Public - workshop

awesome thanks for coming today to the parks recreation advisory committee report uh it's 4 30 and we're going to get started i'm going to pass it over to city manager jonathan hayes

Awesome. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, commissioners. Good evening, everyone. Those in the room. May. Okay. Joining us in the room here at City Hall and also those joining us online. Back in May, the Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee presented its report to the commission meeting. And at that meeting, the commission. requested that sometime in the next couple of months that we would dedicate a workshop in person to talk through that report and kind of get down in the weeds a little bit more on that. that we wouldn't really take over an entire commission meeting doing that. And so, Mr. Mayor, commissioners, that is the purpose of this evening's workshop. We will have Mr. Keith Myrill will kind of just run through some of the highlights again real quick of the of the work of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee. as well as we have Mr. Ethan Brown here, who was the chairman of that citizens committee that did all of that work. And then again, at that point, we'll be able to answer any questions y'all have, but there are some pretty specific and direct recommendations in this report. So I'll turn it over to Mr. Myrill.

Thank you, Mr. Hayes. I'm going to go through the report again just as a summary of what we presented back in May, May the 12th, and then be glad to answer any questions that you might have. In addition to the PowerPoint is kind of the Word document report that was presented by the committee as well. So I'm going to go through the PowerPoint, and then we'll answer any questions. So back in June of 2025, so it's been about a year, members were appointed. They were tasked with designing designated premier parks, suggestions for park realignment, and suggestions for park consolidation. The actions that the committee performed, they did some surveys. So 394 surveys were completed during a period of January 5th through March 4th, 2026. A number of the parks that were the most highly participated were the parks listed there. What we did, we put real estate signs at parks with QR codes to engage the community in asking those questions that are more relevant deeply seen in this report. Members also visited parks in their respective wards. We held public meetings in each ward, and then we conducted that park-specific survey. This is just a little bit of history just of what the park facility and parks makeup is. And we talked about this last week, kind of deja vu. I'm sitting here a week after we had our budget presentation. We have 53 parks, 53 total sites under the PCR care. We have 38 parks, seven community recreation centers. three cemeteries, two marinas, and three specialty facilities. Of those 38 parks, 25 of them have some restrictions that may affect the ability to divest those. Deed restrictions, grant restrictions, wetland or waterfront locations as referenced in the city comprehensive plan. And we did compare our park makeup compared to NRPA standards. This gives you just a little comparison of total parks and that's the median for cities of the 20,000 to 50,000 range total parks for city our size of 16 we have 38 we provide more smaller parks and pocket parks rather than larger regional parks total acreage of parkland 368 is the median in park cities our size. We have about 240 acres. So it's a little bit, you know, might have less parks or more parks, but less acreage. Playgrounds, and this is the amenities that we have, playgrounds, courts, and all the others that you can kind of see there as it relates to cities our size throughout the country as compared through NRPA, the National Recreation Parks Association. And some of the recommendations that PRAC came up with was the implementation of an adopt-a-park program, which we have already done, to assist with regular maintenance, beautification, and community engagement. We have three parks that we have adopt-a-park programs already. We'll continue to... Promote that and engage folks for that program. Explore sponsorships and investment at 11 parks. Consider realignment or divestment of six parks. And seek public-private partnership at one of the parks. And the next slides, these are going to be the specific park recommendations. Lanny Row Park, which is across from Miriam Cherry Street Elementary. It's a watershed stormwater property. It has boardwalks that were damaged by and removed during Hurricane Michael. It is a drainage site for public works. There are a couple of areas that we maintain as park areas, and the recommendation was to – retain some of that park land for parks and recreation and continue to operate them as parks, but then have public works do more of the maintenance on those areas that are more of the storm drains.

Don't we have that engineered and drawn to renew that whole park? Has it been done already?

That is correct. We do have it engineered for the stormwater component only and then maybe some minimal upgrades to make it look just more aesthetically pleasing.

There's not one with the boardwalk in it?

No? No, sir. I think there was like a sidewalk around it with maybe some benches and then like a nice fountain. Okay.

