Town Council - Special Meeting

She's on her way in. I don't see no reason. I see her coming in. Do I have a motion to approve the agenda? So moved. Second. Second. All in favor? Say aye. Aye. I assume that Lindsey would be agreeable to approve the agenda. If not, she can say she's not, but it's carried. Okay. We're now in the purpose of our meeting, which is the Town of Oak Ridge Strategic Plan Update Workshop. Well, how do you handle this?

Well, I think it would make sense to start with a review of the recreation and reintroduce it and then we can handle it any way you like. But so I took, I actually ended up rewatching the meeting because it had been a couple of weeks and going through my notes, the minutes that were prepared, the flip charts and some of the other comments that I've received from council members. And what I did was kind of Try to encapsulate every comment that I heard during so I felt like. It would be easier for counsel to see more on the draft and then you can choose to take items out. rather than leave something out that I wasn't sure had full support and have to put it back in. So there could be things in the strategic plan draft that you might feel did not get discussed fully or it wasn't clear if there was support from three or more members. I put it in anyway. And today, my thought would be that we would work through each of those policies one by one and just ensure that there's there's support and that matches council's council's vision and so that that's how I proposed it to do it unless there's unless there's any any objection to that I did so I guess we can just go ahead and get started I'll lead with the opening section that summarizes what the is meant to address i removed the a mention to other smaller parks located outside the town core that did not seem to be something that council wanted to focus on but like i noted my staff comment i did leave in a mention to the opera when opportunities uh real strategic focus on seeking out additional parkland okay um the first goal uh is a new addition to the strategic plan and this is one of the overall themes of the brainstorming session and that's the oak bridge parks and again combining the other big change was combining the town park and heritage farm park into one overall goal and each of those park units separately. So referring to Oak Ridge Parks as the unit as a whole, the first goal is that Oak Ridge Parks recreational facilities and open spaces will continue to be operated and maintained at an optimum level and will continue to meet the high expectations of Oak Ridge residents. And then the four policies underneath that goal either related to just the high quality of presentation and maintenance of the park and our events, but also responding to resident, that's an expectation too, right? Responding to residents and citizens' requests and concerns about the park. So each of those policies somehow relates to this standard of excellence that we want to maintain. So I guess maybe I'll just go through each of those policies and then we can discuss it all as a whole. The first policy is to continue to seek public input about parks and recreation.

Hang on. Hang on. Sorry. Going back to the overall goal, it seems that the overall recreation addresses we should be addressing the same breadth in this. So we don't mention walking paths and trails in here. We say recreation. I don't know if you call walking paths and trails recreational facilities. So I think we should include walkways and trails in 1.1.

Any objection? I mean, maybe we could just say Oak Ridge Parks will continue to be operated. Because it's instead of like listing out everything that the parks include.

Well, a lot of our walkways and trails are outside of the parks.

So it could be a separate goal or like is that?

Isn't there a separate goal? I mean, I guess 1.3. Yeah.

we could talk about excellence there. That could be like outside.

I mean, in a way. I think we're stating something that's obvious, but it helps us encapsulate the rest of these things. So go ahead.

First policy, continue to seek public input about parks and recreation through surveys and other outreach methods. That seemed like it was a theme of the discussion at our last meeting. And then the next one is sort of a companion to that, and that's in response to timely responsiveness to public input. And that's investigate new parks and amenities, events and programming in response to public input, analyze the practical, logistical and financial feasibility of new elements and provide timely responsive feedback to the public. So in other words, you know, obviously not everything that is going to come out on top in a survey is going to be feasible for any number of reasons. And so the thinking here was responsiveness could be implementing what the public requests or it could also be at least doing some due diligence and then reporting back to the public in some way why something that might have

I would say our response is to investigate and consider. I don't know if for everything that comes out on the survey that we need to investigate practical, logistical, financial feasibility. In other words, this is part of our leadership task that we consider all of this, but we can't like everything that comes out on a survey. And for instance, the big survey that we did in 2019, those elements, a lot of those were just thrown there by the consultant, right? But if we have to do an analysis of every single thing that's mentioned by residents or gets a vote, I think that leads to paralysis. I think we need to consider it, but I don't know that we need to. This makes it sound like we're doing a full feasibility study practically on each element.

Maybe just the top five or something.

Right. So, but you would consider all of them. Like, in other words, so I would just soften the language here. I would just say.

I mean, if we have one request for a driving range or a.

Right.

I mean, we don't need to consider that.

I mean, I'm just saying. Maybe like consider and then assess instead of investigate and analyze.

That might be good to consider. And then.

We have a hundred audience in there. There's no way we consider every one of them. They've got two votes. It's just, you don't even go down that far.

And we could say, we could say consider and assess new park amenities, parks amenities, events and programming in response to substantive public input. So if there's one guy who wants the driving range, we don't have to do a full analysis. I would just, and then, and provide timely timely and responsive. I would just say and provide timely feedback to the public. I mean, I would take out that middle section.

The feedback could just be in a town council meeting or a parks and rec meeting. Yeah. It doesn't have to be a poll or whatever.

Right. I guess one of my questions on that was policy 1.1.1, and sorry about my voice getting here for being sick. Would this be like doing an additional new study, like a whole new thing, or just based on previous ones, or what's the...

strategically you could sometime next five years out decide the council then can decide we need to do um another strategic move because the population's increased and it's going from 8,000 to 10,000 or whatever but i would keep it general so that if a future other outreach methods as a future council two or three

and really good surveys that really hold water, you know, or can be defended as they're expensive. So we've also had open houses. And I think even though the actual numbers are obviously smaller with open houses, we've gotten great input through open houses because you get to get, you get more depth of input sometimes. So I'd leave that. Just continue to seek public input. I mean, it's like as needed, right?

Or continue to advise. I wouldn't add anything. Just continue to get public input.

It's an overall strategy, not like a specific direction.

That's right. I'm fine with it.

And I know we discussed this in the last meeting. Can we just have a park plan as to the parks? What do you mean? Do we really need for... Two parks.

We just can't come up with a... Well, I asked that question in the first session, is that we talk about two parks, but this should just be Oak Ridge Town Parks.

Well, that's how this is being presented. And, you know, we could work toward a parks plan, but we're always going to be looking at two locations, you know, and... You know, you can put them on one plan, but.

No, it's basically our parks. We should have one plan for the park.

Well, this is for both parks. The comprehensive master plan was for both parks.

What year was that?

2020 or 2022.

so on the second one then are we saying rather than investigate we're saying consider and assess which i heard new parks amenities events and programming in response to public input substantive and then say and provide timely feedback i think responsive is kind of redundant like feedback is responsive timely feedback to the public

I would just end it there so do we so in general saying that we're going to analyze feasibility that's too much language yeah it seems to tie us to doing full feasibility on everything that's suggested and if we consider it and it's a great idea and there's substantive feedback then we go into that but I think that's

what we do already i mean maybe for that sense we could even just say assess the feasibility instead of assess the practical logistical financial just assess the feasibility of new elements and provide timely feedback to the public so consider and then assess feasibility you have new elements and provide time that's fine

Okay so what I'm hearing is consider new parks amenities etc. Assess the feasibility of new elements and provide timely feedback to the public. Period.

And you know I just want to say generally This council, you know, when we did this big survey and we did this master plan, we had an open house for the Whitaker master plan, didn't we? I mean, we have a great track record of doing this already. I just want to put that out there. You know, and being discussed at council meetings and putting it in the open, putting it in the newspaper, you know.

And I think what this was trying to get at was, you know, if there are elements that the public doesn't understand why we're not pursuing.

All I'm saying is we do tons of response, but there's still going to be some of that. Yeah, that's fair. You're never going to reach everybody.

Okay. That's been up there since I moved back here almost 10 years ago. It's been in the discussion for 10 years. You have these people surprised.

