Council presses for recreation master plan alignment with downtown campus master plan; library and tennis advocates seek parking and program continuity

City of Boca Raton councilors used a May 8 strategic-planning workshop to press staff to align the government campus master plan with the Recreation Master Plan and to report specific, implementable options for downtown recreational uses.

Staff and council said the campus master plan should be treated as a citywide catalyst that will affect where recreation facilities are located and how much space the downtown will retain for public recreation. “The downtown master plan…is almost a driving force of what happens in the recreation master plan,” a staff member said, noting that moving amenities out of downtown will shift needs to other parks.

Public comments at the start of the meeting reflected those stakes. Dr. Susan Riley, representing Friends of the Library, told council the group provides about $200,000 a year for library programs and urged a parking solution so low‑income residents can attend evening and weekend classes. She suggested a code-based validation system tied to library cards. Nancy Jo Feinberg, chair of the Library Board, recommended consideration of a drive‑through window at the downtown library to help patrons pick up holds and access services, citing examples at other area libraries.

Residents and tennis advocates urged that the city preserve downtown tennis amenities amid redevelopment. Judy Morrow, who lives near Meisner Park, said the park’s 30 acres are public land and urged the council to ensure the Boca Raton Tennis Center or an equivalent number of courts remain downtown. “The 30 acres belongs to the city,” she told the council, citing options presented by the campus proposers and warning that some options would reduce downtown tennis courts from 10 to fewer courts.

Staff described the Recreation Master Plan schedule: conceptual plans are due in July and staff will return with recommendations; the consultant is preparing multiple concept alternatives and a space‑needs analysis. Recreation staff emphasized the strong relationship between downtown decisions and city parks: moving an amenity out of downtown creates demand elsewhere and can increase operating and maintenance costs because duplicated facilities require separate staffing.

Council direction and next steps: council members asked staff to finish conceptual Recreation Master Plan materials, continue coordinating recommendations with the campus proposers and to present the plan to the council and public for comment (staff suggested further presentations in August to broaden community involvement). Multiple councilors said they wanted to preserve public access to recreation and to incorporate data on usage and likely demand in the staff recommendations.

Why it matters: the government campus redevelopment is likely to relocate some recreation uses; council members said they need clear, data‑driven plans that show where programs will be kept or relocated, how many courts or fields will remain downtown, and how maintenance and operations will be funded.