Okay. And then Ken Hammond's walking park, uh, also a watershed stormwater property, uh, needs some repairs. Foot bridges need to be replaced. Uh, some asphalt pathing needs to be resurfaced. Um, if, if repairs are not imminent, the committee recommended to transfer the east upland to housing potentially to, um, go along with the city-owned parcel that is to the east of the property, and then transfer the western property to Public Works as an estuary drainage portion. Whittington Park, it's a DOT right-of-way. The recommendation of the committee is to divest that back to FDOT. Remove the maintenance burden on the city.

Are they going to take care of it? Because it actually looks good when you're going across the bridge and it's nice and cut and all that. And if we put it on them...

I think those are the questions that need to be asked and answered.

Do they pay us to cut it?

No, sir. We maintain that property. I can tell you right now it has been maintained by CRA. Parks and Recreation will begin taking that over this month. So that's going to be another property that Parks and Recreation will begin to maintain this month.

What are you guys' analysis as you guys look at the moment? did you guys looked at the multi-year contracts that have been agreed to on these? Yes. Okay. So that it is at the point where we could transfer it back, even though they just put $500,000 into, um, I think that's a question.

I mean, FDOT might, not those conversations hadn't, they haven't had that.

Correct. Yeah. So when we take the grant money, we agree to a multi-year maintenance agreement. And so we did, that just happened. That's why it looks so good. Yeah. Yeah. So it's not that it can't happen. It's just about when it could happen.

Yeah. Main street kayak launch. Um, It includes two small city partials, and it's adjacent to a commercial dock. The committee feels that it's hazardous, a hazardous location for kayak access. They divest that, potentially to sell that to one of the commercial activities to either side and divest that from the city responsibility.

Is there actually a kayak launch there?

No. Well, this is at Millville Waterfront Park. No. No? You know where the center is? You're right. There is not one. Even at Millville Park, it's kind of gone because the boaters and the guys that live on the boats are taking it over. Okay.

In this one, it's more you would put your kayak on a little small wagon. You'd take it down there. So you'd just launch from the shore. You have Craft Field over in Millville. That's two blocks from Daffodil Park, surrounded by residential housing. Don't have a lot of on-street parking. Currently, there are several teams that use the field. CM Harris could be developed and used as an alternative. There's a lot of parking there with the churches. We could... reach an agreement with them to potentially use cm harris as an alternative to craftfield and then use daffin i mean use craftfield sell that to hud or give that to hood and sell that for affordable housing that would be the recommendation of the committee was that idea discussed with any neighbors

Not specifically with the neighbors, but Shamika Arnold, who is our city at large committee member, who has kids who are playing in the leagues there, was one of the reasons why we made this recommendation.

Well, the reason I ask is there were some neighbor complaints about the food forest. Food forest? Yes. That was there for a little while. At Sea and Harris? Yeah, after the hurricane. Okay.

And then the next one is Carl Gray Park. It's used as a regional park and boat ramp. Annual cost of that park for dredging is about $60,000 to $100,000. Mowing is about $650 a week. So pretty good amount of resources go into that park. It definitely has high use, high property value. property appraisers 7.5 million considerations could be to revert it back to the state or to divest it to the county for continued public through through through the county. If the city rate retains, we should consider charging for a boat ramp and or beach access by the public or commercial operators. I think we have some Yes, sir.

I'm a boat launch. We're the only city on the Gulf Coast and I charge for from here to the other side of Alabama. So I'm with you on that. Not to get to the beach, though.

And the caveat is for non-city residents.

Exactly. Non-city, but in Bay County, have an annual fee. Non-county or out-of-state have that fee and then have a daily rate. And they're using, there's a system now where you can, it's a license plate reader of sorts, and it'll just charge you as you move in so you know who's in and who's out.

Those are the specific properties that the committee made recommendations for. There were some other key points and findings, which we discussed in the meeting last time as well.

So why Carl Green Park? Why pick that?

It's a, it's a regional park. And so there's people from Lynn Haven that use it. There's people from the beach that use it. There's people, um, is I would venture to say that more people from non city of Panama city use it than city of Panama city residents.

Okay. But if you're going to, if you're going to have a launch fee based under that premise, that's going to be, that's going to be a profitable boat ramp.

We can speculate, but it might be $200 a month in cost or more than that. I mean, we have no idea. I mean, we'll bring money in, but we'll cover the cost. Yeah.

