Welcome everyone to the uh January Parks and Right Commission meeting.

Jump with our December 24 25 minutes.

Changes I'll then motion to approve those.

So move.

Motion.

Second.

All favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Okay.

So those approved.

Okay.

Here we go.

Update on the planning process.

So we'll jump in on that one.

That is all Scott and I that are here.

There we go.

Sorry.

Oh, you guys are 100% on that.

It's hard.

Yeah.

Okay, we're here.

All right.

Take it out.

You want us to just jump right in, Sarah?

Yep.

Jump right in.

Yeah.

I think how many of them?

Maybe a benchmark or at least a baseline.

I think I've met most of you.

I'm Scott Crawford with RDG, and Brian Trusty with Rose Consulting.

And McClellan in uh consulting engineers was also very integral in everything that we've developed with the three entities.

Yep, I can speak up, you bet.

Um we presented to the board of directors last night, um, had a lot of uh good dialogue, uh informed questions from them that we were able to provide answers on most of the information.

Some of it were questions about things that are yet to come later.

And but it was good, it was a I think a really good update to the group.

Um the meeting was quite well attended by the public.

Um how many of you were a part of or at least participated in all or some of the meetings that we had in December.

Okay, so a good portion of you have probably um seen some of the information that's here.

Everything that's that we're gonna review today is available on the social pinpoint site online that the city has pushed out notifications on, and uh we presented some of the findings of that to the board last night, which we'll review today at least in some of the initial feedback that we've received.

That site will remain open likely for the next couple of weeks uh to continue to get feedback from the community before we um export the data again and then incorporate that into the part A deliverables.

But what we wanted to review review with you today is what we reviewed last night and have a dialogue with you all.

Please ask questions as we go through it.

Um the current master planning part A services that we're coming to the conclusion on, uh kind of recap the guiding principles that were established by the committees uh leading the project, review the preliminary concept alternatives.

Brian will share a couple of uh the precedent case studies of similar uh public open spaces and parks and other communities that are reclaimed and repurposed quarry projects, and then we want to review kind of the dialogue that we received back on the community engagement and feedback to date.

So as many of you know working with Sarah and the and the community and the committees on the project thus far.

These are the three kind of uh committees or or the structure that was put together at the beginning of the project, the core team, the technical committee, and then the uh steering committee representing a broader cross-section of the community, and we had really good participation throughout the entire uh part A planning process uh with people attending meetings and uh actively participating in the discussion, so it was great to have such a good representation from the community in that process.

The part A, or it's noted here that's as phase one of what we're coming to the conclusion on included that initial goal setting, establishing the guiding principles.

There was some benchmarking uh that we did of other uh potential projects that had a wide range of program and recreational opportunities, the inventory analysis, and kind of in between tasks two and three, we spent a fair amount of time coordinating with half associates that's actually designing the stormwater basins on the project to help mitigate flooding in order to arrive at what we think is a really good recommendation to leverage the flood mitigations uh basins with active recreational opportunities on the property, meaning water activities and activities that can occur at or near the water's edge.

Um then we've spent the fair amount of the last three months working through the concept alternatives that were shared uh with the public and with the stakeholder groups in December.

The next step would be, and we'll talk about this later in the presentation, would be to uh advance that through uh the planning refinement to get to a final concept plan for the entire property, start to identify uh cost magnitude and implementation strategy for that, and uh probably equally important to that is the long-term operational plan that Ryan will help put together once that concept is developed, so that the city will have a very clear understanding on how the how the park or how the public space would be operated, staffed, and um perhaps even a long-range look on the performer.

I think it's a good reminder here to remember this is this was not proposed by us as a planning team to be a two-phase project.

This was initially a one-phase project.

Yeah, but in the contracting process with the board of directors, it got broken into two phases.

Yeah.

So it's we're not trying to add more work for us at the on the back end here.

This was originally one big project to deliver a complete master plan.

Yeah, that's a good point.

I think that was maybe October of 2024 that we initially when we initially did it, and then to get over the hurdle to at least get pushing forward.

We had a concede and split it up into two.

Yeah.

And it's proven worth it.

Yeah.

So essentially, what we will be working through over the probably the next two to four weeks, depending on some other things that we're going to talk about here later on that are unrelated to this planning effort, will be to develop an interim deliverable, which, if you think about uh a master plan, typically we develop a master plan report that consists of anywhere from four to six chapters of information.

The part A deliverable will be with the first three chapters of that report, and then part B will have the second three chapters once that is initiated and concluded.

But at least there will be a point in time deliverable for part A that the your commission and the board will have as a working document uh going forward.

Uh this is just a recap of the schedule.

We started around April of 25.

We're here kind of concluding the part A services in January, and then that part B services has about a five to six month time frame whenever the the board is ready to choose to move forward with that.

It's got a there are three additional community open houses that are uh a part of that process, as well as three additional touch points with the five stakeholder groups that we met with, and uh likely be two uh updates to this commission during that process, and then a final presentation of the final plan to both the commission and the board of directors.

So the guiding principles you all likely recall these images, these were some of the the um images that resonated uh quite highly with the committees as we were working through trying to establish what is the visual and what is the what are the type of recreational opportunities that people want to see at the ACME property in the future.

That then informed the guiding principles that were established for the project, first and foremost being flood mitigation and stormwater management, second being designing and connecting people to nature, low maintenance and operational resiliency, uniqueness of place, accessibility, and economic benefit.

So the the focus of of the development of the ACME property for future use has been kind of built around the need and the requirement to mitigate the hundred storm hundred-year stormwater event, meaning during large rain events that water will be in this case with dry basins will be detained on site and released slowly into the watershed further downstream.

There are some nuances of that that we worked through with half associates to actually develop wet basins on the property and still meet all those same stormwater goals for the property with floodation.

The second was designing with and to connect people to nature.

Uh the property was heavily mined for decades and in a pretty heavy industrial use to take that material, convey it across the street, and then produce bricks.

And so one of the goals is to restore a good portion of the property back to more of a natural or native state that would be an asset in the in the middle of the community for people to be able to connect with nature.

Low maintenance, resiliency of materials and operational uh resiliency has been first and foremost.

You'll you'll notice in uh the concept alternatives, most of the things that are being contemplated at the park uh carry a relatively low maintenance requirement.

And capitalizing on the uniqueness of place for those of you that have had the opportunity to be out on the property, it does have quite a compelling experience from the topography that's been created uh through the mining operations to the views that are presented over the river valley and some of the high one of the reasons the water tower is out there on and adjacent to the property is because it is one of the highest elevation points, not just in your community but in the entire county.

And that presents opportunities like this, which is taken from the ridgeline looking to the north down towards the river valley.

Um accessibility.

This was one of the things that the the rose to the top as it relates to experiences that people can have.

We wanted to build in as many experiences that people of different ages and abilities can experience together on the property.

Economic benefit.

This was one of the guiding principles that kind of evolved as part of the process to be able to leverage this community asset in a variety of different ways that would provide both indirect and direct uh economic benefit to Fort Smith.

That then culminated in the preliminary concepts that were developed.

I don't expect you to be able to read this, but all of this information again is available on the project website if you want if you haven't already visited that website, I would encourage you to do.

This is all the information that was shared with the public at the public open house in the middle of December.

Uh the connection of the property itself being almost geographically located right in the center of the community, connecting that to other parks and connecting that to your current and future planned trail system.

Can we go back there?

Yeah, because we have a little bit of time here.

You bet.

We were talking this morning, and there were comments, and we could hear sentiment in the room last night about there's a perception that Fort Smith has got more parks than it needs.

And you have 34 public 35.

34 public parks.

Uh you're a community of about 90,000 people.

Most communities in that same population range have between 50 and 70 parks.

So you're actually underparked.

And when it comes to acreage, you're also about a third of the acres per thousand residents of communities of similar size in terms of a park system.

So just one of, and we've talked about maybe maybe valuable in this interim deliverable from part A to do a little context setting to make sure we are putting a pin and myth that actually the facts are you're you're underparked for a community year size.

Yeah.

Yeah, that was a conversation that we just had this morning as a follow-up to the the board presentation last night, as Brian mentioned.

We believe there, we believe there would be value in at least providing an overview of that in this interim deliverable to to just better inform residents and and uh readers of the plan that just sort of baselines that expectation before we even get into anything about the the future of this property.

