Parks & Recreation Commission - Regular Meeting

You've got a second to take a breath. We'll get the thing connected here. Good.

Okay, I'll call to order our meeting, Parks and Rec Commission meeting today, June 22nd at 6.03 PM. First item on our joint agenda is public comment. I see none in attendance. Let's move on to report of commissioners and I'll start to my right.

Nothing to report this week.

I would like to congratulate Park and Rec and particularly Sarah on all the advertising I'm seeing for the farmer's market. I think the improvement in the marketing is noticeable. The second thing I'd like to say real quickly is East Grand Rapids Foundation is putting on a 5K on July 4th and we'd love to have everyone participate and or volunteer and you can get all that information on the foundation website. Thank you.

Only thing for me would be we're enjoying the summer programming. My wife and son are doing the tennis and I've been enjoying that. And then my son started Safety Town today. The only feedback I've heard is some people were confused of like where exactly the Safety Town was. So getting like the door number and the information on the website. Because I think it just had small conference room, so.

We did have someone call this morning, too.

That was probably my mother-in-law, actually. So she asked me to make the comment. And she said there was someone else that was confused.

If you haven't driven by the high school lately, the track is now gone and will return again in about three years. Also the street hockey summer programming taking place at the middle school was fantastic. My son's participating, some neighbors are participating. They just had the first day this past week and had an absolute blast. So I really hope that that is able to continue.

Yeah, I just want to echo, I really appreciate all the summer programming that you guys have put out for kids. It's a lot of variety and a little bit for everyone, so appreciate that a lot.

I'll join in on the summer programming. It was fun to see some of my kids' classmates in the agenda even. And my son is enjoying the basketball skills Tuesday, his is on Tuesday nights. Just a great way to keep busy during the summer. I do have one item from the community and it's in regards to Waterfront Park on the west side. So alongside the lake, we have the meadow plantings there and which is great, it feeds our pollinators. And I suspect that was part of the DNR grant when that update was done to have to support that. So this feedback comes from a bird watcher and enthusiast photographer. And that is in the wintertime we cut those down basically to the ground and that is the the home and hosts of those pollinators larvae and such during the winter. And so the feedback is to look at some sustainable maintenance, um, methods, um, for our parks.

Great. Thank you. I can share that also came up at the planning commission recently. And so we certainly can take a look at alternate options. One of the reasons why we've done that, we've been recommended to cut it down to help get some of the non-desirables because there's poison ivy that does pop up in there and weeds and things. So by cutting it down, it helps get rid of some of that and promote the growth of the plants. But to your point, there's that balance of when it should be done and how short and those types of things. So we can certainly take a closer look and we we partner with the Kent County Conservation District to like invasive species removals that kind of thing and we their team that we can lean on for like that precision guidance on on some of that recommendations yes that sounds wonderful okay moving on to the minutes from our last meeting on April 27th

I do have a correction from Lauren that she submitted last month, just asking that her, to clarify, she is not on the harvest committee. And when I went back and listened, it was a little jumbled where she must be on the hearts of gold committee. So it came through as I'm on the committee. And so, but that she is concerned about high school sport drop offs in the early mornings with road closures. So that will be amended for her request.

Thank you. Any other corrections? Do I have a motion?

I'll move to approve. Second.

Okay. Any discussion? Okay. All in favor, say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? Motion passes. Okay, moving on to special event calendar.

Yeah, really just have that in there this month for just a reminder of what's been approved, what's coming up. We don't have any special event permits to approve this evening, so just for your general awareness.

Okay. And so then we get to move on to the real exciting topic of the meeting, waterfront park phase two update.