But I mean, that's the challenge we face. And that's why we respond to the stuff on Facebook and Nextdoor and why it's always best when staff goes, wow, those are great glasses.

Wow. Time to feedback. Well, there's been a big changeover in 10 years from the town.

Yeah.

I mean, you know, you got a lot of new people in that you didn't have 10 years ago. That's true. This town is changing every year. Every day. Every day. I mean, you know, what are we, 30% regular people here? I don't know. Regular? We're 30% of people who were born and raised here, maybe.

Oh, is it even that high? How many of you are there?

I would say the born and raised. This town has changed a lot. There's a lot of people who weren't here 10 years ago.

So it's a challenge to continually keep people up to date.

It's a challenge. I mean, the point is to do it. The point is to do it. And then if anybody doesn't know about it, you can say, here it is. Here it is. Here's where we did it.

Well, and even maybe that's part of like, you know, we're talking about having like a way finding or like just better signage and information in the parks. If there's like some QR code, like, hey, learn what's new going on in the town or something to like, an easy way to engage to actually see what's going on versus like expecting people to listen to the, you know, three hour long council meeting.

Go to our Facebook page or something.

Something like that, yeah.

Or signage and everything else. Let's have one more thing, and I don't know, Ashley, and I have this, I don't look at her, I'm not on Facebook, but so these roundabouts, it's so near that this was started in 2017 or anything, or 2015, it was public hearings, and there was all this to address that, where we can just head them off without having to answer all these questions about nobody knew the roundabout this morning. Just put the history behind it.

We have some of that. We can add more to it.

I don't know what y'all think about it, but didn't they know that this started whenever?

Like a periodic sort of re-presentation of where this all came from. It just didn't start last year. That's not a bad idea. It just didn't start last year. A lot of questions have been coming up lately about this. Let's take a walk back in time.

Let's just air it out here where it started. First, push the rock off of your... We had public hearings. We had all this stuff. It just didn't start yesterday.

Could there be... I know the, I guess, quarterly paper that's coming out. Do you think they're...

they would consider having, like, a story about the roundabouts of, like, where... You know where she might do it is under questions you have asked. That would be... I mean, I know she's already putting that issue together, right? But that's a great idea. I mean, she typically doesn't want to do whole articles on things that she doesn't see, right? I mean, you know, that's her prerogative, her paper.

Move on to the third policy.

I'm remembering shortly after I moved back in 16. I know that DOT did open houses in here. Do you remember when that was?

Well, that was after I was on council, so it must have been But I don't think I was mayor. So I think it must have been 2017 or 18.

Just when they started the, you know, I saw something that came up here. I was recently back, but that could have been a year. So it could have been 17. When they had an open house to tell them about what they were planning at the time. To me, I mean, that's why it's almost ancient history, but The reason I'm asking is for Patty, I've got to give her a mayor's update and I can probably

Oh, you can work that in.

There's studies been going on. The study started in 2017.

It started before then because before then we were on the list for about 10 years saying, you know, improve the intersections in Oak Ridge. I don't know what the language was.

The roundabouts didn't come out until later.

Right, but they were part of the improve the intersection.

They were in that open house that I came to, which I think was in 17, because the guy asked me, what do you think of roundabouts? And I went, I hate them. I just moved from a state that put them in 60 years ago, and they've been taking them out ever since. Yep.

2019 is when that happened. The meeting and open house and everything was early 2019. And the survey showed that 60% of the people that responded said, absolutely don't put a damn roundabout in. And here we are today.

Well, remember though, they first proposed a roundabout for the main intersection. And that's what most people, that's what people were mostly upset about was the main intersection. Well, I mean, I was there.

And I was too, and I'm sitting beside a Doug. So, yeah. It doesn't really matter at this point. The fact of the matter is, I'm just looking for time. I'd say pre-2020 is enough.

Yeah. Okay. Whether it's 17 or 19. I was just looking for an idea. Mm-hmm. Okay. Thank you. Thank you for that.

All right. Seek additional funding sources. That's pretty innocuous funding challenge.

I would say, I mean, it isn't just new funding sources. It's increased funding overall. I would say seek additional funding for new park because it doesn't have to be a new source like mr graves in here was pointing out that we had talked at one point about you know selling sponsorship signs on the park i don't know if that's what we should be doing maybe we should but we just need additional funding it doesn't have to be a new source resources so we don't have to raise taxes

Yeah, and I mean, it was a response to the comments about how federal and state, those sources are drying up. So if we're going to continue to make capital.

Well, you can leave it the way it is and just keep in mind that it could be all sorts of things.

Does it need to be defined external and internal? or is that just reality?

No, maybe we just leave it as is, but we know that it could be external or internal, because all of them...

I'm just thinking about people that are here that don't, you know, there's still an amazing group of people that don't know that Because they're just not that involved. Or they just move in.

You could just say additional funding and revenue sources. That might. Because revenue suggests money coming into us.

And how do we get through this signage deal? Do we need to direct Parks and Rec to look at signage as an alternative for funding? Or an additional stream? Oh, that's a stream. That's a tactic. Yeah, we put when this, because I'm

to an implementation plan, and we can think about actual action items that can help to implement each. That's a later step.

That's a tactic of getting to the strategy, as is grants.

Yeah, this is a policy under a goal, and then under that come the strategies. Okay, fair.

I wonder if you haven't noticed the comment at the end was superior. That one.

Sorry.

It was a comma at the end instead of a period.

Gotcha.

Yeah, I thought there was more to comment.

I was waiting for a surprise.

All right. Now the next policy. I loved a bunch of comments into this one policy.

That is a lot put in there.

And I tried to encapsulate what I think council is trying to get at with a user experience. And I'd say these are just examples. So if we don't want to get into specific elements that improve the user experience, each of these were individual suggestions by council members, ideas to improve the park user experience.

again these are just investigate none of this says implement there are examples are there other places i'm thinking about the whole strategic plan here it just seems like there's a lot put into that and i was trying to think of a way to sort of list it out in a way i mean yeah we don't have subheadings under the policy. Okay, so that could be the strategies that we develop. Because this is a lot of... I mean, like, I think the wayfinding and signage is huge and then, you know, like safety and additional shade are sort of related. I think satellite parking is... and communication speakers. I mean, this is just a lot.

But it... the last session.

No, I know, I know. My point is I wonder if we should separate these out to give them more emphasis because it just seems like this is a bucket and we're throwing some really important things into it.

Yeah, I mean I think you're saying maybe it could be a goal to improve the park user experience and then separate policies underneath. That's an idea. That's, I mean, that's the overall question.

Yeah, because I think Improving the park user experience was something that to me really came out loud and clear from our discussion. So that could, it could be elevated.

That's a good idea. Using that idea, would you just take 1.1.4 and I apologize, I have to take this, turn that into a goal. Yeah. And then the information below that would be policy.

Yes. Yes.

By the way, at the town hall, fire department board meeting and I pushed it this way back how nice it was on the 4th of July when it was so hot that I could point to several firemen up there who could respond if people became stressed from the heat. So I made it a point and asked the question events that were going to happen here. I just made the point that it was good to be able to point that there was a fireman that, and most of them can respond like EMT, but most of them are trained to respond. And just the sheer fact that They're up there. They're here to help you. We set up a first aid tent. At Ridgevest?

The fire department and EMS. Okay, good.

Yes.

And I think Randy makes a donation to the...

I just reinforced it that it was nice to be able to point to a fireman that I just happened to know because I got this other hat on my head. I've encouraged it for a future

So does that mean that we have one, two, three, four, five elements that are called out specifically?

I think you could group... I don't know. See how it looks. I mean, could you group safety response and additional shade or could you... I don't know.

I mean, are these all elements that...