And again, the the story of water has been imperative on this project site.

I'll kind of walk through what this diagram is showing, but um obviously this is the property old Greenwood Road that bifurcates it kind of through the middle, about a third and two-thirds of the property located on the east and west side respectively.

This uh lighter blue area is the watershed that kind of flows through the east property, the neighborhood that's right here.

There's a drainage way that comes through here and then uh continues on down in the May Branch.

And this smaller, darker blue is the watershed that flows through the west side.

So, in this case, the larger watershed is actually flowing through the smaller portion of the property.

And that's really important to remember when we when we get to the the concept alternatives, but in general, the intent behind the stormwater mitigation strategy on this property is to slow this water down that's coming through this watershed and slow this water down that's coming through this watershed, and actually reduce the rate in which it is released here, just on the other side of S Street, and then flows down through Creek Moor Park or through the watershed further to the north.

Sorry, I'm jumping around the slides here.

And so that is in a in a very, very high level, that's the the overall strategy of the stormwater mitigation basins.

That's important to remember when we get further into the concept alternatives because it starts to inform what we're looking at.

We also share just a brief history of the site.

Many obviously many residents are very familiar with the previous use of this site for many decades of mining again, that clay material on the west side, sending that over Old Greenwood Road for production, processing, and eventually firing into bricks that were used to build structures, build streets, and build other things in and around Arkansas.

One of the things that I think that is quite interesting about this is this is clearly the lowest point of the site, which we'll see in another diagram here.

And in many ways, one of the reasons that the mining operations stopped was that they had mined all the material.

They mined all the way down to bedrock and exposed actually the bedrock pan in this low area of the site.

If you were to walk out there today, you would be walking on solid bedrock, which is quite interesting, actually.

We did have the entire site in collaboration with Half and Associates surveyed that identified all of the existing utilities.

There were some existing wetlands in here and emerging uh wetlands over here in this drainage swale, uh, but it really provided a baseline to kind of dial in on the opportunities and constraints for future use as it relates to utility infrastructure.

And this is the last inventory and analysis slide that we have.

But this kind of identifies if you can think about uh the lighter colors being the higher elevations and the darker colors being the lower elevations.

You can see this is that that uh ridge line that kind of wraps around the site, where if you remember that photo underneath the uniqueness of place guiding principle was taken from right up here, looking back to the north over the river valley.

So quite a bit of topography change.

There's about 60 feet of elevation change from where the water tower sits uh down to Old Greenwood Road down here.

We'll transition into the alternative concepts that have been developed.

The first being there's three of these, and they each kind of build upon each other or have uh variabilities to each other.

The first one is really based exclusively on flood control, so mitigating the flood waters further downstream.

In this concept, there would be three dry detention basins that would be developed.

The first being on the east side, the second being the central basin here, and the third being on the west side to intercept the water coming down through this tributary here.

Yeah.

So between three and one, that tree line, I mean you can see it in the topographic lines.

That is an incredibly steep ridge line right there that separates it's very much geographic, geologically separates those two portions of the property.

Yeah, this everything west of kind of this ridgeline is rather densely wooded.

Um if any of you have had the opportunity to hike out on the property, this is very densely wooded currently.

Um, as part of this uh stormwater mitigation approach in order to again attenuate the hundred-year storm event as it flows further to the north downstream to mitigate flooding of properties down there.

This area uh there will be some tree removal that will need to occur in order to grade this area out.

And you can see this thing, this right here is essentially an embankment or a a uh a dam for lack of a better way of describing it, that will actually um be built here, hopefully with spoils or exported soil that's going to be used to essentially excavate out this basin here so that that water that's coming down here will actually pool up here and then be released at a much slower rate to the north, which is what these uh these areas here are showing is those dry detention basins.

So the extents of the improvements under concept one uh alternative number one are really focused on flood control.

It's highly likely that even the the pathways that are shown here would likely just be crushed aggregate gravel, primarily for maintenance purposes of the detention basins.

So during a rain event, these areas would fill up with water and then slowly draw down and release to the north.

Um during non-rain events, they would essentially be uh dry mode areas.

Can you also highlight something that you asked or am I in someone else whenever we met before the meeting yesterday that this option would not be accessible to the public period?

That's a very good point.

Yeah, you'll notice uh alternative two and three as we jump into those in a moment that uh they do have several points of public access into the property.

Right now, this is articulated to really be a flood mitigation project, um, which was part of the reason the property was purchased, but it likely would continue to remain fenced, gated, and locked, and relatively unaccessible to the public because it wouldn't be safe to provide public access to it with this level of improvement.

Those two ponds on either side of Old Greenwood Road connected or the majority of the water coming down on the east side can get to the west side.

That's very, very good question.

So hydraulically, right now they are completely separate.

This this tributary flows down through here, goes to just the east of where that existing ACME building still remains, and everything that flows on the west side of the property.

Flew back to that watershed slide, currently flows onto the property and further to the north through this tributary here that goes under S Street there.

In the initial concept alternative one, there will be a portion of water that flows down on the east side of Old Greenwood Road that will be intercepted and taken under Old Greenwood Road to this basin, and it goes back to the size of the watersheds because the larger watershed again is on the wet.

You can see this trip this way.

The most amount of water is flowing into the east side.

That's correct, but we have the smallest area to be able to mitigate and detain that water on the east side.

And you can see under concept one, this area, we're even peeling back this hillside that comes up to this adjacent neighborhood here.

This is all getting graded back in, and we're we're literally maximizing the amount of area to detain that water and still be at an elevation on this north end for it to be able to flow out.

The surface area is been maximized here to be able to detain that water, which is why it's really not feasible on the east side to build a wet basin because there's just not enough topography to be able to do that.

So these are just some images that we had up on the screen here a moment ago that likely would represent the the general character of dry detention basin during a non-rain event.

During a rain event, these areas would pool up with water and then slowly drain down.

So concept two builds upon the flood control approach and blends in two primary design moves.

One, the central basin is would be either built or converted in the future to a wet basin pond or a small lake, and the rest of the property would be developed as a public amenity.

And I'll kind of walk through the program elements here.

I mentioned the lake, there would be walking and hiking trails, a network of those, as you can see throughout the site that likely would be a variety of different widths, perhaps even uh different materials.

Um but there would be an island within the lake that could have some level of adventure play associated with it, um, as well as access uh bridges from the trail over to the island.

Uh we are envisioning a small kayak and canoe boat launch here.

It wouldn't be a boat ramp, but it would be an area for people people to be able to carry uh canoes or kayaks down to get onto the water for on water recreation as well as emergency access if there was ever a need for water rescue.

Um, an outdoor plaza pavilion, perhaps with open-air shelters, could even be a day lodge if there was programming need for that.

A small outdoor classroom or amphitheater area here, taking advantage again of that topography from this elevation here up to this elevation here.

There's about 50 feet of vertical grade change.

Um the key here is the public access.

This area is tremendously important for both pedestrian trail as well as vehicular access into the site with a parking lot here, drop-off turnaround area.

The reason this point is really important is that as you go further north on Old Greenwood Road, regardless of whether this is built as a wet basin or a dry basin, there's not enough room to get access anywhere north of this location off of Old Greenwood Road to the west.

And anywhere to the south, this is where if you if you can uh envision yourself in your car coming down Old Greenwood Road to the north, this is pretty steep here.

And so trying to get vehicular access in anywhere south of this location would be very very expensive to build.

And so this area here is really important for access, public access into the the property.

Which is where the existing gate is.

It's very similar to where that existing gate is if you've been out there and there's a small little drive that pulls off to get over to that side of the site.

Uh not too far actually from where the conveyor was historically that went over the street.

Um as you move up to the the south, then um the idea here is that you would be able to still come in on the trail, and you would begin.

Oops, the trail would then slope up to be able to get up to that top ridgeline.

As you come up to the top ridgeline, then a variety of different opportunities for outdoor recreation.

Again, plazas, there's a pump track that's programmed in over here under number five.

The vehicular access to the south end of the park would come off country club.

There'd be a certain drive coming in here.

This is where the water tower sits.

The cellular tower is just to the west of that.

