in good repair (not broken, cracked, or heaved). Comments: The sidewalk has no visual obstructions (poles, bushes, low hanging trees). Comments: There is a buffer between the sidewalk and traffic. Comments: The sidewalk is free of parked cars. Comments: Overall opinion of sidewalks in this walk survey area. Comments: ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix C – Neighborhood Greenway Assessment Report Page xxxv Safety & Driver Behavior (SD) Please check just one option rating each item: Great Fair Poor Drivers obey traffic signals and signs. Comments: Drivers drive at a safe speed. Comments: There is a safe amount of traffic on this route. Comments: Drivers yield to pedestrians. Comments: Drivers stop behind the crosswalk. Comments: Drivers are not distracted (using cell phones, texting, eating). Comments: There are clear safety signs for drivers and pedestrians. Comments: I felt safe on this walk (not threatened by people or animals). Comments: Overall opinion of safety and driver behavior in this walk survey area. Comments: ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix C – Neighborhood Greenway Assessment Report Page xxxvi Streets & Intersections (SI) Please check just one option rating each item: Great Fair Poor Crossing this intersection seems safe. Comments: The cross walk is well marked. Comments: The signal gives pedestrians enough time to cross the street. Comments: The crossing distance of the intersection is good. Comments: The waiting time for the signal to cross was adequate. Comments: There are safe curb cuts at this intersection. Comments: The push- to-walk signal is working. Comments: Overall opinion of streets and intersections in this walk survey area. Comments: ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix C – Neighborhood Greenway Assessment Report Page xxxvii Bike Assessment Please check just one option rating each item: Great Fair Poor Bike racks are available at destinations. Comments: The traffic volume feels safe. Comments: Drivers obey traffic signals and drive safely. Comments: Drivers are courteous to bicyclists. Comments: Street signs/traffic signals are clear to cyclists. Comments: Landscaping and trees are appealing. Comments: Intersections feel safe to cross. Comments: Drivers drive at a safe speed. Comments: The route is easy to ride (grade steepness is ok). Comments: Overall rating of the bike survey area. Comments: ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix C – Neighborhood Greenway Assessment Report Page xxxviii ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix C – Neighborhood Greenway Assessment Report Page xxxix Appendix E Mode Leg Totals Streets and Intersections Sidewalks Safety & Driver Behavior Great Fair Poor Great Fair Poor Great Fair Poor Great Fair Poor Walk North Green 0% 87% 13% 0% 75% 25% 0% 86% 14% 0% 100% 0% Walk South Green 7% 60% 33% 8% 28% 64% 0% 76% 24% 14% 76% 10% Walk North Red 27% 68% 5% 13% 80% 7% 39% 52% 9% 27% 73% 0% Walk South Red 15% 42% 43% 38% 25% 38% 8% 46% 46% 0% 56% 44% Bike Red 77% 18% 5% Bike Green 31% 56% 13% ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix C – Neighborhood Greenway Assessment Report Page xl Appendix F Comfort & Appeal Comments North There are shade trees along the walk. • None There is landscaping, grass, flowers, along the walk. • None There are places to rest along the walk. • “Nice to go by all the parks” • “Only if divert to parks” The route is free of trash and litter. • None The lawns are well maintained. • None Public Restrooms are available nearby. • None Street lighting is adequate. • None Overall rating of comfort and appeal in walk survey area. • “2nd and Jefferson Street need to be maintained better, everywhere else was great” • “High MT Street & Ft. Russell, low Jr. High/Mt. View” ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix C – Neighborhood Greenway Assessment Report Page xli South There are shade trees along the walk. • “Mtn View needs shade; Park Street is NOT well shaded” • “Only in the older areas” • “Some older, would like more places feel too exposed” There is landscaping, grass, flowers, along the walk. • “About ½ good and 2/3 not well kept or not enough trees, boring houses” • “Some areas great, some poorly maintained” There are places to rest