Wouldn't this go back to what Grayson was just saying of just on 1.13 when he was just giving ideas. I mean, wouldn't that go into the implementation phase? I mean, I'd just leave it as investigate ways to improve the park user experience.

I mean, even like revenue sources, like, do we want to get in this meeting into listing what those new revenue sources are?

We don't really have many. Here we have many. I mean, you know, like, what are we talking about there? We don't have any additional sources.

I agree. You could probably want some of the wayfarer signage and satellite parking communications. Like I said, if we don't have revenue, we're not doing any of this.

Okay. All right. Well, I'll take a stab at trying to making sure that all those elements are somehow.

But I think Mike Stone said it before he jumped on his phone call. Move the beginning of that as another goal. And then policy underneath that. later in the policy?

Well, yeah, and the reason why I separated that out was because I think the idea of satellite parking is more of a user experience for like a major event, sporting event or, you know, amusement in the park or something like that, that we need to have satellite parking for one-time events. The second, the next policy is to use it for.

Do you think it would make sense to split that into two separate ones? Because future parking expansion has its own reasons and needs and implementation and maintenance facilities has its own issues and needs. It's not really clear. I thought it could be separated and elaborated a bit.

I would go the other way. I would say analyze long-term support. Analyze long-term support For? Analyze long-term need for infrastructure and maintenance. Oh, the word support is bugging me. Support infrastructure.

Like, it's not.

Oh, support. It's not like. Analyze long-term support infrastructure and maintenance needs. For instance, I don't think, I don't know that we had consensus around I don't know what we need with our maintenance facilities. We just put a new roof and a new fence around that one. Over here, we've got a good facility. I don't know that that rises to a strategic goal. I mean, do we have other maintenance needs? That would be my question.

I would say the answer is yes. I would say that I like the two. I personally don't think that heritage farm part shows. Well, when the maintenance facilities is right beside of the playground and everything else. I think that any well-run park that you go to, the maintenance facility is shielded, hidden, pushed away. The activity of a maintenance shop, when Brock's guys are sharpening the lawnmower blades and the grinder's going, it does not need to be beside the bathrooms. I don't know.

I'm just saying my opinion is...

that maintenance shouldn't take away from the user experience. And I believe personally that the facility over here behind the rental house and the maintenance shed here take away from the user experience to some extent. I don't know how to fix it. I'm just throwing out that's my opinion. And I think if we were building it today and the ground was flat and there was nothing there, we wouldn't have put it there. Right.

No, but we got it there, and we've just invested a lot of money in it. So I think if we're thinking of this plan as a sort of three- to five-year plan, I just don't see any way we're going to build a new $200,000 maintenance facility.

I'm sorry, what were you going to say? Exactly my point. In the next five years, we're struggling to find the money to implement the things that we're talking about. well we would we wouldn't add i don't think we would add a quarter of a million dollars for knocking it down and building a new one and i'd take you 80 yards further because the fire department just built one well let me argue the flip side of that though when did water show up in the strategic plan yeah 15 years ago

I don't know. But we're just now getting water, but we didn't take it out of the strategic plan. It was just a longer part of the strategic plan.

Well, the strategic plan only started in 2018. Whatever that number is.

Okay, so it was eight years ago, but we didn't... At that time, nobody said, well, we're not going to have water in the next five years, so we don't mention it in the strategic plan.

Well, not because there were so many incremental steps. What were you going to say, Mike?

Well, I'm just going to say, how are we going to, you know, to me it's a 10 to 15 year project. Maybe it's 10 to 20, whatever. But where are we going to put it at to make somebody happy in that part? Are we going to buy new land to put it there off site and put up maintenance? Because everywhere you put it, it's going to affect somebody.

I think the point is just having in the strategic plan kind of keeps it front of mind that it's something to consider when we're making these, you know, but it has to be a priority.

And I, I, Hate to disagree. I just don't think it's a priority.

I'm not saying it's not a priority. I'm just saying it's not going to happen in 10 years. Probably 15 to 20.

It's not like water that you can incrementally, you know, like we had an initial plan for water. This is like, you like do it or you don't do it. It's a, I don't know. I mean, do you think it's a priority now?

I don't think it's a priority, but no. maybe one day but i don't know where it could be put at that it wouldn't involve and that's why it says messing up the park experience i mean we don't have extra land that's away from anything to do that i would just believe the whole thing is analyzing long-term support infrastructure and maintenance needs i would just i'm there yeah would you be okay with that yeah take the future

Yeah, I mean... It just comes down to... I would take everything in parentheses out. Take everything in parentheses out, yeah.

Or everything after the... After needs.

So it would read, analyze long-term support infrastructure needs, including future expansion and maintenance facilities.

I would take that out. I would just say infrastructure and maintenance needs.

So that you... Maintenance needs?

Yeah.

Whatever.

I mean... You've got infrastructure needs and you've got maintenance needs. So the question is, do you need some more space for something or other? That's a need. And then do we want to relocate it? That could be a need.

Well, it's not always a need. I guess the whole thing of saying needs and priorities, we're talking about improving user experience. not everything is a need necessarily, but it might just make it nicer. And maybe it's not even top priority or five-year priority, but like you said, you know, maybe a 10-year priority. I don't think there's a harm in saying, you know, analyze, and it even says long-term, you know, support needs. So it's, I think it's kind of just saying, look into it, keep it in mind, kind of assess when we're making decisions down the road. I don't think it's saying like, you know, Immediately check where we're going to relocate.

Under the previous goal that we, you know, investigate ways to improve park user experience.

Yeah, that's what I think you're saying. Is that like, you know, including additional parking or, you know, how we use the maintenance facilities?

We didn't build that building correctly. We inherited that building. So, you know, if it's such a big deal to improve the experience, why did they put the bathrooms and the playground right beside it? I'm just saying that

Because the priority then was to put all of the, yeah, all of the building, all of the active stuff.

We have to look at what they put there. I mean, we don't have that kind of money to move it.

And that's just the way it is.

All right. I think we're... Okay. So I'm going to move this policy under the previous goal. and then i'm going to say analyze long-term support infrastructure and maintenance needs polluting parking expansion and maintenance well yeah leave that i'll take everything but the take all the parentheses

Well, I mean, I don't want maintenance facilities in there because if we say infrastructure and maintenance needs, that's addressed. And I don't really want future parking expansion in there because I think we need to analyze that before we say that that's what we're going to do.

And then what it says, analyze long-term support infrastructure needs, including parking. Possible future parking expansion. I mean, I just... That's the analyze that you're asking for.

But it's saying we do need future parking extension.

Absolutely. I think that's true.

I think that we investigate the satellite parking and see if that solves our problem for big events. And we've already got additional parking planned for phase two. I don't want our parks to turn into a parking lot. I don't want to take away our open space over here. I don't want to take away our open space.

period, the practical experience of it without parking once a month, then we're going to be parking in the grass up here.

Yeah, we have the ability to have temporary parking. That is a blessing and we've got to do that. I'm fine with that.

So can we just leave out the parking for the Redmond House? Or the community center. We don't need parking. We don't need parking. We can figure that out too. We can.

We've already got that plan.

I know, but we don't need parking. Things can change. We need parking. We don't need parking. I mean, that's, you know, if we, you can't just say which one you want.

We got two parking lots that are currently.

That are currently planned. And what I'm saying is I don't think we need a. I mean, we can analyze it and see if we need additional parking beyond those two plans.

The policy is written. It doesn't say we're going to add parking. It doesn't say we're going to add maintenance facilities. What it says is we're going to analyze long-term support infrastructure needs.

Because we need to look at it.

We need to look at it.

And I think if you leave it too vague, no one's going to remember why it was in there to begin with. I mean, really.

Okay. I have another suggestion. Why don't we talk to Mark Smith or whoever owns Mustang and see if we can work out a deal with them where we can rent a certain time.

