Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parks Master Plan topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission reviews draft RFP for parks master plan update; staff recommends consultant-driven approach
Summary
City staff presented a draft RFP to update the parks master plan and incorporate recreational trails; the project is currently unfunded. Commissioners debated whether the RFP should emphasize parks over trails, and staff estimated 14–16 months for completion from contract award.
City staff presented a draft request for proposals to update the parks master plan and to fold in recreational trails and active-transportation paths.
"This RFP is really intended to provide our consultants discretion and leeway to come up with their vision of what that scope should look like," staff said, explaining the approach of offering a flexible scope rather than a long line-by-line specification.
Staff told commissioners the project is currently listed as an unfunded item in the 2024–28 CIP and that the trails master plan was last done in 2005 while the parks master plan was last substantially updated in the early 2000s. The draft RFP would require demographic information, existing-conditions analysis, and community outreach to create a prioritized list of park and trail improvements.
Commissioners debated the RFP's emphasis: several members said they prefer a parks-centered focus with trails included as an adjunct, while others said carved-out trail elements could remain important where development already provides connections. Staff recommended not to constrain consultant creativity at the drafting stage but to require parameters and community engagement to produce a prioritization list.
On timing, staff estimated the work would take about 14–16 months from contract award to final deliverables, noting that newer tools (GIS, online outreach) should compress the schedule compared with 20 years ago.
No formal funding or contract award was made at this meeting. Staff asked the commission for guidance on emphasis (parks vs. trails) and community-engagement expectations; commissioners agreed to provide input and to continue the conversation at a future meeting. Staff said it will return with revised materials and will coordinate with the city administrator and council on funding priorities.
