Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Park Master Plan topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Ashland board pauses $8.1M park master plan, agrees to focus on stormwater and safety
Summary
After public concern about cost and the future of a popular pond, Ashland board members agreed not to adopt the full master plan for immediate implementation and to instead prioritize stormwater fixes, safety upgrades and scaled, fundable phases.
Get email alerts on the Park Master Plan topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
A special session of the Ashland park board on April 7 reconsidered a recently completed Park Master Plan after residents and board members raised concerns about the project’s scale and cost. A board member summarized the community process that led to the plan — public outreach with more than 300 residents and consultant work from PDS — and asked the board to "sit down and walk through and put a plan together that rebuilds the park," urging a phased, lower-cost approach.
Members repeatedly cited the plan’s headline cost (described in the meeting as about $8.1 million) against an annual parks revenue stream of roughly $150,000–$167,000. "The issue I had was this year cost $8,100,000," one committee member said, framing objections as fiscal rather than aesthetic. The board did not adopt the full package as presented; instead members agreed to identify a "bare minimum" list of fixes, get engineering and cost estimates and pursue scaled options that could be funded with a combination of the parks tax revenue, grants and fundraising.
The meeting produced a working consensus on priorities: address stormwater erosion that regularly damages the playgrounds, improve lighting and vandalism deterrence, replace unsafe playground equipment and preserve the pond as a community feature if its ongoing maintenance can be made feasible. Staff described the pond as requiring dredging and periodic pump replacement, and recommended the stormwater interception/diversion as the logical first step to protect new improvements.
Next steps the board directed were procedural rather than legislative: staff will produce cost estimates and a minimal-checklist for near-term work and the board discussed asking PDS to provide scaled design options and pricing. Board members encouraged community-led fundraising and targeted grant-seeking rather than approving an all-at-once $8 million construction package.