Well, that's part of the investigating satellite.

I mean, that's what that... Well, nobody is targeted, but that's really the only place in the post office. The post office is probably not going to agree to anything. But I think we should have a conversation with Mark Smith.

Yeah, and the credit union and the school about regular use of those. Right, about renting them. Possibly having a shuttle.

Well, Mustang makes the most.

Right, but it might not be sufficient.

I just think that's something we should pursue. I don't know that it needs to go into this. I think somebody should make a call like Bill. to Mark Smith and you know, he's not probably going to do it except for like in the afternoons and at night. I don't know if they have anything going over there at night certain times. Well, that's the whole thing.

There's not a lot of parking there.

There's probably 30 or 40 spaces. I think we're bogged down on that one.

continue to develop a system of metrics for facility usage, revenue, and expenses um this would now be goal 1.3 and this is essentially the same goal as the previous the existing community plan but lumping both parks into one goal and oak ridge parks will continue to be vital community resources we can make that singular or plural whatever the council's preference is. Future development in Oak Ridge parks must carefully consider the needs of multiple user groups and interests. So does that language still sound relevant?

I'm bound by that goal.

um policy 1.2.1 uh this one i'm i'm just suggesting we defer this one brock and i have talked about uh doing that analysis it hasn't been done yet we'd like to have that to present to council before you decide what i'm interested in that analysis

but i i think i said this last time i think someone else said it too i don't know that we need to put into this plan a cap so i would just say small increases in active i take the first sentence and cut out the second sentence yes i agree well i was gonna say i guess for me like what makes it clearest to me i guess as a council member you know making decisions moving forward i think the easiest to

almost like 1.2.1 and 1.2.2, if we could almost just kind of summarize that in defining what open space areas we want to maintain in like certain locations, like for example, you know, keep X area open for Heritage Day, keep this area open for whatever else, keep the Pine area open for viewing, like making very specific policies of what areas we want to maintain as open space and for what purpose. Just so we know like it's not a matter of numbers of like what we can have or not have. I think the overall goal is what we want to maintain.

So I see where you're going with that. So I like them being separate because I think they're very different issues. What if you said something like small increases in active sports facilities may be accommodated at the town park and large open spaces should be preserved. So the three main open spaces we have are the two around the Christmas tree area and the one where we currently hold Heritage Day and crafts fairs.

Yeah, and I think it would be helpful if we define what those areas are and said what they're designated for. Especially as someone outside reading this, you just say open space is what, so we're just going to keep everything, like it's not really clear.

What they come out of the analysis.

What I'm saying, like, regardless of the analysis, if council does have in mind certain areas that, regardless of the numbers, this is what we want to keep open, I think that could be a policy.

I think the reason is not exactly what they're used for. Like, Heritage Day may come and go, and there may be something else. So you don't preserve it for Heritage Day. Or even just, like, for events. Preserve it for its scenic beauty along Linville Road. And, of course, those main two spaces are in the Historic District. Is the other one... Yeah, I guess it is, I would say, and preserve open spaces located within the historic district.

Well, so I'll have a problem with that because how much of the park is in the historic district?

What I'm saying is the large open spaces in the park we preserve because we're saying we're not going to develop. That's not all located in the historic district. I'm just saying. Right now I'm only talking about the town park.

I understand that, but the point being that a statement like that just precludes any

Seek to preserve. I mean, it doesn't have to be just like the 20%. We don't want to put in things that are like permanent no-goes, but say, you know, seek to preserve existing open spaces located within the town parks and the historic district. mean what makes that that park beautiful most people say it's those open spaces along the road it's fine that there's lots of active stuff further back in the park i mean it's great and we can expand those but to like if we wanted to take away one of those big green spaces there oh

Ouch. And see, that's why, like, I guess, I know it makes sense, I guess, because you've been in it for so long, but I'm just thinking, like, as the public reading this, if I read that, I'd say, wait, are we going to develop or are we not going to? But if I read, oh, you know, we look to preserve this specific area for event space or we want to preserve this specific area for scenic beauty, it's like, oh, okay, I get that. I understand that. And then, you know, maybe elsewhere we can do some things just to make it, like, easier to understand what you're actually talking about.

Versus you could say these two spaces on Linville Road existing. I don't know how you define those.

Practice fields is what we call them. Isn't that what you used to call them?

Yeah, yeah.

Large practice fields.

That was their practice space when the park first opened.

The large practice fields on Linville Road for, you know, scenic beauty.

And maybe we could even name them. If they don't have a name, maybe we could give them a name.

You've got the Redmond field, you've got the small practice field, and the large practice field. I mean, that's what staff, that's how we...

Right, but I'm saying just for the public to understand, it could maybe have names and say, you know, this field is going to be maintained for whatever.

But again, I think I heard that could be part of the analysis. Yeah. Since... And you'll have to name them for us. Yeah. So that we... Be Brockfield.

I've had enough hours in those fields, that's for sure.

Brock's... There's the Rockfield and there's the Cherryfield.

Brock's Blood Sweat Field 1. So the other... I think that should come through the analysis. I'm not... Yeah. But even we don't know what they're called.

Yeah, these two policies could be kind of simplified.

So basically anything we build over there has to go through historic preservation?

Both parks.

Well, not all of that park.

only the part that we bought from mr mccandless is outside of the district sorry historic preservation that's where the maintenance garage is that's what i'm saying turning that that's a lot of power well i mean hpc has been pretty flexible with town projects You know, if there's a real need. But also, I don't think they can unilaterally turn it down, but they can. They can influence the second delay of the year. We know that.

Not that.

Oh, really?

That's not the question.

Right. I think it's also, I mean, not to go off on a tangent, but it's important to remember that the open spaces have value for what they're not. And so like the whole idea of like getting that property before it turned into 60 houses and leaving that wonderful vista that was the old Oak Ridge has value that you can't put it, you know, it's not an asset you can put on your- A lot of revenue. What's that? So it would have been a lot of revenue. That's right. That was a trade-off that council thought was- And what you need there. Yeah, I think we're parking lot. There's 2 policies and then. Once we have the analysis complete, we can circle back to this. The 3rd policy active or additional active recreation recreation back up here.

I'll get on this at 1.2.2. That first, in my opinion, that first sentence needs to be removed. The second sentence is fine. The scenic view along Oak Ridge Road will be preserved as much as possible, as feasible. But 1.2.2 pretty much outright states that Heritage Farm Park is going to be retained as open space and we're not going to do anything with it. And I just think that from a strategic plan standpoint, that it makes no sense to be in there. We don't have the money to develop it, but at some point when we do, then If we decide, look, when the McGill, whoever did the Heritage Farm Park vision thing, part of that climbing tree thing was a lot closer. Are we saying that, well, we don't care what the citizens said in their survey of what the design potential for the future. We don't care about any of that. we're just not going to do anything in Heritage Farm Park. I just think that's wrong. I had Adventure Play. Adventure Play. Wasn't there a bathroom supposed to be down there too? There was another smaller bathroom back here kind of behind Town Hall. The Adventure Play was going to be over in the trees across from what we called the frog pond there for a lot of years. Yeah, that was part of it.

What if we took out the first sentence and said scenic view will be preserved as much as possible and say, in addition, consideration to retain additional existing open space should be considered or something like that.

Well, I mean, we have the open space. And so that's my point is that if you just take the first sentence out, it makes sense.

I'm fine with that. I know history doesn't always matter, but the goal was originally to really preserve that as farmland. And there was huge support in the community for that. And I think there still is.