I went down to Snug Harbor both days, and we were charging $20 a day only, and then a little $1,500, something like that. And that's money that goes straight back into boat ramp maintenance. Mm-hmm. And we won't have to go through this exercise of getting grants in here.

Yeah, I think there's been plenty of commission discussion about boat ramps and charging for boat ramps for a year and a half. And I imagine whoever, what we don't want to do is stand up a policy that actually brings money in but costs us more money to regulate it than it does bring it in. So I'd be curious how these systems, do they put something out there that counts the boats and gives us an estimate or something or how they proceed? I agree.

It's been since we had our, um, meetings with the captains a few months ago. Um, I've received several texts and calls of people, um, doing commercial activity, uh, down at that particular boat ramp. And I've gone down there to, you know, see if I could catch them or find them and see what the, see what's up. And, you know, some say, no, I'm just here with a bunch of buddies. And, you know, so I'm out there harassing regular citizens just out, you know, that sort of thing. Uh, but there has been, there's been there, there was an airboat, um, There was one jet ski operator that we said, you know, you can't operate out of here. So it's a little bit of a both. But it's more used for recreational boating than I think the captains would argue that it is for the commercial. And we have posted signs there and at Snug that no commercial activity is permitted in those locations.

I would love to see the next step on whether those companies proceed with... their partnerships with us. I'd be interested in hearing that related to boat ramps. On this list, I don't see what the park is called. It's often moats. I don't see moats. That's unencumbered from my understanding.

I'll let Ethan maybe speak to that. But we did discuss moats at length. And there was kind of that What do we do with moats? There are maintenance needs there. We've got the three volleyball courts. The playground is either needing either repair or replacement. So what do we do with moats? And we talked about either divesting it, using it similar for affordable housing or other use, or to improve it with CRA funds. So that's the option that we kind of went with. There's the apartment complex that's nearby. It is in walking distance for a neighborhood. And the idea from the committee was to keep moats and make improvements to it. So that was the recommendation of the committee. But there was a lot of discussion around moats.

Yeah. There was even, I mean, down, I think, was that 19th Street? uh there's probably the sweet bay yeah sweet bay part two that you know so we have another park a quarter mile away um and that and i mean i don't think a lot of these parks even landing rain is an example of of you don't have to sell off a whole park you can actually use part of the park for a partnership and i'm interested i think you know granger mentioned it previously about Is there a way to lease property, like a hundred year lease that creates a flywheel of investment for that, the parks department? So, you know, are there parks that we can't like moats being like, Hey, can we have someone build something there? They lease us the lease, the property from us for a hundred years. And that funds the park system to can you give us a revenue source? I mean, Crafield's another great example of maybe we retain a portion of it, right? Or maybe the developer comes in and builds a park and they maintain it for the neighborhood. So there's a lot of different paths we could take.

So you've talked about what to get rid of. How many people have signed up for a doctor park?

We have three so far.

What are those?

We have the park in the Cove. We have Henry Davis Park.

That's in the Bunkers Cove?

No, Henry Davis across from MLK Boulevard.

You're talking about Harry Edwards Park?

Harry Edwards Park is the one at the Cove.

You're sure it's that one and not Cove Lane?

Oh, it is. It is cove laid Johnny. Yes.

So, so, so every day was what was the third and bay memorial.

We have an individual that's doing some invasive vine removal at bay memorial.

Okay. So how are we going to thought there would have been more? How are we paying for keeping these going? If we've got us who's hurting already and three people, when you say three people, That's three parks with people that have volunteered? Correct. Okay.

Three parks with volunteers that are helping.

And so that's maintenance volunteering?

Maintenance volunteers, yes.

Okay. Do we know what it costs us about to take care of one park in a year for fertilization, water, and all that?

Sir, we'd like to pass these down. We have that information right here. Awesome. This was an analysis that we did with this particular project in mind, but also for budget. And you could see the metrics there of how much it costs us to maintain these parks in-house.

What's Amerigas?

It's a park? That's the old TECO kind of plant that was over there, natural gas over there by the, sorry, Millville Wastewater Treatment Plant.

Oh, gotcha.

They used to have all those big above-ground tanks on it.

We wouldn't think it was a park, but it's under the park's budget.

Right, yeah.