along the walk. • “Nothing felt like had to keep moving, no parks/grass places to stop, would need to include” The route is free of trash and litter. • “Curb runs have gravel and broken stuff drain covers are tough” • “Gutters could be cleaner in places (do parked cars count as litter?) • “Mostly ok except areas that looked like student housing” The lawns are well maintained. • “Mix, very few places are exceptional, could promote more beautification” Public Restrooms are available nearby. • “Nothing public” Street lighting is adequate. • None Overall rating of comfort and appeal in walk survey area. • “No real continuous route for sidewalks, no safe way to cross at Lewis and Jefferson” • “Not continuous, wish it connected to a park” • “Hard to cross from downtown to walk area” ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix C – Neighborhood Greenway Assessment Report Page xlii ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix C – Neighborhood Greenway Assessment Report Page xliii ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix D – Budget Summary Page xliv Date Task Type Payee Description Actual 08/19/11 Staff Education Lodging Kevin Lilly Mariott Courtyard - Palmer IBPI Portland $ 735.78 08/19/11 Staff Education Food Kevin Lilly Per Diem IBPI Portland $ 65.00 08/19/11 Staff Education Lodging Kevin Lilly Mariott Courtyard - Lilly IBPI Portland $ 735.78 08/31/11 Staff Education Food American West Bank Travel Expenses - Lilly, Palmer IBPI Portland $ 399.50 10/19/11 Staff Education Registration Fee Idaho Smart Growth Portland Bike & Ped Conference $ 945.00 Staff Education Staff City of Moscow Staff Education Staff Support $ 121.52 Staff Education Staff University of Idaho Staff Education Staff Support $ 109.32 Budget: $ 3,105.00 Staff Education Total: $ 3,111.90 09/08/11 Data Collection Food Rosauers Meeting Refreshments $ 20.87 09/13/11 Data Collection Supplies Staples Map Supplies $ 32.45 09/13/11 Data Collection Food Rosauers Meeting Refreshments $ 17.43 10/03/11 Data Collection Promotional Customized Stickers iCount Stickers $ 125.50 10/03/11 Data Collection Promotional Customized Stickers iCount Stickers $ 125.50 10/11/11 Data Collection Food Moscow Food Co-op iCount Listening Station Refreshments $ 181.62 10/12/11 Data Collection Food Rosauers Meeting Refreshments $ 40.61 10/12/11 Data Collection Supplies Staples iCount Clipboards and Supplies $ 23.30 10/13/11 Data Collection Supplies UPS Store Tape $ 3.39 10/13/11 Data Collection Food Wheatberries iCount Listening Station Refreshments $ 37.80 10/14/11 Data Collection Consultant Ellen Rouse Consultant Fee $ 112.50 10/21/11 Data Collection Supplies OfficeMax iCount Clipboards and Supplies $ 69.70 11/23/11 Data Collection Supplies Moscow Building Supply Storage Tote $ 22.99 11/29/11 Data Collection Consultant Ellen Rouse Consultant Fee $ 268.75 Data Collection Staff City of Moscow iCount Staff Support $ 2,422.81 Data Collection Staff Univeristy of Idaho iCount Staff Support $ 2,179.50 Budget: $ 3,000.00 Data Collection Total: $ 5,684.72 ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix D – Budget Summary Page xlv Date Task Type Payee Description Actual 03/15/12 Community Engagement Food Rosauers Meeting Refreshments $ 22.87 03/15/12 Community Engagement Consultant Ellen Rouse Consultant Fee $ 256.25 03/29/12 Community Engagement Food Subway Meeting Refreshments $ 38.55 04/19/12 Community Engagement Food Rosauers Meeting Refreshments $ 43.96 05/17/12 Community Engagement Food Rosauers Meeting Refreshments $ 102.21 05/03/12 Community Engagement Consultant Ellen Rouse Consultant Fee $ 250.00 05/17/12 Community Engagement Food Moscow Food Co-op Event refreshments $ 42.58 05/17/12 Community Engagement Food Rosauers Event refreshments $ 11.67 05/24/12 Community Engagement Supplies Office Depot Event supplies $ 20.06 06/14/12 Community Engagement Consultant Ellen Rouse Consultant Fee $ 168.75 06/14/12 Community Engagement Graphic Design Amber Sirk Logo Design $ 40.00 Community Engagement Staff City of Moscow Community Engagement Staff Support $ 1,124.06 Community Engagement Staff University of Idaho Community Engagement Staff Support $ 1,011.18 Budget: $ 3,895.00 Community Engagement Total: $ 3,132.14 Budget: $ 10,000.00 Actual Project Total: $ 11,928.76