And that's also like where I think if we started labeling these areas, like even part of like the maps and wayfinding, if we had, if we broke the parks down into labels, like, you know, the pine forest or something, and we kind of like mark that as area that then we could refer to it in these documents and say, maintain the pine forest. and then we know what we're talking about. Or like maintain, if we designate some areas like a farming area, we could say, you know, maintain the whatever farmland or the, I don't know, Ann's Farm, you know, whatever it is, whatever it's called.

The councils can change every two years. They can, yes.

That's why we don't have references of what it is.

Mike pointed out early in this thing is that there's a lot of flexibility in this. If the point of Heritage Farm Park is agriculture farmland, how many people in Oak Ridge live in developments that used to be tobacco fields, used to be farmland?

Almost all of us.

Almost all of us. That's why we want to preserve that. So why would we have a policy that we value farmland And we develop it thinking square into the point.

Because, wait a minute, here's the point. We're not developing. The town doesn't develop. There are property rights. Hang on, hang on. So developers and builders get to develop those. We set a model and a value by saying the farmland that the town owns.

We don't want to be farmland.

That is farmland over there. Hay is farmed there. Okay, this is 140 acres here of historic farmland. So that's one of the reasons I think we maintain those open spaces over there, but that's a side note. But we were trying to model in the creation of that park, the preservation of farmland that we own. We can't control the farmland that you own or you own and the farmland that was just sold on Harold Road. We can't control that, but we can control this.

What does farmland mean? does a farmer make? Depends on how big their farm is.

Yeah, they make money. They make a lot of money when they're selling their farms. We're making no money. Don't tell us we're a farm.

I didn't say we own farmland.

The percentage of people that live in Oak Ridge that were here five years ago, ten years ago, twenty years ago, that number's going down, down, down. Yeah. And look, I grew up in this area, worked the tobacco fields in this area. To assume that we are some type of an agricultural preservation society, we're not. I just don't want to hand high and get so far in the weeds on this that we just say that that's a hands-off idea.

I thought you were one of the ones who spoke out years ago about how we need to preserve open space and farmland. And you and others influenced the creation of the conservation easement program.

Oh, I wasn't part of the conservation easement. Don't put that on me.

No, but it was in response to concerns raised by you and other people that we need to preserve open space and farmland in Oak Ridge.

I mean, would anyone consider having a policy to name and define open areas?

I can do that during that analysis.

Even just have that as a policy, because I think that would help. kind of define and like make sure everyone's talking about the same thing because you know and when she says the open space of heritage farm park you might be talking about a certain area but then maybe mike hears all the literal open space that's available so it's i agree with that because when i tell people heritage day is in redmond field they're like exactly yeah and i yeah i didn't know it was called that or i say

Near shelter too.

Yeah, and like and we just even part like the wayfinding and maps just to define what these open space areas are and give them names and then and even if like in the future Yeah, that that's where that should be done.

It's under the signage. Yeah.

I mean we can do that on our Facebook page. Start naming everything.

Yes, people know where to go.

I'll just say it in these terms. I don't think that anybody at Northwest High School is studying agriculture. There are.

Yeah, you hear it every year.

Studying agriculture? Yes, yes.

They still have, what's the name of that program? They still have that?

No.

That went out with the cars coming in.

The whole point is we are at a period of time when we have someone close by that's willing to farm. If you continue your residential thought and progress sometime five or ten years from now, the farmers are aging out. And that's a consideration But the point I'm making is if you're now in the mid-30s and Sam and Kyle and company are not able to do that, you're going to have to import somebody from close to Reedsville or something to come down here, cut, you know, bring their stuff, cut and bale the hay, fertilize. I mean, you'll have to import the farmer, not have the local guy.

Well, there are guys in Summerfield who do that. I mean, I know a big hay producer there who owns 200 acres.

I'm just saying, you would have to import.

Maybe, yeah.

All right, that's the point. Oh, we're changing. Well, yeah, I mean, and the reason why I skipped over that policy is because I was lumping both of those together in terms of, like, how the analysis is going to help flesh both of those policies.

So there's no more money than we've got. We're not going to do anything in 10 years.

All right, so the, okay to move on? Yep. The third policy, additional active recreation uses at Heritage Farm Park, including tennis, football, and basketball, will be located. We're already underway on that. Council will complete the design of these facilities, as well as new parking lots to have on connections investigated. The phased implementation approach was a suggestion to add. We didn't really talk about that.

So I'm looking to all of council to make sure that's acceptable language. Let me read the last one. Investigate funding options. I would say investigate funding and And then I would say the possible option of a phased implementation.

Well, what about just saying investigate funding options? Because the whole point of a phased implementation is based on available funding. So one of the funding options is to fund it over a couple of years. Another funding option is to wait, hold our fire, and do it in X number of years. So I would just leave it there.

And I would say that the phased implementation approach for construction, it says exactly what you're saying, but it also puts a little bit of teeth to this that we are open to building whatever, whether it's this or some future thing. But in this case, we're talking about Heritage Mall Park, that we will build it in phases so that the citizens can have access to these amenities in a shorter period of time. But the thing about it is, if you don't have a phased approach, then you say, well, we're just going to sit here with our arms folded until build it all at one time, and in the meantime, prices grow up. We've already requested phased. I understand that, but the point being that if we have a phased approach, then we can build just a basketball court. And I'm just throwing these things out. We can build just a tennis court. We can build a tennis court a year. We can build a pickleball court a year. That's a phased approach. That's just another option for the town... A phased approach could be, you know, we're going to set aside this much money during the CIP for the next three years, and then we're going to build it all at one time. But that's phased because we're setting aside the money for it. The phased approach is, in my opinion, to keep us on task to do what we told the citizens we were going to do, and that is that we're going to build a sports pool.

including the option for phased implementation, which covers everything.

So we don't know what we're going to do until we get some costs in. I mean, the second...

But again, this is strategic. It's worth...

I don't know.

This is strategic, but I think I... Investigate funding for instruction of these courts. And... including the options for phase implementation. That's where I was. You look at the full thing, you're looking at phase. Equally.

investigate funding options for construction and consider a phased implementation. The option for a phased implementation.

Consider the option. I would just say and options

basically by saying the option for phase says, okay, the obvious thing is you do the full bonding, but then your suggestion is, but let's look at the option for phase implementation and we're investigating that with... Well, I just think that's another funding option.

I mean, I know you really want to push phase, We have already requested the numbers for phasing, so we're already doing that. I'm just saying.

Budget prices are different than actual hard bids.

Also, just a reminder that we know we're already doing it, but this is for the public to see, too, that that's a potential option that we're pursuing. Because they don't necessarily know or pay attention to it.

That's why I said including the option for phased implementation.

I'm just saying, if it's a million dollar, if they budgeted a million, it's now two million.

Oh, I see. Right.

It used to be that way. Yeah. They used to do their homework.

All right. All right. Continue to explore the long-term viability of farming. We open an undeveloped portion of Heritage Farm Park. Evaluate other uses, including natural areas, native wildflowers, community gardens, and agricultural tourism. This is just a carryover from the existing plan.

I guess that's also where, like, it'd be helpful for me to know, like... where exactly do we designate the farmed area? If there could be some sort of like boundaries on a map saying this is what we farm.

garden, that doesn't sound like a very big thing. All that acreage, is that going to be a community garden?

It's just not clear.

Just go up there on your way home, you can see where the farming is, because right now you've got hay bales. And you're not going to be able to plant any wildflowers out there in one of our farms. This is the explore.

Well, this is saying evaluate other uses, including...

Who's going to manage agricultural tourism in this town?

What is agricultural tourism? It's where you show people what's involved in agriculture. So you have to have a farmer or somebody out there say, hey, here's how you grow hay, here's how you nail it.

But have we ever had anybody request that?

You could have somebody that has a pumpkin farm or a petting zoo and lets kids come and

I don't know. I almost laughed at it when I saw the agricultural tourism. I don't think that we have the, we, the town, have the ability to manage and put on agricultural tourism programming.