Yes, so I wanted an opportunity to provide all of you an update as to where we are in the process and what things we've already completed and things that we have to look forward to in the coming weeks and months. Just as the brief reminder for everyone, Waterfront Park Phase 2 is this portion on the west side of the road, so this property here that I'm kind of outlining here with the cursor. Phase one was completed earlier in the 2000s on the east side of Reeds Lake Boulevard with the intent that phase two would happen in the future at a later date and with the exact amenities and updates to be determined by additional community engagement. So last year the Parks and Recreation Commission had recommended that waterfront park phase two be our next priority project as part of the parks improvement millage funding plan. So we did apply for multiple DNR grants last year and I know everyone recalls we were recommended for funding for a half a million dollar land and water conservation fund grant. that will help provide the half a million dollars in matching funds for improvements to phase two. And so some of the key components of that grant application were the restoration of the wetlands, an expansion of the existing parking lot, which we left. We didn't have a defined term on what expansion meant, but just that it would be additional spots would be added. There would be some trail development in that space along with boardwalks in areas that would be wet throughout the year. some site amenities like bike racks, trash cans, signage, educational and also wayfinding, and then native tree and native plant planting to go along with not just the wetland restoration, but also just the site in general. Just a reminder of the brief history of Waterfront Park is that it was privately owned in the past. There were intentions to developed condos on this site. I actually recently found kind of a neat photo from, I gotta remember which mouse I'm using here. There's mouse. A neat photo from the past that shows what, waterfront park looked like in the past. So I'll just quickly pop that up to show you. So the site was clear cut or a majority of the site was clear cut and the wetlands were filled in. So what you're looking at here, this whiteness here is a lot of the sand and the different things that they used to fill in that site. And this photo is from October of 1973, which aligns with our records that we have of the property of when that development was going to take place. Ultimately, obviously, the condos were never built. The city was able to acquire the property through a grant application through the state of Michigan. You may have seen down on the lower, kind of by the corner of Reeds Lake Boulevard and Lakeside here, there's that DNR signage that indicates that that was the property that was partially funded through the state of Michigan. And so with the direction of the Parks and Recreation Commission and the City Commission combined with the grant recommendation from the State of Michigan, we have been working towards developing a final site plan for Waterfront Park with the intent to bid out the project later this year and then potential construction next spring, summer of 2027. So what I wanted to talk to you all tonight, besides the brief summary and reminder, is just the process that we've gone through already this spring to engage the community, collect additional feedback, refine the conceptual plan that we have, and then again to talk about some of our next steps. So this first rendering here, this is showing the conceptual plan that was developed for Waterfront Park back in the early 2010 timeframe. The city had applied for DNR grants in the past, and this was the conceptual design that they had used based on community feedback. And also this was in the Parks and Recreation Master Plan dating back to 2012. So it's been a discussion item for quite some time. So we used this rendering along with some of just these text boxes to show the state of Michigan what we were intending to do as part of this phase two. And this is what we submitted to them for our grant application. So just to point out a couple of things on this page here, you'll see the expanded parking lot. This darker shaded portion here is the existing parking. It's showing the expanded parking. These wetlands that are showing here do not exist today. That's higher ground. So it's showing some of those wetlands that would be restored. It is showing some of these trails and boardwalks that go through the site. These are all proposed. And then I did fail to mention earlier the proposed classroom or gathering space area as well. That's showing kind of in a central location. And so this is what we used for the grant application. But when you look at this plan, it really looks more of like a refined plan of maybe like the final decision. And so when we started our community engagement earlier this spring, that was one of our thoughts was that we really wanted to make sure that the community was open and wanted to give feedback to a plan that they thought they would have some input on. And when you look at a plan that looks as final as this one, sometimes that might stop people from being willing to share their feedback, thinking, oh, it's already done, it's designed, what additional feedback do we need? So when we started the phase one of the community engagement session this spring, This is tricky when you have to do it on one screen, but I can't see it on my screen. We got the double screen going on. So what we wanted to show was a little less refined plan to give the general intent of what we were collecting feedback on, but still allowing for the community discussion and input to help provide some of that direction. So you'll see if you look at the two plans side by side, they're relatively similar. They still have a lot of the key components. So the parking lot expansion is showing here. The wetland restoration showing here. The blue dotted lines are some of the potential boardwalks. And then what we've done also is they labeled them with letters and just to show some of the potential amenities as to what they could look like. So, for example, the trails, we've showed three different options. You know, it could be a paved trail. It could be more of a trail on compacted ground. And we worked with our consultants at Avon Marsh to kind of select some of these potential options, really to help guide some of the feedback so people had some options to consider. And so we had our first round of community engagement in May. We had three in-person sessions. We had two of them here in the commission chambers, one of them out at Waterfront Park. And we had approximately 60, maybe more, a few more people stop by those sessions. Some of them were there for short periods of time. Some of them came to multiple sessions and were there for multiple hours of those sessions really to talk to city staff and the consultants that were there before developing their input. And then we also had the online survey. that asked a variety of questions related to parking, related to the amenities, related to how people use the park. Again, to just help refine the plan. And that online survey, we advertised that. We sent postcard mailings of the survey and also those engagement sessions to every household in the community. It was published in the East Express, social media, etc. And we had approximately 120 people took the online survey. I did share in the summary of my memo, there's certainly just a summary of the feedback. There certainly were some people that came that didn't want to see us do anything in this space. There were others that said, love it, do that. And then there was a lot of in between or people that like certain amenities or didn't like other amenities. Just to full transparency, the parking lot was one of the hot topic items that was certainly the feedback that we received was divided on that. There was people that didn't want to see any parking expansion. people that wanted something middle-of-the-road and then some people that kind of liked the concept of quite a bit larger of a parking lot and the variety of reasons They really varied some of the feedback that we heard from people that really liked the idea of expanded parking and maybe sometimes use the dog park or Remington baseball field and attend events there where there's sometimes limited parking. We've heard a lot from a lot of people that use that parking lot for a trail head for the Reeds Lake Trail. And then again, some people didn't want to see it expanded at all. The other amenity that we did add as a discussion item for the first phase of community input that was not part of the grant application was the notion of a toddler playground that did come up during the Parks and Recreation master planning process. And so we did include that on this plan. So showing here kind of in a central area in proximity to the parking lot. was the potential toddler playground. And we had just one conceptual idea of what that could look like. And that, again, was an amenity similar to the parking lot. Either maybe you really liked the idea or you didn't care for it as much. So we took all of that feedback. We reviewed all of the survey responses. When I say we, that's myself and the Avon Marsh, our consultants that we hired to help us through this project. They have a landscape architect and engineers and wetlands specialists on their team. We took all that feedback, reviewed it, and developed an updated conceptual plan to help guide the second round of community engagement. So we repeated that first phase of engagement again in June. We had, again, the three in-person sessions. We had the online survey. And at all of those sessions, actually, Sarah and myself both were there, along with the Avon Marsh team. And really, the goal of that second round of engagement is to further refine the plan. So, based on the feedback that we heard, and I am pulling up the second plan here. It just wants to be a little slow for me. The way the process works is, you know, you have your starting conceptual plan and then based on the feedback that you receive from the community, you make adjustments based on the general feedback that you're hearing to help further refine and come to a closer to a final plan. It's not responding, so I'll give it a second here to. It's Monday for the computer. But to develop a final plan, because right now, again, as we're talking about conceptual, we're talking about ideas and things that could work. But really we need to have that final plan for the Avon Marsh team to develop a fully engineered plan that is constructible, that can be utilized during a bidding process. So potential contractors can tie bid prices to the amenities that we're asking for and the constructability Needs to be verified as well So there's a lot of detail here, so I'll give it a second to continue to Yep, yep, it's still going here we go and It's still going, but there we go. Nervous to zoom in, but thank you for your patience. So this is the most recent version of the conceptual plan, again, based on the feedback that we heard and some of the items that I did mention already, but I'll walk through some of the others. So one thing you'll notice about the parking lot here, based on the original drawing, This is a scaled down version based on some of the feedback that we we've heard throughout the process of Kind of the the divided opinions on parking. So you'll see here. There is a little bit smaller of a footprint there's angled parking in a majority of the proposed lot and then there also is some parallel parking spots here that could double as boat and or vehicle and boat trailer parking at certain times of the year and That was something that we did here throughout the process along Lakeside. There are, especially this time of year, a lot of vehicles with boat trailers that take up a lot of spots in the more core area. So having some spots there could potentially relieve Lakeside of some of that parking. Another one of the major changes that you would notice here is this is where the in that wildflower area that we were talking about earlier Michelle the This is where a lot of people during that first round of community engagement mentioned that would be a preferred location for a playground or a play area and for the younger kids. And then you'll also notice we did sprinkle in some other photos of conceptual ideas here of things that look more nature-esque, less of a play structure and more of a play element that could more blend in with the environment. We also did refine some of the walkways. So one of the things that we heard, and again this was divided between support or not, but this main walkthrough area here that connects to Durant, some folks we heard from said they really do travel that frequently. That's their access point to the Reeds Lake Trail instead of them having to go all the way around. So there was discussion about maybe potentially that stretch being a paved surface and then the remainder of the trails on site would be like compacted gravel or boardwalk depending on the area. We refined the wetland area a little bit. You'll see here in the last rendering, it was just more of an open space and it really butted up against the road. And that's one of the pieces of feedback that we heard not only in the wetland, but also for the parking lot was to try to leave a vegetative buffer in between Reed's Lake Boulevard and the parking lot, but also the wetland. I touched it.

It's what it looks like at midnight.

