Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Comprehensive Plan topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council presses staff to prioritize parks and open‑space plan to meet July RCO grant deadline; transportation figures and bike‑lane illustrations draw scrutiny
Summary
Planning staff asked the council to prioritize adopting the parks, recreation and open‑space (PROS) plan so the city can apply for a $200,000 RCO planning grant that requires a plan adopted by July 15; council also flagged transportation‑element figure legibility, the long 2037 timeline for a pedestrian undercrossing and safety concerns about advisory bike‑lane illustrations in Appendix F.
Celeste, filling in for a planner who was away, asked the council whether to prioritize the new parks, recreation and open‑space (PROS) plan so the city can apply for a Recreation and Conservation Office (RCO) planning grant estimated at $200,000. She told the council that RCO applications open May 13 and that an adopted PROS plan would be needed to make the strongest case for the grant; she said July 15 is the practical adoption target to complete an application on time.
"In order for us to qualify for that grant, we have to have an adopted plan by July 15th of this year," Celeste said, urging the council to indicate whether staff should prioritize the PROS plan ahead of other comprehensive‑plan elements.
Several council members said they would support prioritizing the PROS plan to access more grant opportunities. Staff noted the PROS plan (about 67 pages) must still go through the planning commission and public‑hearing process; Celeste and other staff suggested staff could begin drafting the grant proposal before formal adoption to provide a buffer if the council seeks to adopt the plan close to the deadline.
Councilors also examined several transportation‑element details. Members flagged figure‑and‑legend legibility (private roads not visible in the map legend) and questioned whether a proposed pedestrian undercrossing was shown in the correct location. Several council members noted the state’s schedule places the undercrossing far in the future (one council member cited 2037), and they debated whether to keep the project in the plan to preserve funding eligibility or attempt to request reprogramming to fund nearer‑term trail or multi‑use projects. Staff said earlier conversations with grant administrators indicated reprogramming is possible but complicated by the long timeline and changes in state sponsors.
Appendix F’s advisory bike‑lane illustrations also drew concern. One council member called the shared center‑lane advisory concept unsafe for Leavenworth’s narrow streets and urged that appendix material be clarified so it appears as background/illustration rather than a local recommendation.
Council directed staff to keep the undercrossing on the plan (so the city does not forfeit potential funding) while continuing to pursue nearer‑term trail opportunities and to return the PROS plan and any edited elements to a future study session or meeting so the council can review final text and figures ahead of any grant submission.
Next steps recorded in the meeting: staff will verify the PROS plan references the Osborne community‑center/pool project the council wants highlighted for grants and will check whether the PROS plan and the parks element can be advanced through the planning commission and public‑hearing schedule in time to meet the July 15 application target.