Another drop-off turnaround area, because as Brian mentioned, there are a lot of hiking and potential mountain biking trail opportunities back on this west side of the property that we wanted to provide a little bit closer access for people.

A cluster of outdoor shelters and picnicking opportunities over here on the west side, because again, this area up here in here is the highest elevation of the park.

So the views out to the north here and the dense woodland buffer here to the south would provide a really unique experience for people to be able to have gatherings and events programmed in up here.

Actually have occupied towers that could have some type of hospitality experience up there, whether it's coffee or lunch or a small cafe as part of that.

So again, blending the flood mitigation, the east side of the property remains relatively the same as in option one, but we would envision a larger trail network that could be developed on this west side if it is made publicly accessible.

The dry basin on the west side of the property remains as it was in option one.

It's primarily the development of a wet basin here.

One of the things that's really important to reinforce is that both option alternative two and alternative three meet the same hundred-year stormwater detention requirements as option one.

And so all three options will mitigate flooding the exact same further downstream.

This is just showing kind of that transition.

This is what the dry basin would be if we just built that, the transition or conversion of that to the wet basin, and ultimately the recreational amenities that could be realized around that wet basin versus the dry basin.

These are a few sections that kind of give you a general sense of the elevation changes in here.

This first one up to the north with the water or the lake down here, the lower trail or lakeside edge trail here, and then the upper trail here up on top of the ridgeline.

And then you can see the dramatic change in the grade as you get further to the south here with that section cut coming from the lake through the island and then up the ridgeline.

So that water being here, this would be the island area here with some level of adventure play out on the island.

The water again here on the pond, and then that lower trail here, and then the upper trail here on the ridgeline further up the property.

An additional section clear at the north end.

This is really intended to show that the deep water of the entire pond would kind of be on this north node, which would allow fish to survive there in all seasons and provide fishing opportunities for the whole lake or the whole pond.

But this is showing that relationship of where old Greenwood Road is.

There would be a trail adjacent to the road, and then that elevation change with uh a trail up on top of the ridgeline, the lake, that lower trail then on the west side of the lake, and then as it comes up to this elevation, the additional trail further up into the ridgeline as it comes through.

So a variety of different trail opportunities around the lake.

The last section is just kind of cut further out into the lake.

You can see the water, this shelf that's kind of created over in here, and that deep water further on the west side.

These are some of the imagery associated with that, the program elements.

We talked about the fishing opportunities.

There is the opportunity in a couple of different spots to do more of an aerial adventure type of experience that could be built and operated by a separate entity and different experiences with the water connections to the water on water recreation, that opportunity for a tower that uh could serve both uh day uses up here as well as the zipline operation.

My recommendation on a lot of the aerial adventure opportunities is to explore offer options that are non-staffed.

So they don't require a staff, they don't require a concessionaire that five years from now or five years after you've executed the agreement that you're you're in a defensive position with them because they're not performing.

There's a group uh that we've worked with that's done a lot of work in Gatlinburg and a lot of other places, they're based in Hawaii actually, but they've got some really creative alternatives of things like aerial play that are non-staff required, and that's what I would recommend here like.

I'm just curious what uh what depth, how deep is that like gonna be?

So the the deeper end down on the north end would be about 14 feet, yeah.

And I can't remember uh Carolyn Pond.

Do you remember the maximum depth there?

I think it's a right there at the 12 or 13 feet.

Thank you.

Yeah, it probably it'd probably be pretty clear water though, because it's rock bottom.

Yeah, and 13 feet will be there in dry periods, and then the flood it fills up on top of that.

Yep, yeah.

So the way that uh the wet basin works relative to yeah, it's exactly right.

The way that the wet basin works relative to the dry basin is that there's um there's enough freeboard above the normal pool elevation for that additional detention volume to fill up during a rain event before it cascades over the outfall.

Yeah.

In acres, how big are the uh east and west parts?

Approximately the the dry basin on the east side is about four and a half, and the lake itself is uh between seven and eight.

Seven and seven and eight acres.

Which is Caroline size, yeah.

And then the west basin is a bit smaller than that.

Caroline Cross Park.

Which one?

The wet one.

I'm sorry, I'm jumping around.

Same size Caroline Cross.

That one?

I have no idea there was that much room on that property.

Oh, you get that's cool.

Yeah, good question.

So the the third concept alternative, again, these each kind of stack or build upon each other.

Um, it it still meets all of the same flood control goals for the property.

Um, it does blend in water recreation and park amenities, but it goes a step further and looks at opportunities for private development.

And so one of the areas for potential private development is this area along Old Greenwood Road frontage on the east side of the property.

For those of you familiar with that that current drive, there's kind of a pull-off drive here, a small parking area, and then it connects into that drive that goes further down to the property that ACME Brick Company still owns.

That is an area that could provide some level of private development, uh, commercial retail type of use, and then the larger um idea contemplated here is on the south end of the property, this area, uh, looking at about 14 to at most maybe 18 acres of land that could be put into private development if that was desired.

And it could be a variety of mixed use retail, potentially some hospitality that might work well up against the edge of the park.

Um there could be condominium or apartment living type of uh three four story building here on this side that would capitalize again, keeping in mind this is the highest point that overlooks the property down to the north, and maybe even some multi-family type of development here on this kind of ridgeline here that would provide an opportunity for a developer to come in and and take this on.

The the access would continue to be from Country Club Avenue, so it would be completely separate vehicular access to serve this type of development than what the park has down here.

Um and there could be trail connections or perhaps even some public parking accommodated within this, but this was just really looking at uh at an opportunity to uh potentially look at a different purpose for that south end of the property.

This can I make a comment?

Yeah, I so I participated in some of the idea ideation around this.

But I we did feel like it was important that the community and the board have an alternative that looks at well, are there ways in which we can leverage the purchase of this property, which was primarily for flood mitigation, to actually help fund some of the capital investment in the public access side of it.

And because of the concern around costs, return maybe some of the property back to the private realm out of the public out of the public realm.

So that that would it we're we're not advocates of selling parkland for private development, and want to be real clear, but this is an alternative that actually helps make some of that possible if that's an area of concern.

Yeah, and again, some associated imagery of what some of those amenities could look like with the multifamily, the potential mixed-use commercial um and connecting those to uh the public the public experience in the in the park.

These were uh some of the general images that ranked quite high as it relates to the community engagement process that we went through in December that received quite a bit of uh support as far as the type of recreational activities that citizens want to to see and experience at the property and some of the vertical character of what you can see.

That tower image shows up again.

Um, the type of vertical character that has a lot of natural materials and really well grounded, I think, within the the environment.

Are your numbers rankings?

The numbers are just simply uh numbers of images so that people could reference it.

They're not right, they're not rankings.

No, that was simply just a way to kind of reference image six, image ten, etc.

And so Brian will walk through several similar case studies.

We looked at initially a much broader set of case studies, and then we've narrowed it down over the course of the process, and we're sharing with you some highlights of three different parks that are all also quarry parks uh that we feel like have some relevance to the acme property.

Um this one is an outstanding park, the Don Valley Brickworks Park, also a former brick quarry, just like with the the acme property, but considerably larger.

This property is 440 acres, and the city of Toronto has invested uh all of all in over the last 30 dollars 30 years, adjusted to 2026 dollars, about a hundred and fifteen million dollars.

Uh, do we recommend that is what need is necessary here?

Absolutely not.

This is well beyond the scale of what we're talking about here in Fort Smith, but they've also really leveraged this into a significant amenity within the community.

This is probably one of the premier quarry parks in the Western Hemisphere.

They have uh 15 bike trails, four ponds, uh off-leached dog area, interpretive trail system, they even have a park audio tour system that talks about the history of the park.

But uh if there is a gold standard in quarry parks in this in this half of the world, this is probably in the top two or three.

Okay.

Uh a little a little bit closer to home in Batavia, Illinois.

This is the Batavia Park District Quarry Park.

Uh, this is a much smaller park, it's a little more 60,000 square feet, less than a million dollars in renovation costs that went through here in the last uh five years.

Uh and this is primarily turned into a swimming beach.

And again, we're uh by showing you examples of quarry parks that have a lot of water in them.

We're not trying to shove water down your throats.

Typically, quarry parks have a lot of water in them because they're naturally already basins, and that's what people are using them for.

Yes, ma'am.

So that's where I'm from.