These are just the park properties. These do not include the CRA areas that we maintain as well.

When we're looking at these monthly costs, is this like... based upon your internal man hours? Is it outsourcing? It's great.

This is internal man hours using internal forces and the cost per the crews as associated with the number of employees there.

Hammond's Park, that's Ken Hammond's Park, which is the... Behind the old Kmart. Wow, that's one of the more expensive parks.

And it needs a lot of TLC, it does.

That one takes a while to cut because of the way it was designed, the slope, you know, the size of the part.

We know when it's flat mowers, they used to use them on the mountain at Shipwreck, just slide it across the ground. So when you're calculating the cost of an employee, how you use what are you using in that cost hourly rate plus benefits plus all of that it's the fully loaded it's um hourly rate plus their benefit cost greenwood cemetery is 41 000 a year that one really the gift that keeps on giving wow wow that's the most expensive one Why is that? City halls.

It is a lot of hand-cut fence.

Keith, does Carl Gray include the dredging? Does not. Okay.

This is just landscape maintenance.

Do we have a dredge? No? Do we not model it?

The county had one for a hot minute, and they divested themselves of it. We would use it. We would reimburse for costs for small projects, and this was one of them, but that didn't last long.

What led to the divestment?

I'd have to go back and ask. I think it was becoming too expensive to operate.

I'm curious. In your mind, top five, you've got something to get rid of. All of them were in the top, say, top three or five that you would say, these are the best ones because of whenever the reef is.

First one I would divest of is Carl Gray. From a percentage standpoint, it's the least utilized by city residents, and the city residents carry the cost.

Okay. Now, we just replaced the boat ramp over there, and that came on. I'm assuming grant money or something like that.

So we would have to do we have to hold like $4 million on that part.

Right? That's one reason why I'm watching.

But so I guess my question is, like, have there been any discussions on even knowing if that's possible?

So fundamentally on a volunteer board, that's not necessarily our role. Okay. Because we don't have the legal authority to ask those questions.

Right. What I would suggest. But Mr. Zimmerman's team was embedded in that process. Okay. Legal. What was the thought?

We just have to look at whether the grant agreements allow it and if there's any need restrictions. I mean, that's the only restrictions you have on requesting a property.

So we don't know. No, no.

Until we're given direction, because that would take a lot more research. So until we're given direction to do that, it wasn't done that since this was just a recommended board. You know, the board put together recommendations and then you guys could tell us which way you want to go.

I think two things. One, a realistic approach would be looking at launch fees and seeing what actually would be coming of that to know if that would help offset whatever cost is being incurred there.

Anything's better than what we have now.

unless it costs more because there's not enough parking spaces like that's the that's the the there's not a ton of parking over there most of it's at the college so i don't know what you would even be able to charge for there maybe there's a bit there's not i don't know the answer the question but i mean what i could be supportive of is making a request or a legislative delegation and asking would this be considered for a state park it is as nice as any of the state parks in the state and so that may be I mean FDOT is not going to take it back they don't have a parks budget they're not like they would they would just simply say no but you know would the state do it as a

as a state park maybe did the colleges take it sure they would well yeah because they get parking and then yeah they would park parking when they're not in session so but i don't know that that's what's best for the community though either so with the parking agreement you know like hey you can't close out the parking so i'll tell you a story about you can't there's nothing did you all remember back a long time ago you just have a hole on the right side of the ramp

And I was back in now, my Lincoln Navigator with the trailer on it. My ex-wife was sitting out in the water watching. And I fell off the ramp, the trailer net, and it pulled the back side of my car net and just flooded the back of my Navigator all through the back window. People were coming from over the bridge to come take pictures. A lot of fun days. So I'm intimately all on, that's right, all on Carl Gray.

Maybe if there's a way to do it in such a way that launch fees and a vendor agreement or something like that would cover our costs, that would probably be my number one preference. Next would be requesting the state to look at, would they take it as a state park? I mean, I might even put that on the table.

So if I'm going to vote, I jump over the bridge, put that in, pay a launch fee. So it may be staying out there, and we're picking them up on the launch out of there. That might offset some of that.