Well, what if it was, I mean, right now we lease it for a dollar for hay. What if we leased it to someone that wanted to do something different and pay us? Mm-hmm.

It's an investigation.

It's a consideration.

It's part of considering... What?

Well, we don't know when we would ever do anything else.

That's why it's... To me, it's not... Yeah, this is aspirational future.

There were... My parents did several options a few years ago. They were still alive, such as a strawberry farm. They had a tulip farm. They had a sunflower farm. I understand that.

But we don't have anybody to do this right now. Someone else would have to do it. To me, that's a question.

It's evaluate. It's like the two figures. It's not real. Continue to explore and evaluate.

I think that's... I think it's clear. It may not happen. None of this stuff may happen, but some of it could.

If we don't do something, there'll be a... One of the groundskeepers is going to spend 40 hours a week mowing that field. Well, I mean, you know what I mean. So it'll be a lot more time and more equipment needed for us. We'll have to buy a couple more tractors. Yeah.

Yeah, and that's where, like, I think it ties into how you're talking about we don't know when or if it will happen. That's where we were saying, like, with the long-term infrastructure and maintenance, We don't know when or if that'll happen, but it's just long-term things to think about. And like you said, if we need a new tractor, then maybe we would need a new maintenance.

It's kind of all those things. Then we need to be working for all the agricultural tourism coming in here. Maybe a hotel.

Let's quit. It's fine.

I'm just being funny.

You're disrespecting agricultural tourism.

Well, if I ever see one out here, I'll let you know. When that happens.

All right.

The next policy. I'll apologize to you.

Future additional amenities noted in the comprehensive parks and rec master plan. I will clarify that. really what we're talking about is the survey results of the parks of the comprehensive parks and rec master plan because overview brought up these additional amenities when we were discussing this two weeks ago and this did not get fleshed out so i think this is one that um deserves some additional discussion well i think when it says zipline structure i think that means

So on the zip line, I went back and looked at the comp plan and looked at the pictures and everything. You see it in a lot of parks. There's a rail with two handles and you just kind of run along and you're that far off the ground. Kids are that far off the ground. They slide. They're in a lot of parks. It wasn't a physical zip line that's managed to go up in a tree and slide down.

Zip line isn't something. It was simply mentioned. I think it's similar to the Avengers in the air.

I just think we shouldn't, you know, Zipline was just something that was mentioned by some people. Volleyball pits have been mentioned. The top things that we collected data on were in the survey. And I think we already have said we're going to survey residents on new amenities needed. I think if we wanted to consider any one of these things from splash pads to, well, we're already doing fitness stations for, well, sort of. If we wanted to do any of these, we would probably at this point in 20, you know, basically 27 starting, we would do a new survey just as we say we will do earlier in this plan. I think this is kind of old news that just like things that were mentioned and things that didn't rise to the top the first time around. Those aren't the things we should be focusing on. We should then get new, fresh input. And we're already planning a whole new phase two that's not gonna be done until whatever time. So considering these other things, I think we would need a new survey and new feasibility because the feasibility we did back then showed, for instance, that splash packs weren't, and of course that encompasses a whole range of things, but because they only operate under a couple seasons, they have water needs, runoff needs, parking needs, we felt they weren't feasible. So if we were ever going to look at that, we would need a new survey

and to update our sort of understanding of their feasibility well and i agree that every amenity is going to require something to make it viable but the thing about it is the survey that we did before had things rank ordered by popularity and we skipped over a bunch of it you know the the town council at that time decided that this was more important than this and so if we do a survey and it's rank order and we're not doing it in rank order That's a decision to counsel, but the reality of it is doing another survey when we have a survey that says we've got people that were interested in this and we just skipped by it, I think ignores what people had asked for.

Well, I mean, we're doing jogging, walking trails, open space, natural areas. nature-based recreation, bicycle trails.

What is nature-based recreation?

Nature walks, wildlife observation areas.

So we're talking about trails. We're talking about trails. So trying to divide what you do while you're on a trail to make it look like we're adding amenities just doesn't make any sense to me.

Okay, well, it made sense to 45.65% of the people. Bicycle trails paved, that's a very difficult one. because it requires a lot of space or a lot of roadway space. So no, we didn't do that one. Tennis courts is currently in the works.

That isn't the result. These are the results. I'm just saying just based on the town response. Mike's saying that we skipped over the top.

Those are all included in the full results. of the survey. These were like open house things. So open houses don't matter? They're incorporated, I think, because people were encouraged. Everyone who came to the open house was encouraged to complete a survey. So you don't, like, you know, you come to the open house and then you complete a survey. We don't count you twice. The survey's what counts. And the survey included email and every other way we distributed the service. Is flash pad in that list? Yes. It came in at 26.32%. It was behind outdoor playground, tennis courts, bicycle trails, about even a little under picnic areas. I mean, in other words, we, this came out of this plan. I think we say explore additional amenities, which we've already said through, suggested through, what did we say? Continue to seek public input about parks and recreation through surveys and other outreach methods. And then we said investigate new park amenities, events, and programming in response to public input. That's 1.1.1 and 1.1.2. I think we've covered this.

We don't need to, and this is different survey, because this was on the Whitaker property and that's the comprehensive.

The only survey we did was with this.

We did one survey. Aren't these two things different, the Whitaker property master plan and the comprehensive?

The Whitaker property master plan sort of zeroes in on just the Whitaker property as after this. So this is where the survey was. Isn't that right, Bill? plans but they were done at the same time and it was one survey yeah i think that's right exactly i think okay yeah i think when you because the survey is in both of those plans it is but it's the same survey so you see the same page and then you see you know for each question there were the results and then this this one Anyway, it's the same survey, though. One survey was done.

It's been suggested that this policy has already been covered previously in the statement about 1.1.1 and 1.2.

I'm not saying I don't want to consider these things. I just think we've covered this. That's what I was suggesting.

I don't even know what we're talking about. It says it's the comprehensive parks and rec master plan adopted in 2020. If it's in there, then

But I don't wanna consider things that were just raised by somebody like Zipline. We don't have any data on Ziplines. I mean, a few people mentioned it in the open houses, but there was no data in the survey about it.

But to your point, We do things we don't necessarily do them because we can afford to do it or we have the wherewithal to do it. But the thing about it is it's it's a comprehensive plan.

So what can we just put down additional amenities maybe?

What if in 1.1.1 we said continue to seek public input about parks and recreation through surveys and other outreach methods including data gathered through or data included in the comprehensive master plan.

Yeah, I think that might even be better in 1.1.2 because that's where you're considering

Okay.

Okay.

What if we did that? It just seems like it belongs up there. Yeah, I agree.

So you're saying combine 1.2.5?

1.1.2, but leave out all the detail on the specific.

I don't even include the details. I mean, the number of people that have said, why aren't we considering these things that got.

So we're going to do a new survey at some point to update us.

citizens in the past. There's not a thing on this list that wasn't brought up by the citizens. So what are we arguing about?

Well, because some of these things we don't have any data on.

Okay.

And that's why I said explore them. But there are tons of other things that people have mentioned that we don't, we need, remember earlier we said we want substantive public input.

Yeah, I think the concern is people can get kind of survey fatigue if people get the impression that you're just doing these surveys and then really just doing what you want to do.

Our population has grown by about a thousand since 2019. A new survey is I mean, our population has changed. People have left, people have come. A 2019 survey that we've mostly implemented, I mean, really, we've addressed a lot of the stuff out of that survey. And you may not like it that we didn't do the splash pad, but there were really good reasons.

It's not just me. No, I know. I mean, if you look at this open house, and you said earlier when we talked about surveys that open houses were important too, these were open houses, 110 for adventure play area, 108 for splash pad, versus the next one down, 28 for basketball courts.