Okay.

Okay.

So I've been back there many times and been there.

And now is it great to re restore what was there?

But it just goes out.

Like there's restaurants and I mean just all kinds of things there.

Once people have somewhere to come, that that's an amazing place.

It's it's kind of so small a world that you're actually from Batavia.

Yeah, yeah.

But yes, you're exactly right.

It energizes a whole area.

It's the adaptive reuse of a former industrial site and such great public um uh assets, right?

It is.

Did you grow up there?

Did like did you spend your childhood year?

Because it this has been around for like a hundred years.

The use of this for swimming.

There's historic photos.

But I met my husband there.

Oh, okay.

Nice.

I met my husband at that quarry 41 years.

I mean, I couldn't drown him there, probably wouldn't have been in the country, but yeah, that's where we met.

That's crazy.

Yeah, when you showed that, I was like, I had no idea you were from Batavia when we put this in here.

Yeah, because there's historic grove, not batavia.

Okay, okay.

Same stuff.

Yeah, very fair.

That's great.

Yeah.

Uh so really a really active public amenity.

People's whole lives and relationships are built there.

That's crazy.

Yeah.

And the third study that we show you even closer to home, and this one's kind of a little bit in its inf infancy stages.

This is in Knoxville, Tennessee, the Fort Dickerson Augusta quarry, um, working with the city right now, finishing up their system-wide parks and recreation master plan.

This is a they've they put um this 85 acres, so it's closer in scale and size to the ACME property.

Uh they have opened it up for public access.

They put about 11 million dollar investment into it that um starting this even this uh current year.

Uh but they've even had 9,000 visitors just in the first few months uh coming to the park.

The the area of focus is that they are here is trails.

They have about four miles of trails and then activating access to the water with a large uh beach platform, some restroom showers, some comfort amenities that make all that possible, but very similar to what we're looking at in some version here at the ACV property.

I wanted to also say before we move on from the case studies is an industry best practice in parks and recreation that's really emerged within the last 10 years is the in the more intentional integration of two areas of public service that have not really talked to each other very well in the past, and that's stormwater management and parks.

Uh City Parks Alliance, which is made up of the top 100 urban park systems in the country has really started to celebrate this particular the last couple of years, and a great case study of who's doing this really, really well is Raleigh, North Carolina.

But most communities are starting to these two things in the republic realm, storm water management and parks have operated in silos for decades.

But where there's now they're starting to come together where they realize oh, we actually can create vibrant public spaces that also have stormwater utility to them.

And so this is the opportunity at this at this particular site is to also demonstrate where those two things can really converge.

Any questions on the case studies?

Um I'm curious about private developments and when it comes.

I'm um concerned that there's a thought that uh selling off land is gonna help pay for the development of the property.

I'm a developer, and I why would I go buy land if there's not an amenity already there?

That's a that's a huge risk on the developer side that I think people are anticipating will be successful.

So I think personally, when you're pitching the parcels that are could be up for sale that could potentially fund the rest of the project.

I would I would tread real lightly and really say that that is not the most likely outcome.

And then you may get a small you may not make much money off the sale though, man, because I mean what what what are the costs for that land?

No, I I don't think people are gonna want to pay a lot for that raw land when there's nothing there.

It's just a pit today.

If there's a park, if there's a lot of amenities and thousands of people go there every year, yeah, I'd I'd pay it for you, but not today.

I know thing too in the meeting last night, the board of directors was very interested in uh private assistance, Walton Foundation, state parks.

It seems to me that we would make a mistake if we design a land with some of it already removed before we ask people for grants.

If we want to ask for grants, let's have a canvas.

It could be a grants thing rather than oh, we chop this part off and chop it.

Here's what's left.

Are you interested in that?

I think we have a better chance of getting significant grants.

So I I would go with two and see what happens.

And if we can get great grants, great.

You know, there's no reason after we get 10 years along in this process or five years along the process we say.

You know, we really aren't using it out for land that selling to see what we get for.

I need to limit ourselves when we go looking for grants and present our big idea.

I think from my perspective, the only thing I would push for even trying to sell right now is that very, very little strip on the east parcel.

Because like Sam said, I don't see, and I think kind of the community input that you'll see later, no one's gonna buy that right now.

Think about all the money they'd have to put into it just to get it to where they can develop it.

So I will say there is one of the board of directors emailed administration early this morning, and they're gonna try to coordinate with everyone to go tour it, and so I mean, some of you have been there, and I think that will really open that perspective.

But the East parcel, I think I would be okay with.

I mean, whether or not someone buys it, I don't know, but I think that's a good possibility for a now.

Hey, is someone interested?

So whenever we go through that, I would the master plan.

I haven't talked about this with anyone until now, but I would actually section that off to say we're not gonna develop it for park purposes.

But I agree 100%.

On the east parcel, yeah, road front edge.

Two acres.

Oh, yeah.

Yeah.

That's gonna be nice house.

Sam, I completely agree with you.

And I feel like that voice of experience and reason from the developer community is going to be necessary at some point.

And making sure we take the wind out of the sales of this idea that this got a great appeal to private developers.

Yeah, and you you sat in on the developer round table that we had in December, right?

You I you you were there for that discussion.

Uh you were there for one of the discussions.

Oh, yeah, I came before that one.

Okay, because it was even sitting around that that group of developers.

Did they echo a lot of the same same thing you said?

It's gonna be tremendously challenging for anyone to come in and buy that land and have any ROI of meaning.

Um regardless of whether the park is built and running or not.

Yeah, just because of the the nature of the site for quite a while before the same purpose that yeah.

I think until you go up there and you set foot on it, you have no clue what's behind the little firm that's up along Greenwood, and it's eye-opening, it really is.

So I think it's important, and it's great to hear that the board is interested in coordinating that and going to actually set foot on the property.

I think that's when that happens, where some of the commissioners go to.

I don't know, but I can certainly ask.

Okay, which is beautiful, it's a beautiful part of the property.

And and with that, I think you're taking away, you would be taking away a lot of the appeal of the park itself, just by having a yeah, a hiking trail up there.

They also said last night in that meeting they uh the directors asked, had anybody talked to the gathering place in Tulsa and somewhere in Oklahoma City about Tulsa, yeah, Tulsa, and then the some somewhere in Oklahoma City.

Had they talked to anybody there who was involved in building that and finding out where did they get grants, how what was the criteria for a grant?

Because that place is pretty spectacular too.

You'd have it together.

The gathering place was one individual.

I have a okay, so I wasn't getting up there and saying that at that point.

I did not know.

Well, it was he wasn't he wasn't by himself, but so that was a 70-acre, incredibly blighted piece of property.

I I had walked across it before it was even the gathering place.

Um George Kaiser and the Kaiser Family Foundation, he strong armed all of his philanthropist friends in Tulsa, and they raised 400 million dollars in private money, which he was the anchor tenant of.

And the city of Tulsa met the matched them with a hundred million dollars worth of infrastructure to redo riverfront road there because they had to put bridges and all these other things to make all that work.

Um, but I mean, I everyone loves the gathering place, but that's what 500 million dollars gets you.

It seemed like a strange question, yeah, because I was like, I mean, I've been there a lot, it doesn't seem like you could just ask one person for a grant and then it would build that, but I was like, all right.

That was that was the vision of one man whose strong armed all his friends.

Okay, and you know, you said Walton's adworking property, a representative of the county and from the state and we gave him fifth hour.

Who was the state entity?

It was honestly it was the governor's husband.

Oh, uh, and he's the one that helped restructure how that outdoor recreation grant worked.

Okay.

And I didn't say it last night.

I kind of wish I would have.

So they're like, well, you have money, we don't want to give you a matching grant.

And part of what he said, he goes, no, we're changing that perspective into us that's showing your city is already committed to advancing parks and recreation activities, so we see that as a positive because you have that.

So I think the reorganization at the state level, because we haven't gotten that grant in I don't know how many years.

So I think that's a good thing.

You said it got paid.

It can be, they will allow you to ask for more than 250,000.

And then they also like phased projects to where, hey, maybe you can request 750 this year and do what you say you're gonna do and keep doing that for two, three years.

So assume council saying directors will uh correct saying we're gonna be looking for not for profit in public non non-public money to help us.

Absolutely on that track.

