Council hears presentation on Parks and Recreation Master Plan; budget, river access and facility trade-offs highlighted

CHARLOTTESVILLE — City staff and a consultant presented the Parks and Recreation Master Plan to Charlottesville City Council on March 17, 2025, laying out a 10-year vision for capital improvements, park-level framework plans and recommended funding approaches.

Mike Setts, principal with Pros Consulting, told council the plan uses Welden Cooper population estimates to reflect recent demographic trends and shows the city’s largest age cohort is 18–34, influenced by the University of Virginia. He said the plan’s outreach program included 33 in-person engagement events and a statistically valid survey representing nearly 2,500 participants. "We tried to take this show on the road," Setts said, summarizing the outreach approach.

Setts described three cost buckets for capital work: life‑cycle replacement, improvements to existing parks, and a “visionary” bucket for new or expanded projects. He provided a headline estimate of roughly $78 million across the 10‑year horizon and said the plan assumes funding will come from a mix of grants, partnerships and local allocations. For planning purposes, the team applied a 25% cost escalation to FY27–FY31 items and a 55% escalation to FY32–FY36 items in today's dollars.

The consultant reported several measurable service indicators: about 45 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents and that 84% of residents live within a 10‑minute walk of a park or school serving as a park, both figures higher than national medians. The plan identifies expanded river access, shared‑use path connectivity and sustainable funding among community priorities.

Council members raised several questions during the discussion. Council member Lloyd questioned an earlier demographic figure and the inclusion of a cricket pitch in a neighborhood park; Parks presenter Anthony acknowledged a prior misstatement about the number of Afghan residents and corrected it on the record, saying an article had reported 7,000 for the Charlottesville area and apologizing for the error: "that was a mistake by me ... I apologize on that — that was me misspeaking." Councilors also asked about coordination with Albemarle County for regional sites such as Darden Towe Park.

Members discussed changing uses for court space as pickleball grows nationally; the consultant cautioned that the plan’s recommendations are intended to guide future, site‑level study rather than mandate immediate construction changes. Councilors also urged clearer language on bike infrastructure and tree cover for trails, and emphasized ADA inclusion: staff confirmed the ADA coordinator participated on the steering committee and that ADA costs were incorporated at a planning level.

Several councilors sought clarity on what adoption would mean procedurally. Staff and the consultant emphasized the document is a cost‑estimating and policy guidance plan — not a city capital improvement plan — and that specific park projects will require subsequent park‑level master plans, design and council appropriation before construction.

The presentation closed with next steps: staff will incorporate outstanding comments into a draft for adoption consideration, and council will have the option to refer specific parks for more detailed planning and CIP programming. Later in the meeting, council moved into a closed session for discussion of real property acquisition and negotiating strategy under the Virginia Freedom of Information Act.

Votes at a glance

- Motion to allow Councilor Snook to participate electronically (reason: visiting family): passed. (SEG 017–036)

- Motion to approve the meeting agenda: passed. (SEG 038–041)

- Motion to convene a closed session under Virginia Code for real property acquisition and negotiation strategy: passed; council entered closed session and planned to return at 6:30. (SEG 1676–1701)

Next steps

Council will receive an updated draft reflecting tonight’s comments and may schedule further park‑level planning, budget allocations and any required amendments to the comprehensive plan as separate actions.