Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parks And Recreation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee weighs labyrinth for two-acre pocket park; proponent proposes $7,500 city cap
Summary
Members discussed installing a labyrinth in an existing two-acre pocket park, with a proponent proposing a $7,500 cap on city funds and volunteers supplying labor and equipment; the committee asked for a site overlay and public input before taking formal action.
A committee discussed a proposal to install a labyrinth in an existing two-acre pocket park, with a proponent arguing the feature would support “solitude” and mental health rather than physical exercise. The proponent cited vendor prices ranging from about $650 to $30,000 and suggested the city limit its contribution to $7,500, relying on volunteers and donated equipment to build the feature.
Supporters said the labyrinth could coexist with playground elements and would not consume the entire park. Committee members and attendees estimated the park at roughly 400 by 400 feet and discussed a likely labyrinth footprint (one speaker characterized a roughly 65-foot radius). Don, a meeting participant who confirmed on-site parking is already completed, offered to bring a Google Earth overlay of the pocket park for the committee to review.
Not all attendees supported the idea. One participant said the land was given to create a pocket park for mothers and small children and said they would “vote no” on the proposal while accepting a majority decision. Another member opposed naming the park after the donor Heinrich; the donor himself said he did not want a memorial name on the site. Concerns were also raised about whether addresses for existing labyrinth examples would be available; the proponent said public listings often provide names but not street addresses.
Committee members discussed outreach and next steps. Volunteers were identified — Mr. Easley offered to draft CAD layouts to show how a playground and labyrinth might coexist — and staff were asked to coordinate with volunteers and prepare a minimal-cost layout. The committee agreed to review the overlay and public feedback at a subsequent meeting before taking any formal action.
The meeting record shows no formal motion or vote on the labyrinth at this session. The next procedural step recorded was that staff or volunteers will prepare and present layout options and gather public input.