If we continue to advance, because I think everyone has been hesitant to begin with because there's been so much.

Well, we don't want a park, we never said it was gonna be a park, and we did the general fund parks department.

We paid for 61% of that property because it was going to be a park and flood mitigation.

So I think last night was very beneficial, and to be transparent, I did not foresee that going as well as I thought it did.

And I think kind of that shown we had a lot of people in the audience that were there in support of that property and moving forward.

So I think that support there, it's kind of the timing of for my perspective, we need to do that phase B.

But is the timing right to say, hey, can we put it on there next month?

I don't know.

I think we're gonna have a follow-up with administration and probably the engineering department, because one of the comments was well, would it be more cost effective to do a wet pond up front?

Yeah, and I think that answer is yes, so I think there's some conversations we need to have, and I will update you all as I know.

But I took last night I think was positive.

Yeah, and that's not something I felt whenever we initially got the agreement passed.

This is maybe y'all can answer this, but six million dollars to dig three homes.

That seems a little expensive.

You think they'd be less than that?

Have you seen those holes though?

They're the bedrock is it is blasting, not big.

Yeah, yeah.

But that's probably right.

Five to six million dollars.

Yes.

Yeah, I hope it's enough.

Yeah, it's a lot of it's a lot of earth work, it's a lot of utility work.

It's not just soft earth.

Yes, the Bob's trucking company couldn't do it.

Yeah, yeah.

Um you asked a really good question, David, about just um the approach to uh funding outside of traditional uh CIP funding from the city, and that I think the case studies have demonstrated it, but it's very, very rare that projects the magnitude of what the acme property could be are funded with public dollars exclusively.

It's oftentimes a blend of uh private money, public money, and then the third leg of that stool oftentimes is grant money.

And the the mechanism to begin exploring what those are is a well thought out, well-articulated plan.

And that's why we we're advocating so heavily to continue just get the plan advancing it and get it to a point where you have all of the collateral, all of the the case statement and the strategy on how it's gonna be implemented to start having some of those informed conversations with other entities.

I've done a lot of work with the Walton Family Foundation.

I've been not only as a consultant, but uh for nine years as a vice president of Audubon, I was a fund a fundee of Walton.

A lot of the work that they would do.

They they are into big bold, bad, bodacious ideas that you can't do by yourself.

That's why they act they see value of their participation.

I did a I did a project uh a little bit north of here in Silem Springs, right on the Oklahoma, Arkansas border.

They completely paid for the the Woka Whitewater Park on the Illinois River, even though Silent Springs already had their own white water park less than three miles away because it was a big bad, bodacious idea that needed to happen around this dam mitigation project.

Because it was a big bad bodacious idea that needed to happen around this dam mitigation project.

Again, a utility project that was turned into a wonderful public asset.

That's what they really are into.

You if if you roll out a plan for them that's like we just want flood retention basins, they're not gonna bat an eye at that.

We have a history.

They gave us money for the river.

River track.

I think the main thing for me is I think we have a lot of community buy-in, and obviously with this commission.

But if we don't have that at the top level, then I don't foresee anyone wanting to give us money because oh well, we'll commit this, but are you really going to say yes whenever you've done all this work?

Because that's one of the frustrations that we have as we do all this.

Well, we don't want to do that anymore.

So I think it's we gotta get full support.

We have it at the bottom, but we gotta make sure it goes all the way to the top, and that's really where we're gonna rely on the citizens and the public to communicate their desires.

I think there's a clear minority that said no more parks.

I would agree with that.

I would agree with that.

Some people did say that no more parks, we have too many.

That's why we need to gather up that information you gave us about being under park.

You are in the park.

We don't have too many.

Yeah, I think one of the just having received in uh the comments and questions at the meeting last night, and having gone through the public open house and the stakeholder group sessions about a month ago.

Um I do believe will be really important in this interim plan deliverable will be the baseline of what what we had just chatted about this morning that you brought up around benchmarking Fort Smith with two or three other like-minded peer communities as it relates to park land, not just park land, um, but the capital, the average capital investment in parkland per capita.

I think that will be tremendously informative on the front end of this plan document.

In the same room deliverable, the book end of that then will be what we're about to walk through, which is very clearly articulating the community engagement feedback that's been received thus far based on the direction of where the concept alternatives have been advanced.

We just finished a city survey of support for parks that came right out of the pocket.

They they reapproved the tax.

Well, that's though, maybe a little higher.

That's the enigma of parks.

Is this all over the country?

It's a highly, highly, highly valued public service that typically is at the very bottom of public funding priorities, and that's that's the challenge.

Yeah.

You know, one thing that you know, you hear some things, but they say, oh, the creek more so close to that.

Well, this it that's not gonna be a creek more.

No, no.

It's gonna be uh maybe you want to call it an extension because I think with the amenities you're looking at, it's it's not playgrounds, it's not slides.

No, it's not a train.

I mean, it it's it's things for I guess I would classify more adult, but but it's up for all agencies anyway.

But uh you've got your you know your trails and your canoes and kayaks and um more advanced trail walking one and all of that.

Um so it's it's yeah, it's park, and there's one clause, but it's different.

Very different.

But you're also solving a problem at the same time.

You're building a park, but you're also solving a very large problem in the city.

Right.

And they you can kind of rule that and say, well, you can say we have a lot of parks, but we also have a lot of flooding.

So hey, you know, with the the solution to that, yeah, you you're gonna spend the money spend money for the flood, but I mean, I think it can be done relatively inexpensive with the trail system or something.

I don't think we're trying to put any kind of activity center.

No one's talking about a hundred and fifty thousand square foot recenter here.

This is very passive recreation.

I mean, it's just uh dirt work and yeah.

I was telling Sarah last night, I looked on a map.

I was gonna ask you to mention if you start at Rogers Avenue for the top end of Creekmore Park, when you go down Old Greenwood Road, and as soon as you get to the end of Creek or there's Hunts Park on the other side, and as soon as you get past Hunts Park, there's the county ball fields.

As soon as you get past that, there's the acne brick plant.

You would have over a mile of public activity on what we have a single stretch.

That's pretty impressive.

No, no, I'm just winging somebody's feelings of this.

And generally where people gather, that's where you get your commercial developments.

And home tax and your residential developments.

Did you tell Crest is looking for an access to the park?

That was one of the I think it might be on the let's let him go through the slides.

Because I think that actually is a call out.

Which surprised me.

Wasn't the wondering that you actually think they might not like it.

That's correct.

Yeah, I'm just writing down what David just said because I think we can we can we can articulate that both graphically and narratively in this part A deliverable about that over mile of public open space experience along Old Greenwood.

So it's double wide side market because it goes all the way to the lake.

So every neighborhood off that side for feedback.

Okay, it's connected.

Why is that car?

Yeah.

So the community engagement process that has been underway, in addition to the various committees that have provided the guidance, um, was really initiated in the middle of December, and is continuing online that people can still provide comment and uh even support or uh vote against some of the comments that are made.

It's a very active site.

This tool is intended to continue on all the way through Part B planning, meaning there would be about a four to five month period as we advance those concepts that we have three additional public open houses and share that advancement, get feedback, continue to update information on the site for people to continue to comment and provide feedback that aren't able to be at the meetings because we would then dial in and export all of that and put that into that final report at the end of Part B that would reinforce all of the other good things that would come out of that planning document that would show other entities that you may choose to engage from a funding standpoint, the type and level of community support as it relates to what's being proposed.

But what we have prepared today is to review with you the feedback that's been received since um this was launched a few days after the public open houses in December.

And so we did have um five different listening sessions prior to the public open house that were well attended.

One was based on uh schools and universities, trails and greenways that many of you participated in, uh, tourism destination that was very well attended by kind of a broad cross section of representation across the community, and then the developers round table that I mentioned.

But uh this the top bullet here on the right really is pretty consistent with the feedback that was received later that evening at the public open house is that there seemed to be overwhelming preference for concept two, uh knowing that flood mitigation was addressed in that and then stacking on top of that the recreational value that the property could bring, as well as the the second bullet around just the overall hesitancy to sell off any of the land for private development, um, which I think you were getting at, Sam, is that it would be difficult, I think, to uh compel a developer to want to come in and take that on.

So the community open house that was held later that evening, uh uh participant we had over 50 people participate in that.