It'll come back here. But so just talking through that a little more. So having that buffer between the road and the wetland, some of the feedback that we heard, not only would maybe that reduce some of the noise that would travel across the wetland, but also when you're in the park, especially if you're walking through the trails that will go around the wetland. If that were all open to the road, it might feel less that you're in nature and more that you're along the roadside. So having a buffer, having a little bit of high ground here, and then also this is like the idea of like a little island in the middle of the wetlands. So there would be some boardwalks that would connect that. So you could, you know, be over the river and through the woods a little bit in the park. So really all of these adjustments from the original conceptual design to the first one that we used to this most recent one have been based on the feedback that we received. I did include in the packet this evening a summary of the phase two or the second round of Engagement all of the surveys that we received you will note Again, some of the the feedback is a little bit divided Some of the just the summary points the walking trails that certainly there was the preference for that crushed limestone over concrete or asphalt except for that small connection from Lakeside to Reed's Lake Boulevard The parking expansion, a majority of the feedback that we received was in support of some level of parking expansion. There were approximately 35% of the responses didn't want to see any added, but there was a kind of mix of input on some smaller scale. increases in parking, and then the playground. Although we in the first round of input, we heard loudly and clearly that the east side of the road was a better location for it. And that second round, it was a little bit more divided. Ultimately, I think more people would prefer it on the east side based on the conversations I had. But that was a little bit split feedback there. So we also have outlined in the memo the future timeline. But before we get to that, I was hoping to hear from all of you what kind of thoughts you have about this updated design. thoughts specifically on some of the items like the parking expansion playground and then the walking trails. But certainly any feedback is appreciated. The intent is that I would collect this feedback from all of you this evening. And then when I present to the city commission at an upcoming meeting, I would share just a summary of the feedback along with certainly the feedback from the surveys from the community. So happy to answer any questions, but I think I've laid it out there for hopefully for you to help provide some feedback on the next steps.

Okay, let's start. Anyone wants to go first?

Can I talk about the playground situation? Because reading the comments you saw, you know, again, a lot of people for, a lot of people against it. And I saw some concerns, you know, if it's on the east side, you know, you have to cross street if it's on the west side it might be more disruptive to the quieter nature type situation um i don't know what i'm even asking i'm just going i did you know when it's when it's 51 49 what we do here because just reading the comments it looked fairly divided about that and so i don't know what your feeling is about that or you even have one

Yeah, I certainly can see both sides. The thing that I did hear from a couple of people who made a good point of it's not only the community members that are coming to the park and driving and parking in the parking lot that would use the playground, but it's the many people that are walking the reeds lake trail that are already on the east side of the road that are probably pushing a stroller and It certainly would not be a destination playground for them But it may be something to break up their walk as they're going around the trail so for me, I would think that the just from a Overall numbers perspective. It probably would be used by more people that are already on the east side but that's my speculation But I did hear that from quite a few people that are supportive of the playground and specifically on the east side that they said, we're already there anyways. If it's on the west side, then we would have to cross the road.

Yeah, I would agree, Derek, just based on both being a parent of toddlers, but also a frequent traveler on the trails. There's so many people with strollers that are on the trail. I would imagine there's probably going to be more people that are already walking the trail that would be on that side of the road than there would be coming to park in the parking lot. And there's also the street parking on Lakeside that people would be using too. So I would guess it'd be more people on the trail side that would be using that.

Let's stay with the topic of playground. We can hopefully get through those. Any others? Any other thoughts or feedback?

I really like the nature play. I think when I was looking at it, we've used Wycliffe Park in Grand Rapids where it's a lot of wooden structures. And so I was thinking if you were doing a playground to integrate more of natural elements rather than the more plastic playgrounds that we have at the elementary school to blend in but also be more immersive with the environment. So I liked the example in J that you have here with the kind of, you know, large size mushrooms and wood. Yeah, I think that's great. It's a little something different from what we have now. And then at either location or? I don't think I understand enough like the, but I think both seem appealing to me. I remember thinking like that if you're near the water, it might be a more kind of playful, beautiful view, but then the offset would be they are closer to the water.

I think one thing to keep in mind too is there's a lot of geese over there and toddlers touch everything and put everything in their mouth. So maybe some fencing would be good if it's, especially if it's on the east side to keep something to keep geese out. So they're not pooping on the playground and then toddlers grabbing it, which could also allay concerns about being close to the water from a safety perspective.

I guess my question of having it on the east side is would we then have like some additional costs of having benches and trash cans if we did it on the east side versus maybe if it's within budget on the west side, it's already there with benches that we have budgeted for? Or is that cost so minor?

I would think that that would be something that we could figure out. On the west side, we do have the requirement. That's one of the site amenities that is covered by the DNR grant or reimbursable through the DNR grant. On the east side, certainly we have a couple of benches already there existing as part of phase one. I will add we do have a current waiting list for memorial benches, so if there were an opportunity to add them and we didn't have the funding for them, I'm certain that I would be able, if the commission were open to that, I'm certain I'd be able to get them covered by donors.

So if you were to put it in the phase one area, is that not covered by the grant then?

So the playground was an area that I left out of the grant application because it didn't provide us any additional points and then would have required us to have it as part of the project if we received the grant. And so by leaving it out of the grant application, we are still able to do it. The city just has to fund it ourselves. And so it So really we have the flexibility, the commission has the flexibility to determine where it goes either on the West side as part of phase two or on the East side. I did already reach out to the DNR just to talk to them to say, Hey, we were having these community discussions that what phase one is an area that's already been completed. And they said they would look at the addition of play amenities as a favorable adjustment to a previously funded site. It adds recreational value. So there wouldn't be any issues there.

I would like to add in, I'm going to echo Lon's sentiment that the natural looking components, they just look really desirable. And I think that it could be palatable for the community to have these type of elements where we have K today or on this diagram. While it is closer to the water, which presents a potential hazard. It's also open and so you can keep an eye on your kids because you have a little bit more viewable space as opposed to in a wooded area where they could get behind something and out of sight. I think I would be most comfortable if we did a playground where we have J, if it was enclosed for that reason, the visibility and then potentially having a small child run into the trees. And it's a fairly narrow area on that path between Lakeside and then the existing parking lot. I have another thought that perhaps if the natural play components were shorter in stature, such that they kind of blended in as you looked onto Waterfront Park, that they sort of blended in with the current nature or meadow flower planting. I don't think it would be quite as noticeable. I mean, there will be kids there, but I think it would blend pretty nicely. I kind of like the idea of elements of the nature in both locations, but I think K would work well for the community for some of the reasons the other commissioners have also brought up. And then the one other thing I think is worth bringing up is walking through this path to cut through to Lakeside. In the summertime, it can get pretty heavy with mosquitoes. And in this open area where you have a breeze, a lot less so. And so when you talk about little ones, I think, again, like that open breezy area could work well.