But we're trying to put it back with one event. That's where people can see those results and get disenfranchised to say, why am I bothering through the survey? Because all those people were given a survey.

Do what they want to do with these. All right. I don't think we're. And it's how much money we're going to put in the survey. We already spent so much money on this study that we're just going to say, well, let's just do a new survey. Maybe we'll get different results this time.

So that's why I'm saying include it up in 1.2.

You're saying don't recognize what people voted for. I think we should recognize it.

Well, I think we should try to summarize an entire comprehensive master plan by just picking and choosing things out there. I mean, we're not including that, the paved bike trails, all sorts of other things that people mentioned. And I don't think...

identify how it is would you look at how you how you move 1.1 1.2.5 they combined it yeah i think that's the easy part is do the council want the detail of four or five specific elements added into the policy that's in the plan or do you want to just say consider you know assess include the comprehensive plan and your assessment of new elements.

Well, I would survey results documented in our new plan.

So what if you just put survey in there and you don't list out the items? That's what I'm suggesting, the survey results.

I wish we'd list out, because even when I said, these results here that are in the poll, Ann said, well, that's not the survey that people got online. So you're dismissing the results of hundreds of voters.

They were all given surveys to fill out. I mean, but you can't, like, I don't know.

We're trying to build, of course, down in San Francisco. This is 10 years down the road.

That's where I was going. Let me ask you a question. that these things are listed in here at this point?

Well, not if it's not comprehensive.

But if it's comprehensive, you have to list what? Comprehensive parks and rec master plan, doc, 2027. And these things that are listed here are in the comprehensive parks and rec master plan.

No, they are just mentioned. There's no data on them. And there's a whole bunch of other things that we do have data on that aren't mentioned. I understand that. Does it hurt to have it in? I think it does because I think it's misleading to say, you know, that like we're going to consider zip lines, but we're not going to consider, you know, paved bicycle paths or where's that survey sheet? You know, some of these other things that actually got... To me, this...

1.2.5 references a specific master plan and time frame and it could be picked up. It's something in here. It's on the website, yeah. On the website to look at. I don't think it is strategy you need to list all that stuff at.

Well, then I'll need to list agricultural tourism and wildflowers and gardens.

Wildflowers, natural areas, wildflowers. Yeah, take that out there. But none of that stuff's listed either. You're either detailed or not.

This is where we... Part of what I'm saying... Part of what I'm saying is there's so much more detail in this fantastic document. I don't want to...

short change it by only listing a few things some of which there's no data on like zip lines volleyball pits if you if you want to go back to the top i would personally not that i'm deciding but i think uh you could you could say also about

Yeah, you could say and evaluate other uses.

That's fine. Past survey results listed these. Not meaning that we're going to do them. And that takes you out of it. It's just past. We will update this.

Part of the problem is past survey results listed all sorts of things. Did you have any input data on an agricultural...

Where did that come from? I can't imagine anybody putting that on the list.

Natural areas, native wildfires, community gardens.

I mean, it's the same thing. You either do it or don't do it. Take all of those other things out of the other stuff.

Let's say evaluate other uses for this. Let's get it on. And evaluate other uses. That's fine. And then you have your consistency.

I think the idea was there was a lot of brainstorming at the time. I'm just trying to explain it.

There was a lot of brainstorming at the time about what can we do with that open space?

We want to preserve it. What other things could we do? But that can all be done anew when the time comes.

We can't do anything until, I mean, we've got to rent it out for a dollar a year. I'll just point out, it's 1130. Yeah, 830.

Are we removing detailed references from policy 1.2.4 and from 1.2.5? I would do that. Yeah, we're going to move on with it.

Yeah. For leasing to recognize explore future additional amenities noted in the comprehensive parks and rec master plan. In the survey results included. I don't want to say survey. You're saying that this doesn't count as a survey. Because earlier in our discussion, you said, when I asked about surveys, you said, oh, open houses and yadda yadda.

That's my point.

So it's either it counts or it doesn't.

Okay, fine. I think you got that. We still have, it's 1130. It looks like some people may need a bio break. Right.

Okay, I'm sorry. Goal 1.3, the town will foster neighborhood recreational uses and connectivity through the private development process. And let me explain that. The reason why that language was in there from the beginning was that the idea was that when new neighborhoods are developed, there's open space or common area, and that's a privately provided recreational option for people in those neighborhoods. the private development process and then by exploring parks and open space opportunities outside the town core as they arise that's new language and by providing trail and sidewalking activities and then the first policies continue to dedicate public open space along you know it's funny though um hang on

Sidewalk connectivity, when you look at the village core guidelines. Wait, did we just lose Lindsay?

She was coughing.

Oh, I'm sorry.

She stepped out. I know, I know.

I was looking down and didn't even see it. I'll wait until she comes back in. I was just saying that one of the things that's mentioned in the Village Corps guidebook and the pedestrian plan is we don't just want providing trail and sidewalk connectivity from neighborhoods to parks and open space, but also to commercial areas. So I would just say

How about just take off from neighborhoods to open space?

And increasing trail and sidewalk connectivity.

Yeah, just connectivity.

Right.

Increasing trail and sidewalk connectivity. Because we don't want to say, oh, we only want it from neighborhoods to the parks. We also want it to our downtown. We want connectivity from one neighborhood to the other. Right? Yeah.

That's what our other documents say. That's true. I think it was called out this way because it was in the recreation section, and it was trying to link sidewalks and trails to the parks. But if trails are already covered under parks and rec anyway, then I see what you're saying.

Yeah, all trails relate to recreation, all of our trails. And I think we've been growing up on the... The trail issue, you know, as we get more trails, we have more idea of what they can do. But that's already in some of our, again, the pedestrian plan and in the village floor plan.

So I can remove that and just end it at connectivity.

And make it, instead of providing, say increasing trail and sidewalk connectivity. I guess providing is fine. Or improving. Improving, I like that. Improving or increasing.

Okay, hearing no objection. So to summarize, make sure that everybody's on the same page. The town will foster neighborhood recreational uses and connectivity through the private development process by exploring parks and open space opportunities outside the town core as they arise and by improving trail and sidewalk connectivity. Okay. Policy 1.3.1, continue to dedicate public open space along floodplains and trail corridors during subdivision development as

It seems like a no-brainer.

Working with the MST committee, the town will support development of the MST through Oak Ridge, as well as additional trails to connect neighborhoods. There we go. Connect neighborhoods with the town park and Heritage Farm Park.

And let me suggest on that, working with the MST committee, the town will support development of the MST and additional trails through Oak Ridge.

Yeah, and we could even say, what do you call it, local portions, that's not the right word, but local portions of the MST. We're not supporting the development of the MST writ large. And I think that's something, you know, we're not supporting the rest of the MST. We're the segments, the segments of the MST in Oak Ridge, as well as additional local trails. Because a lot of our trails aren't part of the MST. Most of them are, yeah. Well, a lot of them are. I mean, all the trails.

Yeah, the ones at Pemberley will not be.

Yeah. Carriage Cove, in the park. I don't think all of Cascades is in the MST. Only portions of it.

Just the through portion, yep.

Okay, so. And additional local trails. Yes. yeah and then we could stop yeah yeah connecting neighborhoods with the park and heritage farm park just take that part out so just say working with the mst community the town will support development of the mst and additional local trails through oak ridge yep period throughout oak ridge throughout it yeah 1.3.3 develop and adopt trail construction and location standards slash guidelines.

Yeah, I would say continue to follow best practices for trail construction.

It's not a best practice. We need a standard. Everybody that puts, when we put trails in, they need to be a certain width, certain setback. We can't have a four foot trail. We just can't.