As long as our residents are free. Exactly, yeah. There's not going to be any kind of pushback on that. I do know that maybe we need to have some dialogue with the college and see if they're willing to, you know, I mean, I'm sure that they would want to be able to build something someplace on it if we did that. So, I mean, that is just at some point, regardless of whether they had a plan to or not. But anyway.

I know this isn't open to public audience participation. Do you intend to see what Filcher did several years ago in the college? Not only did he say no, he said hell no.

To the college I requested it at some point.

They wanted to purchase that, and he was very adamant and stopped it. I don't remember all the particulars, but you might want to check that.

And we don't really need to budget for St. Andrews right now. Since it's now, we have a partner now, and they're taking care of all that. Right? You've got marinas in here that you don't take care of. And we don't know. We might not have to worry about downtown. We don't know. And there's a place that could maybe come off your to-do list. Those aren't parks.

One of the things I do want to understand, Keith, in your analysis. So, like, I know what we pay from the CRA for parks and rec to maintain the parcels. it doesn't add up to this so what are those other expenses and you know are you guys actually going to shoot yourselves in the foot transferring that money back because it doesn't look like it cost you that much to maintain whittington i mean whittington is

What am I missing?

This is just man hours.

This is Whittington prior to us taking it on. So when we actually are going to be taking care of Whittington, that number will escalate because we haven't taken over Whittington. We don't take over Whittington until this month. It's been on CRA maintenance at this point. So what did we pay you guys for? For Whittington? Yeah. You're paying us for, currently you're paying us for all the right-of-ways, but Whittington has been under contract.

CRA's contract with a private company.

Correct. Yeah, but that's covered by something. You guys came to us and you asked us for X amount of dollars from CRA to go towards maintenance. My question is, if you're only spending $1,700, where's the rest of the maintenance dollars going to?

Right. I'd need to look at the maintenance agreement, what the scope says. But if they were doing an improvement project and redoing everything, sometimes with those FDOT grants, it comes with a year of maintenance as well. So I just need to look at that document.

They typically do come with a year of maintenance. But I guess you're telling me that Whittington is a lot more than this number.

Will become. Yes.

It'll be closer to the eighth.

Now, they have done some pretty innovative things at that park. They've planted perennial peanut, which only needs cut twice a year, maybe once a year. And so they've installed lower maintenance vegetation. So hopefully that'll help.

So the numbers here for Whittington Park are from where?

This is just our basic care. This is because the Whittington Park.

So is this an estimate or an actual?

This is what we have spent on Whittington Park. Okay. Up to that. Okay. But come July 1st, it will become an active part of parks maintenance. 39 mows a year type of maintenance, which will be much more than what this number is.

But didn't he just say it doesn't have to be cut 39 times a year?

It's not entirely covered by . There's a lot more grass. There's a lot more grass.

So on your report under herbicide and fertilizer, you give the acreage but not the cost. We don't have a material cost in here. So this is just the cost of man hours and assuming nothing breaks, right?

Correct.

Where is the Main Street kayak launch on this sheet? Okay, so to me we have a couple easier ones to discuss, which is the Second Street property. That to me is a pretty easy one. I didn't hear anyone fighting for this one right here on the sheet. Oh, yeah. It sounds like potentially that could come to us to sell and potentially maybe even the people next door might want to buy it. That seems like a pretty easy one. Yeah, I agree.

I don't think anybody's using that.

Yeah, I don't think anyone knows it's city property, actually. I'm sorry, which one are you referring to? That would be Main Street. This one right here. The kayak park.

Early on in this process, it was kind of, correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Chairman, it was when the team went out there and looked at it, it was kind of gated off and overgrown, and it really didn't look accessible.

It's not gated off, but you would have to make a very intentional effort to get to the water from the grass. Because it's a zero-turn mower that's going in, and it stops where the zero-turn doesn't get stuck. But the main reason why we had made this recommendation is you have how many decades of who knows what is in the water? And so that is a tremendous liability to the city of Panama City. If somebody were to launch a kayak at a kayak launch and then their foot ends up with something that wasn't supposed to be in their foot. And so so we would you know, if it were just my decision, I would offer it to the two properties adjacent and whoever's willing to pay the most money for it.