In a attempt to not stir up a firestorm here, um, back when we were doing Manhattan and we were looking at splash pads, one of the things that I had mentioned for Kay specifically was doing a water feature that was essentially a watershed. I've seen them done before in other parks in other parts of the planet, but it was a water flowing watershed that it showed the natural areas and how the water flowed from one area and out into Lake Michigan. It was very low profile. It was only a couple inches deep with a couple dams along the way where the kids can plop the dams up and down and make water go up, make water go down, and they can pump it instead of having it be a big natural thing. just throwing it out there. I threw it out there two years ago when we were looking at a splash pad area, still think that would be cool. I totally get it. If we don't have the appetite for something like that, we want to bring that back up.

So, I mean, I feel kind of a vibe that's at Meyer gardens where the water areas and the shape of the Great Lakes. There's educational value there too.

And like every toddler likes to build a dam and pump some water and then watch the water flow away. And it also stayed so low profile, you don't see it. And then on the other side of it too is just from seeing how Manhattan Park has worked when it gets really hot and it's been like on these hot weeks, that splash pad up there is getting used a lot and it ups the use of that park immensely because you're just not baking. It's not, it's like, it's something kind of different along the way. I don't know if that helps the geese stuff. I don't know what helps with like ducks in that, but, um, but from a like very, you wouldn't even notice it if you were walking by, unless you look for it. I'm not saying it's something we have to do, but I thought it'd be wrong to not throw it back out there again, a couple of years later.

Yeah. Shall we move on to the other hot topic of parking? Any feedback?

Certainly. Just to frame it, how many more spots than we currently have is this proposal for that we're looking at? This one is approximately 20.

And it would, we haven't gotten quite into the engineering. So some of the spots that are showing might not be feasible, but 20 was kind of the benchmark that we were looking at. What's the current one? The current one is 14. I believe, yeah, it's in the teens. So this would be approximately doubling the size of the existing one, a little bit more than double.

Okay. Oh, so it's in addition to? Yes. Okay.

Yes. So total spots, somewhere between 28 and 35?

Yeah, I would say 35 is kind of the middle of that, and it could be a little bit less or a little bit more. Well, it can certainly be adjusted based on the feedback, but that's where kind of the 35 total. And then if some of those spots would be utilized for like a car with a boat trailer, and I think there was like six or eight of those, that would trim down the total number a little bit as well. And just for the record, none of these are available for overnight parking, correct? So currently we don't have it signed as such, but that was one of the main feedback that we heard specifically from people that were either for parking or neutral on it. We heard that quite a bit, that the preference would be for that to be signed no no parking. We do have park hours. Yeah. And so that, um, it could certainly align with, with that if that were, um, the desire of, of the commission.

In the DNR grant, I, I have this memory that parking was part of that, like for accessibility. Is there a guideline for, do we need to increase parking in order to honor grant submission?

So that was another conversation I had with the DNR at multiple points before the application and then after we received the the recommendation for funding and I specifically had the conversation with them ahead of time and In our application, we said that the intent was to expand parking, so we didn't tie a number to it. We showed a conceptual idea, but the DNR understands that they're not getting, in most cases, they're not getting final plans given to them. There's generally more community input. So adjusting the size, scaling it down, playing with the numbers of parking spots, that's always allowable underneath the grant program. If we were to remove the parking, we would have to go to the DNR and ask for an amendment to our grant. application, which is, it's just a process. So, but it's not something that is not permissible. And in most cases, depending on how many points you receive for your grant application for ADA, like universal, accessibility, they may say, well, you just have to add two additional ADA spots, and that could potentially satisfy the grant requirements. So it's, it is there's some flexibility there, depending on the feedback received and the The scale of the parking lot, if that does go forward with the expansion idea, the number of ADA spaces is dependent upon how many spots you add. So if you add eight spots, you probably have to add one ADA spot. If you add 16, two of them would have to, there's a ratio that they would do a calculation on. So it's a dynamic answer there, but there is community flexibility in that.

And just to make sure I understand, did you say that if we were to remove the existing parking, we would need to do an amendment? Or did you mean that if we didn't do any addition, then we would need to do an amendment.

If we were to remove what's showing as the existing expansion, we would have to do an amendment. I suspect that there wouldn't be a space in which the DNR would allow for the existing parking to be taken out because that was also a scope item of a previous grant. So yes, we would have to at minimum maintain the existing, and then if we were to, as the community say, we would really like to remove the expansion from the grant application, that would require an amendment of the most recent grant award.

I'm comfortable adding parking. I think adding some makes sense, but looking at the survey results, it looks like should be under 20 is kind of what the community is preferring. Is that fair? That's the general sense that I've received.

20 total. Additional 20.

An additional 20, which is a lot. I think, but like you look at it and from the numbers, it looks like, you know, up to five, six to 10, and then 11 to 20 are your highest scores other than no additional parking added. I think there's a there's a room here where you could add some not make them overnight and Then still it be in the spirit of the grant application that we had applied for and what the DNR is looking for while still you know tempering that back from maybe what we've heard from feedback on people that are Uncomfortable with with too much being a big new parking lot as opposed to something smaller or more manageable That's my that's where I'm at

I will add as well, too, I think some of the design changes that we've made from the first conceptual design to the second to this most recent one is what helped some people maybe open up to the idea a little bit more, realizing that it would be, you know, there's that buffer. It wouldn't be just a big, huge, wide-open parking lot. We're showing an island in the middle that would have trees in it, and that would be a native tree planting opportunity. So I think some of the people that were maybe originally against any parking saw that, hey, it can fit in with some design changes. And that's why those survey results from the most recent survey are a little more balanced than what they were previously.

On my drive here this evening, I saw a car slow look at the lot. It was full and they drove off. So I think even without wetland restoration there's probably more demand than we have supply for right now so with the the scope of these amenities it does feel prudent to increase the number absolutely and that saves some time from for your department to not have to resubmit like an amendment would

The way that it's drawn up, there's a flow to the parking. Would it be prudent to have one way in and one way out or is the flow more so like keep the existing as it is and then you have a circle option and that would maximize what's there?

