Maricopa council hears master-plan vision for 55‑acre 'Iconic Park,' directs staff to advance site and master planning

Maricopa officials and consultants on Feb. 15 reviewed a conceptual master plan for a 55‑acre Civic Center park — billed in the presentation as a regional, “one‑of‑a‑kind” destination — and directed staff to move ahead with more detailed site and master planning and public outreach. No budget or binding commitment was approved.

City parks staff framed the briefing as 30,000‑foot visioning; Rocky Brown, the city’s parks and recreation director, said the aim is to create a “hallmark” for the community that supports both resident amenities and economic activity. Consultants from JHU Design and a partnering architecture firm showed early concepts that center on a unifying rain‑capture “ribbon” through the site and a large, sculptural “cloud” pavilion intended to provide shade and hold play and performance infrastructure.

“My name is Jeff Velasquez. I am a principal landscape architect with JHU Design,” Velasquez told council members as he described the thematic approach. He characterized the park as “a love letter to Arizona,” and outlined components that included a 3.5‑acre urban fishing lake, an amphitheater/great lawn, sport courts, themed play zones, roughly seven conceptual zip‑line stations and retail pads on the south edge of the site. The consultants repeatedly cautioned the drawings are conceptual and require feasibility and engineering studies.

Council members pressed for cost and operating estimates. Consultants said the presentation remained at a high level and recommended a feasibility phase to produce cost modeling; they offered a planning‑range example for destination‑scale municipal parks of roughly $800,000 to $1,100,000 per acre, noting wide local variation depending on program and infrastructure. City Manager Benner said the city’s draft capital improvement plan currently contains a $30,000,000 placeholder for the project next year, but emphasized that a CIP line is not a commitment and that “we will know that price” only after feasibility, design and funding analysis.

The site contains floodplain constraints that staff said must be solved before many elements can be built. City staff said Maricopa has worked with FEMA on a regional floodplain concept and that engineering work and funding for channelization or containment remain to be completed. “When we get that flood solution in place, it solves some of the concerns,” staff said.

Council debate focused on three themes: (1) whether to prioritize additional sports fields or an iconic tourism park, (2) how to phase and pay for large attractions and (3) the risks and benefits of public–private partnerships (PPPs). Several council members and community speakers urged more multipurpose fields or asked that field construction run in parallel with any destination planning; others urged keeping the long‑range vision intact so the city can pursue economic development benefits. On PPPs, staff and a council member discussed structuring agreements so private operators do not capture most revenue while the city retains cost exposure.

Environmental, operational and program questions were raised: a council member asked whether the lake would be swimmable; staff said it would be designed as a moving/fishing lake, not a public swimming facility. Consultants estimated amphitheater capacity and scalability but said design would determine seasonal usability and precise attendance figures.

On public input, staff committed to a needs assessment and community survey running in parallel with the master plan and said meetings with advisory committees and outreach at community events would be used to collect preferences and priorities. Several council members underscored the importance of documenting what residents want and validating trade‑offs between fields, family amenities and destination features.

After discussion, council members signaled agreement to give staff direction to proceed with a master plan and a more detailed site plan in parallel, to perform feasibility and cost modeling, and to conduct community outreach. The direction was nonbinding: staff and council repeatedly stated no budget or formal appropriation was made at the meeting.

Next steps identified by staff include engineering and floodplain work where needed, a formal feasibility/cost study, a parks needs assessment and a public engagement program to refine priorities and phasing. The Parks & Recreation advisory committee and city staff will bring refined findings back to council before any budget or construction decisions are taken.