Um and there was uh even a familiar face there.

No, it's like yeah, I read um the participants had an opportunity to go through, look at all the same content that's on the website, ask questions, provide comments that were then distilled down into some of the the bullet points here again around uh people wanting trail connections to the park to the adjacent neighborhoods.

Um the opportunity uh for um selling off part of the land was met with quite a bit of resistance with the participants at the public open house.

And we did have uh several adjacent neighbors actually uh to the property that uh showed up at the open house.

Many of them reinforced that idea of wanting to be connected to the park and have direct trail access to get into the park from their neighborhood.

And one of the one of the pieces that came up was um Sarah kind of alluded to it, but uh the neighborhood to the east of Old Greenwood Road on the cul-de-sac that's kind of down towards the south end of the East property, um, did have some concerns to voice about some of the stormwater improvements that'll need to happen.

And so there's some alternatives that are being looking that are being evaluated right now by the engineering team that's working on the stormwater mitigation basins to try and address those concerns.

So the point is that the public meetings are working because it's bringing people out, getting them engaged in the process, or listening to their comments and trying to react to those as best we can.

Many of these, if not all of these, are addressed in concept alternative too, which is likely why that kind of rose to the top as the most preferred concept.

So again, the website is active.

If you haven't visited and you want to dive into more detail, all the information that we reviewed is available there.

This was data that was extracted January 8th, so six days ago today from uh the website, but there were almost a thousand unique um visitors to the site in the first uh three weeks that it was open.

Uh several contributors, uh some people contributed more than once, um, but we extracted just a few of those here.

Um there was an opportunity for people simply just to provide their level of preference for concept one, two, or three, and this is kind of as of January 8th, with those that express their preference.

53 percent preferred option two, 28 percent um preferred option three, and only 19 percent preferred option one.

And again, that concept one was flood mitigation only, two was flood mitigation and recreation engagement with water and concept three built in on top of that, the opportunity for private development.

And something I just thought about looking at that.

I just wonder if some of that 19% maybe we don't communicate it the best.

But I just wonder if they voted that because they think picking two and three means we're not doing stormwater mitigation.

I think that is a disconnect.

We kind of in your final report.

Sorry, I just thought of it.

That's a disconnect.

We need the highlight that no matter what, store just because you pick number two doesn't mean number one's not happening.

They just all funnel into each other.

They each build on each other.

Yes.

Yeah.

One thing you also mentioned that maybe I re thought about it with concept one.

There's no public access to that property.

I just kind of assume that okay, yeah.

You want to do some very very basic trails around it or you know, level out some idea and have some just open area, but no, there's no access to it.

Yeah, that that would be points.

Yeah, 300 actually.

Yes, sir.

Okay, yes, sir.

Um, these again, much like we did for the public open house and the stakeholder engagement sessions.

Uh, we did try and pull out kind of the key themes, at least for comments that had been made through the the online tool.

Uh but you can see that there was again strong support for option two and three, and this kind of resonates with uh the guiding principles of connecting people to nature.

And uh one of the things that these these are kind of the the uh distilled down words, but a lot of the comments that were made were provide public access, but keep it very simple, meaning provide passive recreation.

There does we don't need to build a soccer complex, we don't need to build a new skate park, we don't need a bunch of pickleball, tennis, basketball courts, keep it very simple and connect people to nature with passive recreation opportunities, which I think is is part of what is um a very very uh reciprocal and beneficial use as it relates to what Brian was talking about related to the trend in the industry to connect stormwater management, flood mitigation, greenway development with more passive recreation opportunities.

And then we have just a few slides here that do extract when when uh people do engage with the social pinpoint site.

For those of you unfamiliar with it, they they can drop a pin on the property, make a comment.

Other people that are on the site can either support or or be against essentially thumbs up, thumbs down.

But some of the comments that were made that received higher levels of support are in blue, and a few of the comments that received um lower level support, or at least were met with some level of of uh disagreement are shown in red.

I won't read through these, but um these are a few more as it relates to kind of what resonated with with the park sites, and again, this this comment was pretty pretty uh uh 90, I think 90 and 91 percent were two of the higher supported and less supported comments that were made on the site, which is why we put them on here.

But these program elements again were ones that resonated quite high with people that have visited the site related to walking and biking trails, nature and open space, flood mitigation, these are words directly from comments made, flood mitigation paired with recreation, and again that accessibility guiding principle that was established for the project seemed to be uh very important to at least contributors that came to the website.

I think this is the last one that talks about uh um the property being sold to a private developer or investor.

Um was met.

I think this was the highest level of either agreement or disagreement of any comment that was made on the site at 96 percent.

Um so if you think about that, 96 percent of the people that commented on this particular comment are in complete disagreement with it.

And I will stay with this because I I said it last night.

I publicly said whenever this started going and we got the agreement.

I said I don't care if it's a park.

All I care about is what the citizens want.

And last night I said obviously the citizens want park amenities.

So I think now that this community engagement has proven that now we can pursue this is what the citizens want.

We're not doing it today, we're not doing it tomorrow, but at least we know the strategic direction we need to go, and to finalize that is refining this master plan.

I think your next slide goes into that is to go forward with the next.

Can I add to that?

Like even just planning concept two doesn't obligate you to building all of concept two, it's just you're just creating a plan.

I mean, look at John Bell Jr.

Park.

We have a plan, and plans do change based on you know citizen input, but at least we know this is where we're going, and then you use citizen input to well, how can we prioritize this based on your needs?

And I think at the end of the day, it's gonna be trails, mountain biking, hiking trails for sure.

Absolutely.

And it changes based on that.

We've changed John Bell a few times.

Yeah, and so as Sarah mentioned, really the next step is to uh conclude the interim deliverable that we've talked about a couple of times uh today, and then to uh initiate and complete part A, or part excuse me, part B planning that kind of is summarized under the the three tasks there below that has again about a five to six month time frame from start to finish to get through that, and a lot of that's based on the two additional iterations of the master plan concept itself, so that we have time to uh advance it, share it with the public, get feedback, advance it more, share it with the public, and then finalize it, and then have a final public meeting to share the final plan, the strategy to implement it, um, and any other um updates that might come along in that same time frame as it relates to the flood mitigation uh project as it was.

And so the again, small text, but the the main thing is is that this is intended to be a sequential process, as Brian mentioned before.

The the original intent was to have this all as part of the initial um engagement, um, but in order to get through and achieve and actually get started on something, we had to break it down into kind of a two-phase approach, if that makes sense.

That's uh balance what we had prepared today.

Happy to continue discussion or answer any additional questions that you all might have.

Yeah, no, it's I prefer you all you interrupt through instead of having the go back to 10 slides.

Well, I think we've got a good start.

I think we're on track with at least let's get a point.

And you never know, you know, once we get playing out, there might be somebody willing to jump in and solve I'll I'll go ahead and ask you.

Did you have a question or a comment about this?

Yeah.

Okay, yeah, go ahead.

Um Steve Sherro's uh one rear room draw enforcement, and specifically my questions is about the dog park.

I live in uh one river and drive here in Fort Smith, and specifically my questions is about the dog park, and to give you a little history, I'm not sure you know this, but before the acquisition of uh acne the significant dog park was taken away here at Fort Smith that was located by the airport, and the airport needed the property, and it was a significant size for dogs, and uh my question is whether or not there's been any discussion or input about having part of the acne property uh for a uh a dog park to replace what was been taken away from the citizens, and I think there have been in Sarah, you can maybe help us with that.

Uh there was a lot of discussion at the time that it was taken away that well, the city will replace it at some point in time.

Well, it's been a significant period of time since that happened, and there has been like I know there is the downtown dog park that was put in, but it's not adequate at all for large dogs.

So my inquiry is this, it would seem prudent to me that to insert in the master plan in certain area that would be allocated for a dog park, and to show it uh the location whether it would be the east of uh greenwood or whether it'd be incorporated somewhere around the lake or back from the wherever what would make sense to you guys because it would certainly be utilized in two points during the discussion that I picked up your comment about the staffing of certain projects.

Uh to me the log the dog part does not require the minimal staff.

Space maintenance is all and the other thing that would do is if it were part of the design of the master plan, I think that you could uh obtain a lot of private contributions specifically for that that people would really come up and support significantly, and uh I think probably the most important or most expensive part of a dog park project is fencing.