Yeah, and that is something that will get further flushed out once we have the kind of the final number and we'll work with an engineer who will help kind of design what that should look like from a traffic perspective. But currently what it is showing is that the existing would be like Pulling in here and giving like a loop opportunity if you pull through here and this and it's everything's full you could come back through here but then like people currently right now if you park in any of these end spots like During our meetings that we had there people have to back all the way out of the parking lot in reverse So it would help eliminate some of that issue as well because when the lot is full it's there's not a lot of room to turn around especially if you have a little bit longer of a vehicle and And one of the things I like about the idea of having it be a pull through or the option for a one in one out is on 4th of July as well. I could see that these would be parking spots that would get used a lot, because we normally do a hard closure right here. And that does create some challenges as well, especially if people get down all the way down there and the lot's full, and then they're doing that 27 point turn to try to turn around, this would allow for them to just pull in, nope, no parking and continue on, so. But but this would get refined to make sure it meets traffic engineering the correct patterns and Radiuses and things like that.

That's why I'm thankful for our Avon Marsh team with those experts on staff Any other thoughts about parking I have a question about the Durant You know connection I so you mentioned people use that like trailhead a lot or do we have any concern that people would park on Durant to get to that trailhead if that becomes like a clearer you know pathway with the you know the neighbors there be upset you know because it looks like I can't recall in real life if there's a crosswalk there in the picture it looks like there's a white bar so people you know would be naturally inclined to park on Durant walk across the street because there's a crosswalk and then do the loop

So there's not an existing crosswalk there. That was drawn in as part of this as a potential opportunity. I did hear from a number of neighbors that live on Durant and some of the other streets as well that that is a concern of theirs that was voiced. They have asked for there not to be a crosswalk there. However, there is currently a pathway that does connect from Durant. And if you've ever had to travel that, I learned recently that actually some of the neighbors that live on Durant put down like a wooden board because it does get wet at times of the year. And to be able to cross, like there's kind of a ditch essentially along that. And so it is existing, but that is a concern of the neighbors if it is improved. But and I think that that was for all of you to consider I think that is maybe one of the arguments to make sure there is some additional parking because if there's not then that might be the first location that folks go but Yeah, the existing parking lot here, from my observations, is a lot of people fishing, certainly, going across the street to fish or bird watch or a trailhead for the Reeds Lake Trail. And I don't know if someone wanting to utilize the Reeds Lake Trail would end up using Durant before they would use the DPW parking lot, et cetera. And that may be an opportunity for us once whatever happens is decided that maybe there is some signage to direct overflow parking to the DPW parking lot, especially on nights and weekends when the Department of Public Works is in operation. Other than baseball nights there, the only other traffic there is generally dog park users and then reads like trail users and it's not generally, it's not full in the evenings except for on baseball, uh, home baseball game days.

Well, and for runners and for trail head, I feel like the, uh, this, this parking lot here at city hall gets utilized a lot as well as the middle school parking lot. Both of those are good options for runners.

Absolutely.

And I wasn't sure if in the previous drawing, is there a consideration for maybe opening the trail head where the, um, the DTW like to, have like was the in the previous picture, there's a boardwalk over to that Remington Park like dog park area. Could we consider that if we want them to, you know, park elsewhere as an alternative or maybe connect the dog park to this park by providing like in that north area over the creek?

Just trying to pull up the other one here.

So I think you just you mentioned like there is, you know, overflow with remington sometimes with baseball games so yeah so it doesn't look like there was one there but let me look at the the old one no that's not i don't know if that like cuts into any like it looks like there's the ravine there i don't know it's like a little creek between creek

Yeah, so that's the channel that connects Reeds Lake to Fisk Lake. And so the road does cross over the top of that. Obviously, there's a culvert that goes underneath there. So I don't think that there was ever an idea of... Boardwalk crossing I think yeah, that's if this is maybe what you're thinking of it It was trying to be like to point to one that was here I know that this this area back through here is Like DPW like they have a heavy equipment and different things that we do actually sometimes have to ask bird watchers That's a good bird watching area apparently that they have to sometimes ask them to move on and Recently, they did add the bike lanes along Reeds Lake Boulevard that would help some of that pedestrian flow. But that would be something that I'd have to look into further.

I think that's worth the look through to have some type of walking... way to cross over into like our new waterfront park. Cause like we know we have parking there, we have dogs there, you know, not to add a, add anything cumbersome for DPW, but it seems like it could flow well.

I completely agree. I think that's super worth looking at.

Yeah.

I'm looking at the property lines and maybe even along the road. like closer to the road, just next to the car bridge. So this is private property.

And then I didn't know, was anything looked at about developing or boardwalks or anything along the side of that river between Reed's and Fisk Lake? Like clean, is that going to get kind of cleaned up too with the invasive species as part of this project?

There will be some invasive species clean up in that corridor. Um, there, um, no,

Is there any possibility of access like for fishermen or for people looking to like walk along that section?

That's certainly something that we can explore. We have not looked at that too closely. Sorry. I'm just trying to make sure I'm getting to the multiple windows. There we go. My LASIK is wearing off.

It's just, it's a cool, it's a cool resource that has a lot of history behind it. And it's kind of hidden right now.

Yeah.

So you're saying Ryan, um, if I'm hearing you, so like wherever this trail, the, like the Northern point of the trail, having there be a connection or, or even just something along the bank, like the, like bringing the trail along the side of that, of, of that river along that, uh, almost of a river trail, uh, along the top portion there. Um, It's cool, it's a cool area, like I said. And then too, some way to get across it, of course, would be great, even if it's over by the road, to open up that parking on the other side and maybe connect with the dog park, I think, makes a whole lot of sense.

This parking area in front of DPW, I should say this paved area is that for parking there? I feel like I don't see cars parked there.

Are you, um, is it this area here? Um, so this is where the, um, the mechanics bay is. And so like when they're bringing in being trapped, Yeah, when they're bringing in vehicles to work, like snow plows, et cetera, to work on, they're pulling in here, and this is where the doors are. I see.

Yeah.

So that's not really a parking area. They leave that clear just so they can get the vehicles in and out of that mechanics area. Okay. They do most of the vehicle repairs in-house for the city.

Great.

Okay.

I have one more question about parking. Is there a target number of boat trailer parking spots that you are targeting or thinking we'd like to try to get to?

We did not have a targeted number. That was something that had come up at the commission level, but then also through feedback. And so trying to find that balance of making sure that some spots are preserved for just regular vehicles. And because I think you've seen it at times where there are quite a few on Lakeside, but so just there's trying to find a balance there. So there wasn't really a targeted number. So actually, there was an iteration conceptual design iteration between these two that had this all angled parking. And we went back to the design team and said, no, we should really turn some of those into multi-use. So it was just trying to find a balance as to what would work well within the, like I mentioned, like the engineering and the radiuses that are required for turning stuff around.

Okay, we got into trails a little bit. Should we just use that as a segue to talk about trails and any other features up for discussion? Are there any other parking thoughts or feedback? Okay, all right, we'll just open it up to anything else.