We can add in their work with the MSD to develop at the top. And I would call it guidelines, not standards. I think it's really important that we are flexible You may not like a four-foot trail. I don't know where a four-foot trail, but there are certainly 10-foot trails that are very functional. Maybe not four-foot, but we need to be flexible to adapt to different locations.

Exceptions in the standards. You know, we could say exceptions may include da-da-da-da-da. But it's nice to have standards in the public.

there are lots of the trails are only yeah it's the easement that we need to be bigger and that would be part of the standards yes maybe and easement standards I like the word guideline better because I think it gives I mean we haven't developed them yet so they could end up being standards but I would call them guidelines I mean

I want to just use both standards slash guidelines. I mean, then you got both covered.

That's bad writing.

Okay, that's fine. I'm just saying that.

You could say standards or guidelines. A slash should be, it can mean and or or.

And do we want to add the language work with the MST committee? Yes. Work with the MST committee to develop... and adopt trail policies?

I would just say develop.

I mean, if you're going to develop a... It's just add to working with MST.

All right, got it. And then the last goal, continue to consider strategies to support access and connectivity from Oak Ridge to Bandera Barnes Park. Try to make it clear that we're not building trails in Summerfield. I think it's important that we have language about coordinating. Your work should have been only

Okay, you mean on the policy? No, you have staff comments. Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah. Then it all makes sense. Yep, gotcha.

And I would say support pedestrian connectivity or trail connectivity or I would just say pedestrian because it includes everything. It doesn't have to be a portion of, it might be a portion of the MST trail. I would take off the last sentence, trail side path and paved shoulders. I mean, I just think if we say pedestrian connectivity, it's all included and all of the options are on the table. 1.4.1, I would just take off the last sentence. Because if we just say support pedestrian connectivity within Oak Ridge's jurisdiction to Bandera, and coordinate with town of Summerfield. I think that's sufficient.

Well, evaluating options for, evaluate the options for connectivity I think is important.

Maybe you move that up. Evaluate options for pedestrian connectivity at the front of the sentence.

support yeah you mean yeah instead of supporting that's not because the thing that is in may may uh summerfield if they put a um a bike path or a a gravel shoulder that allows for biking and hiking and everything else along bunch road then you know that the connectivity would be there not well we want it down here so we've got to figure out how to manipulate them here here so but i think that that works if we just move that up and yeah that's good evaluate options for pedestrian connectivity within oak ridge's jurisdiction and then take off the last separate and just my brain, okay? But maybe this is the process that we have to go through is that we introduce the recreation section and we provide feedback to build staff and then they work with that and bring it back to us and then we hammer out all the details. Next, our next meeting, we'll do the same thing. We'll go through growth and development, hammer that out, give it to staff. It comes back the next month, we lock it down, and then we move on to the next. It'll take 10 months to get through it, but what's our hurry to get it right?

I really want to have this done by the end of the year.

Why?

What's the rush? Well, this is a single council of two years. And we're working with an outdated thing that we can accomplish in this county. I started with there back in December. So taking the full council to create an updated, to me, is preposterous.

Well, I agree. We need to move this forward. I do think that recreation is one of the bigger chunks to bite off, okay? So I'm not surprised that it's taken us two sessions. But growth and development, we may be able to knock out more easily. And what's the next one, Bill? Oh, infrastructure and preservation. Those may be easier than recreation.

Well, I know that when I looked at it in December, I can't remember which one, but at the end, there did not, to me, seem to be anything needed to be changed. A lot of the issues were in this one and probably infrastructure.

I think the important part of all this, though, is that we do the brainstorming about what needs to be, what's different now, what needs to be added, what are the new threats or weaknesses or opportunities and desires. So there, a lot of it may be about adding things.

It could be. And what I would suggest right now, if we still have some time, is... We've got two minutes. We've got ten minutes. It looks like there are just a couple of key sections that either need to be dropped or added to.

Well, I think there's some new things, some big things that need to be added.

Council would like to do the brainstorming exercise with this section. That's an hour.

Well, it could be shorter for this. Shorter than... Parks and recreation. I just think, I mean, just as a significant portion of our budget goes to parks and recreation, a significant part of our discussions have had to go to that.

This was a big accomplishment to get consensus on this recreation section today, I thought.

What if we try to do, to get through growth and development with consensus at our next, you know, we do the brainstorming, say 40 minutes, and then we go through it. It's shorter. And we try to hammer out consensus at the same time. But put it off, I mean, I think we're all kind of worn out.

Let me ask this. Would it be helpful, Bill, to you if prior to the meeting that you get, I mean, you see all of us, that you get a general feel ahead of time? I think we need to do it as a group. I think so too.

I mean, I need to hear, like, you know, you'll have this great conversation with Bill and I'll have a great conversation, but the whole point of the brainstorming and discussion is that we do it as a group.

I mean, do we all have additional ideas to add to it? Because I know I have a few additional things. The generals have additional items.

Yeah, but I think those should be brought out during the brainstorming.

Yeah, I was going to say, just kind of get a feel for how much.

I have one question for right now. I'd like everybody to think about it. How do I get this village filled? I would like to know where our village is. I'm in the village of Pinehurst. Where does our village at?

Have you read the village core guidelines?

Absolutely not. But I don't see we have a village here.

We're trying to make it.

Where are we going to make it at?

In our downtown area. The whole idea between the streetscape vision and that is to guide future development to make it more walkable, more green space.

I feel like a village is when you drive up to the building, like on 68 or Linville Road, you drive in front of shops and you go in there and you walk around. That's a village. But we don't have anything.

We're trying to build that. For instance, one of the main parts of the Village Corps guidelines is that big 30-acre property on Linville. we want that to be developed with green space and walkability. And so we're basically putting out the welcome mat to developers. Now, the big problem that we have is we don't have water yet and sewer and wastewater. But we're planning ahead. We're not going to have sewer and wastewater. We're not going to have sewer and wastewater. Well, not for a very long time. But we're putting in, look at what we're already doing, we're putting in sidewalks going down that whole portion of 68. That's huge. And then the streetscape talks about how you make that sort of more nice-ish, you know, with benches and planters and streetlights.

Sexy word, I think. What? It looks like a sexy term. Village.

my my view is just a little bit different okay the thing about it is we can't tell a developer if they bought that property what we want in there and and enforce that oh we we can yeah that's one of the goals is to adopt the village core overlay okay but but that's my point is if If Brock bought that property today and decided he wanted to put a drive-in movie theater and that fit within our current zoning, that's what we'd do. We couldn't tell him, no, no, no, it's got to look like this. He has to ask for rezoning. We have a lot more.

I understand. You understand my point.

It is that the building core thing, it just, if we were building a town today, it would make sense. big we're we this town was developed on a crossroad between here and martinville and that's the core i don't think that you're going to convince phil to tear down oak bridge commons and build a village you know i'm not trying to be funny or not i just don't see the village

I think the idea is to make it more village-like. And even the commons, you know, it was originally designed to have more walkways across it. And he's talked about making that happen. Because, you know, it probably needs to be updated. So if you had walkways, better walkways across the parking lot, now we've got sidewalks. You know, you could go to Rio and then you could head over on the crosswalk and go over to... You know, the place where you get the portly palm, you know, for dessert or something. There's all sorts of options.

I think it's baby steps. I think it's a little bit of time because I think people would have said we would never have sidewalks in Oak Ridge because it's a farming community and everyone drives a car.

Well, that's why I'm glad Mike brought that up is because it was one of the things, the growth and development is, you know, it's a short section.

But I think there's a lot of conversation that's going to go on about this. And, you know, from my understanding, the property is under contract right now. I don't know if you know that. Is it? Brock's had conversations with him. I've talked to Brock. I mean, another developer, tell me.

Sean.

But a developer. The reason I found out was because the biggest developer. Let's get an update on that at our next meeting.

I close the update on the workshop. Do we have any public comments? All right, since we have no public comments