And so if you could articulate that, say this is where we think it should be, this is the estimated cost of the fencing.

I think you'd get it just like that.

So has there been any discussions about involving a dog park at the acne location?

I'll answer that.

I think right now this was just a broad plan, and then whenever we go to phase B services, that's whenever they really engage the community, and that's where that's gonna be.

I know one of the big challenges with putting a dog park there is gonna be the neighborhoods because whenever the crow hill we were told to make that a dog park, and whenever we had the design and we had the public meeting, there was enough community pushback, and honestly, I think it was the wrong location that that project died.

So I think the biggest hurdle there is going to be the residents because I don't foresee any part of the west parcel being for a dog park because you would have to fence it in, and if it was it would be maybe one, two acres because of the topography and the stormwater portion of that.

So I think the east parcel would be the east side.

Yes.

In my humble opinion, it would have to be a significant acreage to make it viable.

Yes, and I'm just not sure.

Really, I think the engineering side of that will drive that more than anything we do.

I would ask that you all incorporate that not in phase B but in A, just to have it so this is what we're gonna do, and let it develop.

But I would certainly hope that you all would do that.

What about using the drive on the east side?

I live somewhere where it was ball fields and we wouldn't flood it and flooded, right out there used to fit off again.

I think that goes whenever we continue, because right now we have three very broad concepts.

And so whenever we get down in two specific amenities to fill that, that's where that dog park discussion, disc golf course and everything will highlight.

But for now, we can't hone that in until we continue.

So we're not to that point, but I do know there's been a few comments about wanting a dog park location.

I think we all need to understand it's not going to be anywhere near the 40 acres we had.

We just don't have that much space.

Yeah, I think dog dog park is definitely landed on the list.

Yeah.

And you know, it's not like a crazy suggestion.

It's not like somebody said we should build a space export there.

Like, no.

It's it's within the realm of reason, but it's and it's definitely on the list.

But we're not at a stage in the process where we're evaluating any one option over another at this point.

We're just trying to get to a concept.

Probably.

Yes.

I think the east side is more in we are more interested in trying to figure out its recreational use.

The west side is much more like much more clear how it can be used.

We bring a lot of public support, and it could be a heavily wooded area.

A lot of them that don't have trees are just not very pleasant.

And so it wouldn't it would take a lot of work to the uh ecology to create a space.

Yeah, I completely agree, and that but that as aspect particularly may be a little bit of a challenge because particularly if we're talking about a double use of a retention basin for a dog park, there are no trees in it.

Yeah, yeah.

So in order to get a space that has canopy to it, you have to get up into the hillside uh on that side.

All right.

Yeah.

No, but fair point, I hear you.

I it's in the comments.

We're not I you would have to fence it off, and there's no way to fence it unless you want to be on that very top part and the dogs all fall down.

But I mean, I think until we get to phase B, we're not to that point because we haven't picked any certain amenities.

So I think I mean it's in the mix of ideas, but we're not to the point of honing that in.

Right, I think.

Yeah.

I just think that if you could make a policy statement, probably would just come from this board that we are definitely gonna get a dog bark somewhere in this acting project.

I think that would have to come from the board of directors because they make that final decision.

Certainly this committee could recommend that, but they could, but I don't think with the information we have with Scott, that's an appropriate time to consider that at this moment.

We have to keep going there.

Yeah, we can put it on the list, certainly as a as an option for program.

Yeah.

And I I don't disagree with any of you, I didn't realize that the previous dog park that y'all had access to out by the airport was 48.

That's that's huge.

That's what we're not significant takeaway.

Yeah.

I mean, there's a lot of things.

Was it mostly just flat land open?

No.

Wow.

It was 40 acres.

Yeah, that's ringing out.

I have three Siberian huskies, so they would love for that water.

Yeah, we're gonna run.

Yeah, it was great.

You know, and all of a sudden you had such a uh beautiful property, asset, and then it's just taken away.

And then uh at least the informal uh feedback was well the city's gonna get you something.

I think that would be okay.

We need to we do need to get you guys have anything else?

Nope, this was it.

We just uh appreciate your time and uh comments for sure.

Okay, thank you all for that.

Thanks for watching you guys to do for sure.

Thanks for letting us give you an update.

So yeah.

Uh Sarah?

Sarah's gonna need a laptop back.

Uh I comment on because isn't it uh a uh good site for a grant for brown fields?

Isn't that something that you you're asking about a funding opportunity?

If certainly could be would qualify and and that brown field grants have dropped if they've got some yes, that certainly could be a part of the the funding strategy, absolutely.

There do you have such a potential sophisticated funding strategy that could go into this, it might warrant consideration of looking and we can talk more about this of kind of almost like a fundraising feasibility analysis that you might even be able to get to your local community foundation to do with you to do for you.

Because you know, I've on the practitioning side, I I was building a whitewater park in far western Maryland a number of years ago.

We pivoted that park to becoming an economic catalyst, and we received millions of dollars from the state and the federal government through economic development.

Again, this park could be positioned as an economic catalyst, and you would be eligible for all sorts of grants.

Yeah, everything that Brian just everything that Brian just said would be narrative and and uh recommendations that will be a part of that implementation chapter in part B.

Yeah, so that's why we would love the opportunity to continue to advance it.

So yeah, I ask a quick question.

Uh is the general consensus moving forward for the final plan that you're moving towards to really lean into that concept two and then to tag on to that, or are we kind of abandoning this concept one idea we're we'll draw detention is all we're gonna get?

Well, again, I I would re urge caution, but going with concept two doesn't abandon concept one.

Concept two includes concept.

Are we fully committing to the web pond though and going with concept two and saying drive detention is not with the community that's y'all's terror can't y'all just gonna be a decision of anyone in this room?

I didn't know what their directive was moving forward.

We have any number of hills we can die on every day, that's y'all's call.

I think that's gonna be discussed based on comments made last night.

That's what I was gonna say.

It seemed like that was kind of the the if we're gonna spend the money, we might as well up it 10% and get the wet bonds and make it an amenity.

But it's fulfilling that, and I think those discussions are good.

Go ahead.

I will be quick.

Thank you with project updates.

The and Creeboard Park tennis courts, those plans are pretty much finalized.

We plan to bid early February, if not by the end of the month.

The two reasons that might get delayed.

One, if for some reason we completely missed something, I don't think we have, and two, contingent on the email I sent you all over the weekend.

Sorry to drop that on you, it got dropped on me.

But to make sure they're not going to want to use some of our CIP money to do the water slides.

And I'll talk about that the next slide.

Tills Park parking lot and also Riley Farm Park Improvements.

We met with the engineer to pick uh Riley Farm Park Improvements back up and then the Tills Park parking lot, getting that agreement.

I should have that by the end of this month, and we'll go from there.

May branch greenway.

We're still coordinating with the state, and we did hear back from them regarding the ORLP slash LWCF grant, and they have permission to draft that agreement, which will allow us to start doing that reimbursement.

That was before the holidays.

I haven't followed up with them yet, but I will say the new person they have, she is excellent at communication and is pushing that.

And the reason I have phase two up there in the past couple meetings, we've mentioned kind of showing progress, and that asphalt that paved area that goes from Park Avenue to Rogers Avenue.

So utilities with the bond issue, the approval of that and everything, they're pushing their project forward so that entire section will be repaid as part of their project.

I don't know the timeline on that.

There's a meeting Friday to know that that will be done.

I don't know if it's like a seven-month project, 13 months.

I don't know that that is coming up.

And park pump house, our staff just approved those plans and get that ready to bid.

That's a have to do, not a really want to do, but I think we're tired of sending our guys into an unsafe situation.

And then the Parrot Island Water Park funding last night, I will say no one mentioned using our funds.

So the motion that was made and is on next week's agenda, is Director Rigo and Director Good second it is proceeding with identifying based on the numbers in the memo, blah blah blah.

I'm gonna skip that, and we can say utilizing the 760,000 from the earned interest, which is on our sales tax money, and I will say I I can get on board with that because it is not actual sales tax elected or preceded in for that, and I think it's a compromise.

I can get behind that and justify it and say, okay, we didn't allocate that, it's not interrupting projects.

Is that something we could have used 100%?