Yeah, I want to talk about trails. At Calvin's facility like this on the other side of the Beltline, you're not allowed to run there. And I'm actually, this is gonna sound strange for me, I'm all for not allowing running there. It's a nature preserve. And also, Piggybacking on that and this is two meetings in a row. I'm gonna complain about them. But can we have a no bikes e-bikes like never Situation there. I just don't believe that works in that type of facility that we're proposing I'm in agreement Like absolutely none at any time That's certainly something that we can bring back to all of you when the time is right to have that conversation we do have

like across the street in phase one, there are some of these trails that do indicate they're for pedestrian, you know, non-bike access only. But absolutely, we can bring that back as a specific agenda item for your discussion.

I would suggest the no running part, too. I mean, I think that's a walking, quieter, hopefully, situation for those who are the bird watchers and all the folks that they're going there to observe nature and that kind of thing, which then brings me to Cause I saw there's different discussion on which are paved and in which are going to be crushed stone and the noise and, but then you have the ADA accessibility. So how do we wrestle with all of that?

I would be really interested to hear Patrick's input on the trails. He had a lot when we were redoing the schools and kind of brought perspective that I wasn't really, I was blind to.

Yeah. And I absolutely agree with that thought. Um, and just to further add the, um, crushed limestone. So like a compacted limestone surface is ADA accessible. Um, having a segment, um, like I noted like that, um, that, that cut through, um, from Reed's Lake Boulevard to Lakeside, having that paved does increase the accessibility, makes it a little more universally accessible. So the thought was having that, maintaining that as universally accessible and then the classroom gathering space, making sure that any trail surfaces to that would also be of a universal accessibility. And then the remaining balance of the trails being the crushed limestone or a similar type product that would still be ADA accessible. And that is, that's kind of what we've proposed to the DNR. And we certainly as a community could decide to change that, but that was the thought process. Right.

And that is akin to what's on the east side of Waterfront Park, the crushed limestone? Correct.

Okay.

I did see one comment that talked about how it's loud if you're out birdwatching.

And I don't know for certain if that comment is referring to some of the feedback that we did here. You may recall A year ago, I think approximately, just to the north of this on the east side, there's that lower trail that drops down below the rock with the different type of material. That was developed because there is a need to get maintenance vehicles in there if needed, because there is a water main that runs through there. We don't have that on this site as a need. And so that was a lot of the feedback that came up or questions from people is what's there, what we're proposing, and that is not the same. So I do suspect that maybe that is some of that feedback or people that were against some of the crushed limestone is thinking that it was.

The conglomerate.

Yeah, I think there was some confusion there where they were thinking it was going to be the same as that, and that's not what we're intending. This certainly would be a little bit louder than a paved surface if there was any sort of grinding, if you're shuffling your feet or something along those lines, but it wouldn't be the same as that lowered trail that was adjusted about a year ago.

Is there any concern on the paved section from Durant over to the parking lot? If you pave that, is that just going to encourage bikes and e-bikes and other things from flying through there? I would imagine it will. Does it make sense to just keep it all in the limestone to kind of have that whole thing set as a walking area as opposed to like what it would appear to look like to me would be a cut through?

Yeah, that certainly was one of our thoughts. And even from people coming into the park from the east side, if they're coming off the reeds lake trail there's that that crosswalk right there and making sure that the bike racks are right there so people know like hey leave your bike here as opposed to venturing further in the park and so we were kind of brainstorming that a little bit of having some signage to the north and south of of that corridor but that's certainly you know interested in feedback on that as well if there is maybe a preference not to have a paved portion if that's a concern.

Ryan, there's a park I live near in Tampa that had a no bike rule and they had like sort of like a chain between two posts, but like kind of offset and overlapping. So you had to like just walk through it, but it would be a real pain to try to like walk a bike through it. I don't know if the city of Tampa tried to sign first and then they went to that, but I never saw a bike on that path.

I guess I would just support doing the whole thing in the crushed limestone. If that's what we pick to just set the vibe that that's going to be walking paths. Cause I think you're just asking for everything else. Otherwise skateboards, bikes, rollerblades, you name it.

And it would lend to a more nature experience, but it's not going to take away from people that like on Durant that do use that.

It probably improves what they currently have. If they have a board across the ditch, that'll be significantly better than that ADA compliant and still, you know, traversable, but you know, not, not making it look like a, like a road or a trail.

Yeah. Cause I see there is a public comment from someone on that side with Durant saying they're excited for it. And there's a lot of kids that use the park. So, that are crossing the street. Yeah. That's great.

Can we talk about the path where B is?

It's like a utility corridor, isn't it? The power line right there?

It's paved trail with bridge is what it's called out as. This almost looks like a sidewalk. Is that the idea?

Like a long lakeside?

Yeah, I'm sorry, the straight, the straight section right here. Yes, yeah.

Yeah, we can talk about that a little bit. We did have some conversations. Part of the idea of that was to create a loop experience. So if, um, instead of having to just walk out to a dead end point, having a loop back, um, we did get quite a bit of feedback from people that they didn't think that they would necessarily use that the constructability of it might be difficult. Um, um, cause there is that existing wetland that, um, that big, um, light green thing here is an existing wetland that, you know, depending on the type of time of year, it's either higher or lower. Um, and so, um, I'd love to hear your feedback on that because I think part of the potential adjustments for the next conceptual design would be to remove that potentially. A lot of the feedback that we heard from people that preferred to not have that said that when you're walking a trail, yes, if you have to turn around and come back, it might not be the same experience as a loop, but it is a different experience. Kind of like when you're driving down, if you're driving down a hall in one direction and then you come back the different direction, it looks different to you because it is a different perspective. And so maybe having an out and back trail might not be as, I mean, it might not be as negative as what the, Original thoughts were but I'd love to hear all of your feedback on that because it wouldn't necessarily it wouldn't be another Nature experience. It would be Could you explore looping it?

I'll go ahead. Sorry. Sorry. She's gonna say there's a power line right there, too Aren't there they're put there it is a it is a right-of-way Utility there is a utility corridor through there.

It also takes it away from like the nature experience you're walking along the road under power lines and Could you explore looping it back along the river there? Like I was saying. No. So, um, so like going north and then to see where, yeah, you see where I is up at the top there. Yes. If you were to take it towards the river and back around, you're kind of making a small loop on an out and back, but then like exposing the river for people to fish or birdwatch for, you know, ducks and things that are waterfowl that would be using that water too, could be a kind of a cool way to keep it away from lakeside and keep it. Um, but then still, you know, had somewhat of a loop.

A little bit different experience going back. Yeah.

