Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parks Master Plan topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Advisory board hears 2025 Parks, Recreation and Culture master plan; votes to defer recommendation to February
Summary
Consultants presented a 10-year master plan that prioritizes trails, accessibility and new funding tools; board asked for edits and deferred a recommendation to the City Commission until February to allow more review.
Consultants for the City of Lawrence presented a draft 2025 Parks, Recreation and Culture comprehensive master plan to the Parks, Recreation and Culture Advisory Board and asked the board to recommend the plan to the City Commission. After questions about trails, programming, accessibility and funding, the board voted to defer making a formal recommendation until its February meeting so members and the Cultural Arts Commission could review proposed changes.
The plan, developed by Confluence with PROS Consulting and Designing Local, updates a 2017 master plan and draws on an 18–19 month outreach process that included an inventory of parks and facilities, public open houses, a statistically valid survey and an interactive Social Pinpoint web tool. Leon Younger of PROS Consulting said the plan found Lawrence is “much better served than I think a lot of people realize, from the standpoint of overall parks and trails within the community,” while also identifying geographic gaps and maintenance needs.
Why it matters: The master plan lays out both capital and program priorities for the next decade and identifies funding tools the city could consider if it seeks to maintain or expand current services. Board members pressed the consultants on whether the plan adequately represented multi-park projects (including the Lawrence Loop), programming recommendations and the equity impacts of proposed revenue sources.
Key findings and recommendations summarized by the consultants include: prioritizing walking and biking trails, restroom improvements, preservation and expansion of passive natural areas, modernization of indoor recreation and aquatic facilities, improved playground safety and ADA accessibility, and an implementation matrix that lists recommended upgrades for each park. From a financial perspective the consultants recommended a pricing policy that differentiates core and value‑added services, creating a business development position, exploring a share of transient guest tax (TGT) revenue for events and tournaments, establishing a downtown BID or park foundation, creating a revolving fund for revenue‑generating facilities, considering park impact fees for new development, and pursuing tax increment financing or land dedication tools where appropriate.
On arts and culture, Jasmine Metcalfe of Designing Local recommended a more intentional relationship with Indigenous community members, formalizing the city’s public‑art program (the presentation referenced a three‑time reaffirmed public‑art resolution first passed in 1986), partnering with local cultural organizations such as the Lawrence Arts Center, Theatre Lawrence and the Watkins Museum of History, and studying the feasibility of an outdoor event space or amphitheater to support flagship cultural celebrations.
Board members asked for specific changes before the plan goes to the commission: they requested that benchmarking comparisons used in the analysis be included in the executive summary; that the Lawrence Loop be made a discrete implementation item (the consultants said the Loop appears in the action plan and that four missing segments are identified, including the gap between 7th and Constant Park); that programming recommendations be called out more clearly in the executive summary; and that public‑health language be added to acknowledge parks’ role in community health (consultants said public health was not in the original scope but can be added).
Votes at a glance: the board approved the December meeting minutes earlier in the meeting (motion by Vicky; second by John Nalbandian; voice vote: approved). Later, the board voted to defer a recommendation on the master plan to the February meeting to allow time for revisions and review by advisory commissions (motion to defer made from the dais; second by Ruth DeWitt; voice vote: approved).
What’s next: Consultants will incorporate the board’s requested clarifications and return revised materials; staff said the plan is tentatively scheduled for City Commission consideration in February, agenda permitting. The consultants and staff emphasized that any funding or policy changes recommended in the plan would require separate policy decisions by the City Commission.