But we have to recognize the situation we're in.

And then from the 655,000, they already have they already allocated but had not been spent yet, and then covering the rest out of the general fund balance.

And I think there were three, four directors that stated it or alluded to it.

You know, we do have a 34% fund balance, and anything over 25 can only be used for one-time capital costs.

That means the positions that were eliminated.

We can't use this money they're asking to use for it to fund those because they're ongoing.

So I'm glad kind of that was stated by multiple directors.

So I feel comfortable to say I'm 75% sure they're not going to touch our CIP money, but again, that's next week that will be the on the agenda if anyone wants to come talk, recruit your friends.

So that's what I have there.

It was a shocker, but I will say some board members, I talked to them and kind of explain the situation.

So don't we feel pretty comfortable that it cannot be used for that since it's not sitting property?

Because it's an email, I will say I'm one of the more transparent people.

I'm glad you asked that question because I've been wanting to forward that email.

So it's already been addressed, it sounds like so.

I sent to you all, and Colby with Dalium Woods said no, because we do not own it outright.

Jeff forwarded Colby's opinion to um it's Shep and Taylor there with Friday Eldridge and Clark that wrote the sales tax ordinance and ballot issue to get a second opinion on that, and I haven't heard back from that, but when I do, I will certainly forward it to you.

So I was waiting on someone to ask that.

I think you asked it before.

I did, and you were given a different answer.

So I'm glad I have that answer.

Yes.

So our city parks department Facebook page.

We are moving over and consolidating into the city's main page.

There was a post made yesterday or the day before, so we're doing that.

Hopefully, we're trying to get that word out.

I think it's gonna make it a lot easier so people don't have different pages going forward.

I was opposed to it a few years ago, but now now that Josh Bufink's there, his team does an excellent job.

So if anything, I think we're gonna get more reach on that.

And then Brian's turn.

Basically, this tell me here it's always holiday light removal, taking them down, stone them.

We uh removed uh playground from uh wood lawn.

It's pretty old, it's just some spring toys and stuff like that.

Getting ready, uh they've already did a little bit of groundbreaking over there for the new playground, so I don't have a timeline when it'll be done, but weather's weather, and uh as always tree maintenance this time of year.

Oh, yeah, I forgot about MOK.

We're taking out the old uh little tax playground there that's been there since I've been here.

So almost 25 years I can't get parts for it, so it's gonna have to come out.

But the big one that everybody can use.

Um playground equipment that you're removing.

We recycle the metal and then the plastic.

Cannot be they're past that point, and it's a liability issue for us, and then of course, tree maintenance removing hazardous trees and uplifting the canopy for our mowers and stuff for the spring.

So that's basically it this time of year.

Auditory maintenance gonna go on at the boardwalk.

Bill Hannah was nice enough to flag all those trees for us, and our guys, they hey, they you have no clue how much we appreciate little things like that.

We really really do.

So our guys have it all marked.

We have to list run it at the end of this month to go and knock all that trees, yes.

He also went and removed some tires from the I have no doubt he did.

I think honestly, he does a lot that we know and is great, but a lot of people don't.

He'll blow the trail off.

And I know that sounds silly to mention, but that is a huge deal.

So the people who are getting to enjoy that and aren't having to walk through leaves, that's not us.

That's totally private sector.

Tell that.

Yeah.

Sometimes it steals our employees.

Not a me problem.

I feel guys.

We appreciate it.

Well, next we have our commission staff comments.

I just want to say that Caroline Cross is hopping.

There's that.

I mean, yes, hopping that little playground is immersed with children.

And yesterday I bet there was a thousand people in this park playing.

Because it was pretty a thousand people.

It was huge actually.

It's great.

That's great.

Sorry, I have a list of things.

I know it's already been a long one, but um, I'll I'll go through them all first.

Um so I know we are all very proud of all of our parks.

We're very proud of our new parks and new equipment.

Are we proud of all of our parks?

Um I was embarrassed because I realized I hadn't been to all of our parks, and I'm a commissioner.

So I tried to get out to a lot of the ones I had been to before.

Um it took me 20 minutes to find Fondrum Park.

I disagree with that being labeled as a park.

Well, that's my next question.

Why is it a park?

I the history on that, I'll be really brief.

A gentleman donated it, we took it, we this was way before me.

We don't we made a plan for a park, it was never going to be developed.

You know, sometimes people donate property they don't want to maintain and make it a park, and the I don't know if it was last year, the end of 2023.

That gentleman's attorney contacted us wanting to know if we would be interested in deeding it back.

I sent that up the chain.

Honestly, I think we've all forgotten about it.

Yeah, but I mean I can certainly bring that up.

I don't agree with it being part.

I don't think it should count.

Great.

100% on board with you.

I wasn't gonna I mean propose anything.

I'll say I just want to ask these questions.

Um the anniversary rose garden is a park.

It's non-existent, it's about to be developed into a multifamily development.

That entire thing is gorgeous up there.

It's on the list though.

Um Briar Cliff, I didn't go to it, but I it took me a long time to find it on Google Maps.

It's falls in the same category as Fondron, I think.

Um why is the Darby Community Center a park and then Mazard Prairie Battlefield?

Are we proud of this park?

Um I'll read you a quick review that I I think sums up the park.

I hope that's a negative review.

February, I think I'm gonna have something to share about Mazarth Prairie.

Yes, okay.

Well, I I yeah, I mean it's I'll read it.

Ignoring the history of the location, there's not really anything here beyond a short trail moving around a small field and a lone bench.

As far as green spaces go, it's pleasant, but definitely toward the bottom of the list, which I think sums it up really well.

It could it has potential, it's kind of a neat spot.

Um, what can we do there?

If anything, and if we don't want to do something there, why are we maintaining it?

Um there's we only have 31.

I we've been talking about in the media lately about all these parts.

There's 34.

We've got 31 on the official list.

Maybe we need to update the PDF online because I don't know what the other three are.

Um then the yeah, the dog park, it needs to be removed as well.

Uh that falls into category as the anniversary rose garden.

And then um the that those are kind of my questions for uh, you know, I'll be proud of these parks, and then the MLK soccer goals.

Are those nets removed for winter, or do they never have nets?

We put them up and people choose to remove them.

Then is there some sort of hardbacking option?

Not that we would consider purchasing.

Okay.

Yeah.

Is there something we can make pliably?

I don't know.

Nobody's asked me about it.

I drove by and our budget is very, very, very tight this year.

Well, I would type up the budget.

I think the soccer people who don't go through our department to utilize those fields to run a league.

Yeah, if they want some nets, they will purchase them themselves.

Okay, fair enough.

Um I think they're the ones who take what we put up down.

And then lastly, uh Sarah spoke in front of the future Ford Smith Committee, did a wonderful job.

And I was wondering, you could you had that was a really great slide deck, and I was wondering if you'd be willing to share that with all of us.

Absolutely.

I think it it's just it you really summed up everything that we do, and uh we get to have that.

And then also thank you for uh speaking last night and the way you handled the uh communication.

I thought that was really really uh good work.

Uh so that yeah, that's my list.

Hopefully, I have something to share about MASART.

Have a meeting the 23rd.

Okay.

The Darby Community Center.

Boy, that's rough.

That got dumped on us.

We did not ask for it.

She's not here, but I blame her every time.

Brenda Andrews that used to work for the city, wanted to save it and then it became a under the parks department.

And she knows I say that often.

It's interesting.

Um is there is it a big expense to the parks department?

If we were to reside it, yeah.

This is kind of where how I feel about it.

No one uses that facility.

I think the only people who use it on a routine basis is the historic district, and then maybe one off through the year.

Yeah.

And we I don't mean this the way it's coming out.

We can't get rid of it because it's historic.

I think there would whenever the city acquired it, it came with grant stipulations.

And I asked that question, I sure did, and I don't think we can.

So it's kind of something we're stuck with, kind of like the facade of the Maloloo property.

Yeah, you're stuck with it.

And I just speaking, but did you ever want to say as a doctor?

Yeah, I'm just gonna say looking for a new hobby.

All right, are you good?

That's all.

All right, all I got.

All right.

We'll go to public comments.

We've had some.

We have anything?

I've said nothing.

Okay.

We can't else, we shall adjourn.

Thank you all.