I mean, stand on that bridge and look down there. If you clean that up and got the invasives out of there, I think it would be really, really cool.

Yeah. I like that idea. I think that's where I was thinking too, like where you have eyes and that's like where you turn around and go back east along the ravine area.

Rockford has an out and back, a couple of them off the dam. So it's also not unprecedented in the area.

Yeah, I'll connect with the Avon Marsh team. We do have a ditch on this side of the road as well that we are utilizing for the stormwater control, which helps us have to limit some of our stormwater mitigation. So, but potentially there's the option to get along the river and then maybe loop back connect back somewhere. So maybe it wouldn't fully go down. A hundred percent. Yeah.

Connect back by like where F is before you hit the bridge to go onto the road, like onto that little Island. Right. Just like you're making an out and back, but with a loop. Yep. I will connect with the design team on that.

That'd be cool.

Love it.

One of the other items that, I saw in the comments was concerned about the trees. With this preliminary plan, well, second phase of the planning, do you have a sense of how many trees would come out?

So I think one of the major discussion points here for this property is the what constitutes a tree, right? There's a lot of vegetation there and a lot of it is undesirable species. There's a lot of invasive species. And so I think that there is that general concern that, Hey, we're going to be, um, cutting down a lot of desirable species, that certainly is not the case. One of the things that I appreciated the most about this parking lot redesign is that during our survey, so before we even started the design work, the Avon Marsh team had a survey done where they collect property boundaries. They collect the features that are on site. They took GPS coordinates of existing trees that were of a certain size, so they weren't collecting saplings, but any desirable species trees that were larger in scale that we would like to see preserved. They did GPS locate those, so we could make design adjustments for the trail and then also the parking lot to go around them. So, we don't have a number because we do keep changing the design, but once we do have a final design, we'll be able to overlay that with the tree survey data to verify how many of those trees would be impacted. And then at that point, we could make additional adjustments to work around some, just like we did for the Fred Bund trails. We move the trail a foot this way and save a tree. We'll certainly take those opportunities. And then one of the things that I'm most excited about this project, other than the wetland restoration piece, is the native tree planting. So that will be a large part of this. It's a little bit hard to see on the smaller rendering, but some of the smaller green dots that are showing on there would be trees that we would plant. And so that, I think that will be part of our conversation and goal as a community is when we do have to make those difficult decisions to remove some existing trees, if we just can't work around them, we'll be replanting with the native desired species. And I think that talking point, and when we explain that to some people that were concerned about the removal of trees, and verifying that they'd be native, which that's what the birds and the bugs need is the native species, understanding that it will be improving the existing conditions. I think that there's a lot more general acceptance of, okay, if we do have to lose a couple, well, but a majority of the vegetation that's going to be removed here is like the invasive species. And that just goes back to when the 70s, when everything was cut down, whatever decided to grow up in that space afterwards did. And in many cases it's like buckthorn and there's a lot of there's, there's some tree of heaven in there, which is not desirable. And so we're, I'm excited to see rebalancing of that a little bit, but I'll have a better indication of what those numbers actually are when we have the final plan and when we can layer that over the survey.

That sounds great.

I think I have a comment on the classrooms. I really like the idea of the outdoor classroom, but I was wondering what they would be used for and if that impacts where we would put the placement of the classroom, because I feel like that's the one area where I really like, but I don't know if I see the vision of where it would be as it relates to utility of the park.

Yes, so the classroom space, we're intending to have it kind of in a central area here in proximity to the parking lot. Actually, it's hard to see even on a full-blown drawing, but there's a bus showing here where there could be like a bus drop-off spot. The intent is for classrooms to be able to come and do educational, like science classrooms come to learn about birds, to learn about wetlands, to learn about the restoration of wetlands and even to do some water sampling of the wetlands. And so what that exactly looks like is really like, you know, just some seating areas, a gathering space where they can sit down and talk about what they're going to go explore. I've actually had the opportunity to talk to a couple science teachers from the middle school and then also one of the elementary school teachers that would be interested in coming here once these improvements are implemented. I didn't realize this, but currently today, as it stands, there are classrooms that go out there. And one day when I was putting out signs for engagement, the whole classroom of kids came out. And so I was able to talk to the teacher and explain what was going on and ask them to share the survey with the kids. So I think that having it in an area that is kind of central, easily accessible, but also in proximity to one of the wetlands, either the existing one or the restored one, Again, it's a little bit hard to see here, but like this little dock looking area thing would be something where they could do the water sampling and collect tadpoles or do different things along those lines. But that's really what the intent of the gathering space or the classroom space is for, is to support some of that environmental education. And then the, and we'll certainly have the signage that will be developed that will certainly highlight the improvements that we've made that those classrooms can use as a teaching tool as well.

It's a really powerful story too, that I hadn't thought of, of showing the restoration of things where we broken and like all the work and the time-lapse of us fixing it again, bringing it back to where it was. And then I'm getting to see that is a cool story that I don't think is taught and I was thinking of it more as just like, like you were saying, tadpoles and things, but really showing how we came back in there and fixed what had been broken previously is a cool story.

Yeah, because I saw some comments that were like, leave it natural, leave it what it is, but it's really unnatural at this point. The natural thing is to have wetlands, so this is an effort to bring back the natural state of the park, which is really cool.

I think the timeline on that will be key. If we know, like I think you showed, 1973 or something, when it was filled in, when the city acquired it, the earliest we know of that these concepts were like you mentioned 2010 or 2012, like those dates I think will help the community when they see, hey, I drove by here last week and there were trees here and suddenly there's no trees here, helping them understand that this is not just a knee jerk reaction to a grant, right? But that this is a decades long evolving situation. So I think, oh yeah. But whatever we know about, yeah, when the wetlands were initially destroyed, when the city came into ownership and first had this idea, like I think that'll be necessary to bring the community along and then great to teach in the classroom as well.

Yeah, I brought this tonight just to show you. I'm not going to go through it, but kudos to our city staff in the past and current as well. But we were able to find this chronological order of significant events dating back to 1929. So almost 100 years of history. And so if I just scroll through quickly to the 70s, October of 73, they commenced filling of the property. And then there was a stoppage of that. And so there is certainly that history that when I present to the city commission for kind of the final blessing of what that final conceptual design will look, or before we approve the final design, I'll highlight some of these, and I do have some historical aerial photos that show like 1967 or 68, somewhere in there. And then you can see the stark differences. And then over time, you'll start to see some of the vegetation growing, but to my point earlier, not native, a majority of it. And there certainly is a history of just that property acquisition piece to your point as well. So I'll make sure to highlight that during that.

This is a good read.

It is very clear in 1974 that the community wanted... What happened in the late 60s?

