We call this meeting order.

I closest to the gap holes.

Okay, I guess we'll start with the approval of minutes from previous.

Is everybody got a chance to meet them?

Yes, I move that we approve the minutes as as reviewed.

Okay, and is there a second?

A second.

Okay.

And so all those in favor of the minutes from the previous meeting say aye.

Aye.

Okay.

Everybody here said aye.

Okay.

Items of business.

That's conveyance of Rio Fondron Park.

Yes.

So I gave a more in-depth timeline in the agenda packet than what's up here.

But beginning in 2005, and discussions kind of started before then around 2000.

The Fondron family donated approximately 1.3 acres of property.

And they're they donated it with the intent for it to be developed into a public park.

And I will say, and something we've kind of talked about is for whatever reason when they deeded us the land, that caveat was not placed in it.

So there are no stipulations.

However, through the research, it was very clear they did that with the intent the city would develop into a public park.

So then the following year they conveyed an additional 0.2 acres adjacent property.

And so we have about a one and a half acre parcel.

We have no intention whatsoever of developing it anytime soon.

And you know, it's been sitting there since 2005 in the city's possession, and through discussions, the estate of the Fondron family contacted us a couple years ago and said, hey, if you're not going to develop it into a public park, can you give it back to us?

And you know, rightfully so.

They did make that donation, but of the property, but with that, the city does have a policy for the sell of property.

So with city administration, they've been she's it's Maggie that's been doing it, has been talking further with the Fondron family, and we feel that it would be appropriate to request the board to allow us to directly convey the property back to the Fondren family because they did donate it with the intent, and we're simply not going to deliver on that intent any time soon.

And to be honest, the only people who even utilize that park are the employees from Gerber and Nestle to go take their smoke break, which shouldn't be in a park anyway.

So we're asking if the parks commission we can discuss it and make a recommendation to the board of directors, and I kind of gave a map up there.

It is it's in a weird location, but I think the intent was there would be future residential development at the time, and that just hasn't come to fruition, and of course, Fort Smith Park is right down the road, so but what I said we honestly we don't have intent to develop it, so then this is pretty much what we're doing is mowing it.

That's correct, and a lot of weeding.

So Brian and I talk about this, and it's about two hours every time we it takes us two hours to maintain it.

And you know, I think the Fondren estate, they do have plans, future plans for that property.

I don't know exactly, but you know, I'd rather them have an opportunity to make it something that benefits our community than allow it to just sit and us not do anything with it.

Plus we'll leave it.

Yes, and do we own that bench?

So the Gerber Nestle, I don't know who they were at the time, donated funds for those, and again, I think they did that in when was it?

2000, I want to get the date right.

2012, they're passed beyond their useful life.

We thought about can we relocate it, but we're not relocating that without it breaking.

So they have more than expended their useful life, and they are of no value anymore.

So we would simply honestly we wouldn't even remove them.

We would have maybe the Fonda and family they want to do something with it, yes.

Anything in the records indicating what the plans were in 2005.

There it was pretty much a playground and a walking trail around it.

There were public there were public meetings where people gave comments, but that was also in conjunction with the Briar Cliff property that again we have we have, but we have no intention of developing it, but we can't sell it because it's in flood zone.

So tell them why tell us why we don't want to.

We put money and maintenance and it's it's an odd location for it as well, especially when you have Fort Smith Park down the road, and I think if there was interest in truly moving forward with developing it in the park as a park, we would have already been receiving a lot of community feedback on that because it is on our parks map, and you know I'll never advocate for giving up green space and potentially either doing maybe residential or some kind of development.

But we also have to recognize we do have several parks, and this is one that it's just an empty piece of property that we have, and the board has made comments.

You know, do we have surplus property that we can possibly sell off and recoup some money?

And this is a good example of that.

That I am not sure.

I think the maybe you know, I think I think the intent is to convey it back to them, just give it to them because they gave it to us for nothing.

And again, it's kind of one of those weird situations where they did stipulate that it was would be developed into a public park, but that was not in the deed language.

But it wasn't a discussion, yeah.

It is documented in park commission and through letters that that was their intent.

They made it very clear, I will say that.