and then uh craft fields one if we're going to keep that as a park there's no parking at it and so whenever we've had practices there the road rattlers were all over the neighborhood and all over the roads and so that one can be problematic i i would be interested in doing something with that As long as the money was kept in that neighborhood, like some sort of lease, long-term lease to keep that money in that neighborhood for the parks that are existing there. And maybe that's shared between Daffin Park and the Millville Waterfront Park. Those are two amazing parks, all within about half a mile of each other. But this one, we stopped using it as the Rattlers because Daffin Park is so much better. It's not that this is not a decent field. It's just there's no place to park. And it's getting lights. Yeah, that's true. We get lights at Daffin Park. So that's another one. I'd love to see, me personally, if there was a way that someone could come in and build a small playground for the neighborhood. It would be kind of cool if they kind of kept a corner as an amenity. And that was defined in our agreement with them. That would be interesting. The other park in here, a lot of paper, a lot of paper. The Laney Row Park, I get that we could probably keep that. That would be the northern side of it. We could keep that in the Parks Department, or we could look at P3ing that and having someone, again, lease those spaces. They're going to fit a natural sort of watershed, become a pretty back view, and it would be another way to fund other parks in that neighborhood.

Which one was that, Mr. Mayor?

Laney Row Park. Laney Row? Okay.

I mean, check to make sure that Landy Row doesn't have a reverter clause. The women's club does.

I think I told them this document.

And I thought it was that. But what it is, it was designed to be a water. It's in the bottom of Four Hills. Yeah. And we have to remember that when we think about parks and water, across these countries, people pay millions of dollars to look at a park with a park. up and this can be pretty clean it up and now it's something people go hang out now and it's not that hard I don't know how you sell or you work on partnership on that the work is on the front side yeah and there's there's some you know the south corner here there is some dirt that could be but my point would be

having a plan for the area and a mechanism to fund other things on it. Because maybe they want, I think there was a gazebo here on the south side.

It was kind of in the middle. That path walked through kind of the center. There was a gazebo in the middle.

Yeah, we might find some sort of partnership where someone's like, hey, the deal is they get the land, they maintain a park for us or something.

Do you see the creek at the bottom there? That goes under the road and it comes out where John Bozarth built his house right there, and it makes an island right there. There's a depth problem out there. So we want to make sure that we have to keep that. Oh, we need our watersheds.

We flood them to go, what are we flooding? Because we got rid of all the watersheds. So I totally agree with that one. What else on here? Ken Hammons, to me, what I worry about is two things. I think that lot over here, we should be talking about what we should do with it. But then two, that park, I've driven past it a million times. I've seen two cars there ever, and we spend a lot of money with what's there now. And so, to me, we should be not discussing how we put back what's there now, which is not attracting a lot of people, seemingly, based on my very limited data, because it is one of our most expensive parks. But what can we do low cost that still provides amenity for the neighborhood? And that's also a watershed, too, that we don't want to CLL. So we have a lot of watersheds we need to take care of.

I can tell you that the number one amenity that Ken Hammond's park offers the neighborhood is the sidewalk connecting. Yeah. Uh, whatever street this is to Liz and B that's the number one thing that is used with Ken Hammonds. Uh, everything else is just there.

Yeah, you know, there are groups of people here. I mean, Walking Park's great. There are people that want to do pump tracks for bicycles and skateboards, and so they're looking for topography like that where it kind of goes up and down. We used to roller skate at the Garden Club and get in trouble for it when I was a kid, but that was in the 90s. No photo evidence of me on rollerblades. but yeah i'd like to see what i worry about is us building a park that isn't used as much so i'd be interested in what items in there cost us this much money and how can we stop doing that whether that's hey we don't know as much we throw down some sort of natural grass but um the dollars don't meet the value probably from the neighborhood or the greater neighborhood for that particular part because it is a lot of money i'm not saying get rid of it i'm saying find a low-cost method to keep going

I know we briefly spoke about Cove Lane Park and Harry Edwards Park, but I know, and some of you may be familiar with this, but over in its technically unincorporated Bay County, but in the Kings Point area, you've got Kings Drive that comes off Kings Road, and at the very end of it, it's very similar to what you have at the end of cove lane and cove terrace where you've kind of got a loop down there and there's a big common area with a bunch of trees and all of the neighbors in and around that kind of own it and so they have the responsibility to maintain it so where is that 27 27 to king's road No, