Portage committee defers decision on $992,000 Goodyear Park splash pad plan

Park staff presented a conceptual plan for a new inclusive splash pad and playground at Goodyear Park and asked the Committee of the Whole to approve design development work and to begin fundraising.

Toby Minogue, Park and Recreation director, said the full-concept estimate for the combined splash pad and playground is $992,000, with the splash-pad element estimated at about 2,800 square feet and $323,000 of the total. Minogue asked the committee to authorize moving to the next planning phase — including community engagement and refinement of features — and to approve a design and planning agreement for $18,944 to be paid from the Parkland Dedication Fund. Minogue said earlier work on concept planning and limited repairs cost roughly $10,000.

Chuck Sulik, Park Board chair, told the committee the Park Board voted unanimously to recommend the project and said piecemeal repairs to the existing splash pad ‘‘don’t make economic sense.’’ Sulik urged council support, calling the park a ‘‘premier amenity for the City of Portage.’”

Several council members raised concerns about the timing and cost. One councilor said the community recently rejected a school operating referendum and questioned whether residents would back another large recreation project; others pointed to the city’s current debt ratio and the unknown future of the adjoining Roush parcel. Suggestions offered included phasing the work, pursuing corporate sponsorship before further design spending, and using the Parkland Dedication Fund for the design phase rather than general obligation funds.

Committee members discussed steps staff could take to gauge public interest — staff suggested a combination of outreach to user groups, surveys, and a QR code posted at the existing splash pad to collect responses. Minogue and Park Board members emphasized that the request before the committee was for planning and engagement, not for construction dollars.

A councilor moved to defer any action on the design-development authorization until the June council meeting; the motion was seconded and passed on roll-call, 6–2 (Ross—No; Paul—Aye; Blinker—Aye; Rantau—Aye; Wetzel—No; Bernander—Aye; Crowley—Aye; Donahue—Aye). The Committee of the Whole will revisit the item at the June meeting following additional outreach and staff follow-up.

Next steps: staff will collect community feedback and return with refined options and fundraising strategies for council consideration.