So there was a petition about the rezoning. I can share. Approving the concept of multifamily use of the property in 1966. Okay.

Yeah, so there was an approved plan for condos on that site at one time.

But then was that the petition from the 2000 signatures was to not... not zone it for multifamily use?

Quite honestly, I did not dive too far into the stuff before the city acquired the property other than the cutting of the trees and filling in of the wetlands. So anything that wasn't really project-related, I didn't spend too much time looking into. It's interesting. We're almost fulfilling what those 2,000 people signed on for.

If you scroll to 71, so in 66, there's a concept to rezone it for multifamily. And 1972, 2,000 signatures opposed to the rezoning, but then it goes through, it gets acquired privately, and it gets filled.

And then if you go to 74, this is a funny line. It's just so representative of our community. Many letters in file. Like the community spoke, spoke up.

I will say too, though, I think it's, it's a cool lesson to teach. like the kids that'll be coming through here. Cause this isn't the only property that's been filled around Lake Michigan, around our lakes. And if you show that this can be done, it can open up a lot of minds to, Hey, maybe this old site that was, that was once a power plant or once a paper mill, like what we can do it and we can show how you can bring it back. Um, and these kids can take that with them. I like that a lot.

Yeah, I went to a talk from the Coldwater Creek community group about the history of Coldwater Creek, which largely runs underground. And it starts here and other places and then goes all the way to the Grand River. But now it's largely underground. And it's all a result of filling in with city development. And this is connected to that. So a cool history for the wider community.

This is great. Thank you for all your work on this. Yeah, thank you for all the feedback. I have some really good notes. I know Sarah and I will connect and kind of get a summary and yeah, I expect to see this on a relatively soon city commission meeting just because I guess that next steps in the process here. As noted, I want all of your feedback tonight before we have kind of that city commission presentation that we will be looking at doing that in the near future. Once we have that final approved conceptual plan, then the Avon Marsh team will take that conceptual design, further refine it, do engineered level drawings, like give us like material types and cross sections of what the trails will look like and all those types of details that they'll package together in a bid package that we will send to the DNR for their approval. They do have to approve our final plans before we can go out for bidding once we have the approval from the DNR. I also layered into that timeline is getting the permit from Eagle for working in and around wetlands, which we can't get that until we know exactly what we're going to do. So there's a little bit of things that will work in parallel. But with the intent of having DNR approval in the fall, then timing up the bidding for this project to when we believe to be the most desirable timeline which is generally like the December January timeframe making sure that we're not getting out too early but also wanting to make sure we get it out early enough before other projects are getting bid and contractors schedules are filling up to really find that best pricing opportunity and And then, as noted, looking at spring-summer construction in 27, if everything aligns properly, there always is that potential for permitting or DNR type delays. We do have two years to construct the park after the project agreement is signed, which That won't take place until later in the fall, but certainly we'd like to get this pushed through next construction season if everything lines up. That's super.

I know we're finishing this up. I just also saw a comment from the community about signage kiosks. I'm wondering if there's a way we could compromise where Like the kiosk example here is colorful and pretty eye-catching, but for folks that see kiosks as a deterrent from a natural scape, maybe there's a way to make boring kiosks, like where they're not quite as eye-catching, but the information is there for folks who would like to learn more.

Yeah, and we can certainly refine the location of those, right? So to have a kiosk right in the middle of the best birdwatching area, which I learned a ton about birdwatching through this process, but maybe have those be more in the amenity area as you're entering into the spaces, like what to be looking for when you're there instead of like, oh, there's that bird, right? I see on the sign, right? So I think we can refine that location as well to help offset some of that concern.

Or maybe what I meant by boring is just more subdued colors so that they don't pull your attention. Okay, shall we go on to report from the director?

Yes, so you all kind of touched on a little bit some of the great things we have going on. Really busy summer, the farmers market, Sarah's really just taken that by the reins and is doing a great job with that. We've gotten a lot of really good feedback and even she's added additional spaces for vendors on top of our maximum that we've ever had. because more vendors want to be part of it when it's a busy market. So we're hoping that that energy just sustains throughout the summer. We did have the art festival a couple of weekends ago. So I'm still working through some of the feedback from the GVBA. There was a mixed response from some of the businesses. Some of them felt like it was really positive for their business. Some of them didn't quite see the benefit as much, and so talking through ways that, again, to find those compromises where it can be a win for everyone. From the Guild of Artists and Artisans in Ann Arbor, I spoke with them throughout that weekend. They were very optimistic about the participation. Their vendors all said that they did quite well on average as far as number of sales. So they're very interested in coming back and felt like their attendance maybe wasn't as high as what they thought, but that it certainly would grow in future years. But we, again, want to find that balance of what works for the business community here. And then also just all of the great things that we have going on this summer, the concerts, you probably noticed, or I might've mentioned, we didn't have a May meeting, but we have more regular concerts in the park on Mondays, just to help support the local community from the artist's perspective, but also that consistency I think will help with some of our numbers, not having to check the calendar if it's happening or not on a Monday. the basketball drop-ins that someone mentioned, that is something that we revamped that a little bit to be a little bit more skill-based this summer. And we have almost 200 athletes doing that between boys and girls. And for volleyball, we revamped that a little bit. We have 80 plus athletes, participating in volleyball training so just lots of really good things happening one note on the manhattan park splash pad we're working with our contractor there's a little issue with our foot sensor button there that i'm they're trying to resolve so we actually have the we have a sign out there indicating that we have the splash pad is turning on on a schedule now instead of the foot activator button because it was intermittently not working. And people would call us and say, hey, it's not working. And we go out there and it would work, but it determined that it was not consistent. There was a level of concern that we were going to be using more water because of having it turn on on a regular basis. I actually have been checking the numbers and we're actually using a little bit less water, which On the weekends when it's really hot, the splash pad was, um, being used like seven hours a day, like consistently throughout the 10 hour period. Um, but so what we've been doing is having it turn on, on the hour, it turns on for 20 minutes, then off for 10. on for 20 off for 10, just so, um, people can know what to expect. And then also having that break does help, um, families with littles to say, Oh, it's off now. So it's time to go. I think some people do appreciate that timing. Um, but we're, we're working through that. That's under, um, the warranty for the park cause, um, we're still under the first year warranty on that. Um, But yeah, just lots of great things happening. And it's all because of the team, right? Sarah and the rest of the team downstairs, they're highly engaged and just do a great job. So I'll leave it at that unless anyone has any questions on any of those items.

Okay. Any other items? All right. We'll call this meeting adjourned at 7.30 p.m.

Thank you, guys, for all the work you do. Thanks, everyone.