Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Park Naming topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents and Parks Advisory Board Urge Garden City to Name Park for LaVida Rowland; Commission Keeps Halloran Name, Approves Additional Park Fees
Summary
Members of the Parks & Recreation advisory board and residents asked the commission to reconsider naming a southeast Garden City park for LaVida Rowland, citing her role in refugee resettlement and community diversity; the commission later approved a $44,000 additional fee to the park’s designer to complete work on Bob Halloran Community Park and a parks board member resigned in protest.
Several residents and members of the Parks and Recreation advisory board told the Garden City Commission they want a southeast city park to be named for LaVida Rowland rather than Bob Halloran, saying Rowland’s decades of refugee and immigrant support reshaped Garden City’s community.
"LaVida Rowland...is the main reason we have the diversity we have today," said Linda Motley, a member of the Parks and Recreation advisory committee, urging commissioners to "reconsider what you have done and naming the park after Bob Halloran." Jocelyn Montoya, who said she was born and raised in Garden City, added, "Levita Wollman should be who you guys named the park after," pressing the commission to increase recognition of women and women of color in municipal namings. Marilyn Porter, another advisory‑board member, said the board had made a unified recommendation and announced she would tender her resignation from the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, calling the commission’s decision disappointing.
A commissioner who responded acknowledged knowing Rowland personally and said the naming decision was difficult, but defended the process used by the governing body.
Separately during the meeting the commission approved a $44,000 additional services request from SWT Landscape Design for the Bob Halloran Community Park project. Staff explained the charge reflected extended schedules and additional scope needed to fully complete the park, including irrigation and adjustments made as construction costs rose. The commission approved transferring funds from the Recreation Aquatics Fund to cover the increase after commissioners discussed other potential funding sources.
The commission did not reverse the prior naming selection during the meeting. Council members encouraged continued advisory‑board engagement and said the board’s recommendations had been considered even as they defended their final vote and contract decisions.
The commission’s vote on the SWT request was approved by voice vote. The advisory board’s resignation and the public comments make the naming choice a continuing point of community contention; commissioners suggested further conversations with the advisory board and staff outside the meeting.
