Grand Island City Council Study Session – Parks & Recreation Master Plan Presentation

On April 29, 2025, at 6:00 PM, the Grand Island City Council held a study session in the Council Chambers at 100 E First Street to receive a presentation on the Parks & Recreation Master Plan. The meeting was open to the public and conducted under the Nebraska Open Meetings Act. Council President Shearden, Council Members Stelk, Conley, Nickerson, Brown, Housey, Mendoza, O'Neill, and Pollock were present; Council Member Lanfair was absent. Mayor Steele presided. Also present were City Clerk Jill Grenier, Finance Director Matthew Gleason, City Attorney Carrie Fisk, and Public Works Director Keith Kurtz.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Brad Melama, Director of Grand Island Tourism, spoke at the end of the meeting. He commended the plan, noting that parks are a connective place for tourism. He highlighted Ryder Park as a destination park and gave examples of how simple amenities (e.g., disc golf tournaments) can attract visitors. He emphasized that the staff and community treatment matter more than the facilities themselves. He also humorously noted that Council Member O'Neill's comments about Shuff Park had turned it into a "quest" and that he was now on the "Save Shuff Park Committee."

Discussion Items

• Parks & Recreation Master Plan Presentation – The presentation was led by Caitlin Boltey of Confluence (lead consultant) and Brian Trusty of Pros Consulting (remote). Parks Director Todd McCoy introduced the plan, noting it was the first master plan since 1997. The plan was developed over 12 months with extensive public engagement: over 115 in-person attendees at the first open house, over 450 online contributors, 12 stakeholder interviews, and four steering committee meetings.

Key findings from the needs assessment:

• Site Inventory: 50+ parks evaluated. Strengths: well-maintained parks, good baseball facilities, concentrated pickleball courts, popular regional parks, successful third-party concessionaires (golf course, shooting range). Areas for improvement: aging shade trees, lack of sufficient restrooms in neighborhood parks, outdated playgrounds and shelters, ADA accessibility gaps, and detention cells with minimal recreational value.
• Public Input Priorities: Top community priorities: renovating existing parks, improving the outdoor pool, expanding walking/biking trails, and building a new indoor recreation facility. 70% of survey respondents felt current park funding was insufficient.
• Benchmark Analysis: Compared to Columbus, Kearney, North Platte (NE) and Pocatello (ID), plus NRPA standards. Grand Island leads in park acres per capita and residents per park, but needs improvement in operating expenses per capita and per acre. Council Member Shearden noted the benchmark comparison was limited to those four cities; NRPA standards provide broader context.
• Level of Service: Existing neighborhood parks fall short of recommended 2 acres per thousand population (deficit of 72 acres); community parks are short 49 acres. Regional parks meet standards. Geographically, 20 parks are east of Highway 281, only 4 on the west side, indicating a need for future parks in western areas.
• Programming Analysis: Current programs are strong (52% in introductory/growth phase, 0% in decline). Opportunities exist for senior programming (55+), teen programming, arts/culture, and programming for the Latino community. Cost recovery averages 29-31%, with Island Oasis at 60% and Heartland Shooting Park at 59%. The field house has the highest cost recovery (83%).
• Operations & Maintenance: Annual maintenance cost is ~$3,357 per acre; recommended target is ~$4,000 per acre (about $350,000 additional annually). Recommendation to consider a balanced approach of additional FTEs and contracted services. Asset management system and a tree inventory program were suggested.
• Action Plan: Four goal areas: financial (increase resources, improve cost recovery, new revenue strategies), programming (expand offerings, improve financial performance), operations/maintenance (effectiveness, communications, sports tourism), and parks/facilities (nine specific goals including a multi-generational indoor community facility, consistent park identity, transforming mini parks to natural areas, enhancing trails, integrating learning environments, and improving accessibility).

Council Questions and Discussion:

• Council Member Conley asked about detention cells classified as mini parks. Caitlin Boltey explained that some have outdated play structures and the plan recommends a pilot program to convert them to more natural, passive spaces with native plants, reducing maintenance costs and improving ecological value.
• Council Member Nickerson raised the challenge of developers not planning parks in new subdivisions. Consultants suggested that zoning requirements, land dedication, or development fees are common tools used by other communities. The plan includes a recommendation to explore such policies.
• Council Member Housey questioned whether contractor FTEs (e.g., for golf course operations) should be included in FTE comparisons. Brian Trusty clarified that the analysis only included city FTEs, not contractors, and that the recommendation to add maintenance capacity could be met through a mix of new hires and contracted services.
• Council Member O'Neill asked about Shuff Park, a small neighborhood park with minimal amenities. The plan reclassifies it as a neighborhood park but does not propose significant improvements; it remains as a passive space. Council Member O'Neill noted the park has no draw and questioned its value.
• Council Member Shearden emphasized the need to leverage the high public engagement for future neighborhood-level decisions and to confirm specific park recommendations with nearby residents. He also questioned whether converting mini parks to natural areas would reduce the developed acreage and thus affect per-acre maintenance costs. Caitlin Boltey confirmed that the acreage count would remain the same, but the management style would change, potentially reducing costs; the pilot program would help assess this.
• Council Member Nickerson asked about the feasibility of sharing the Public Works asset management system with Parks. Todd McCoy noted it is a possibility but would require dedicated staff time and that there are also software products specifically for parks. He said the plan is overwhelming but a good roadmap.
• Council Member Nickerson also asked about grant eligibility. The plan’s robust community engagement positions it well for grant applications, and the plan includes a steering committee member focused on grant readiness.

Key Outcomes

• No formal votes or decisions were taken at this study session.
• The Parks & Recreation Master Plan was presented for discussion; it will be brought back to the City Council for formal adoption at a future meeting.
• The plan will serve as a roadmap for prioritizing projects, seeking grants, and guiding future budget decisions.
• The City Council and staff expressed appreciation for the comprehensive analysis and community input.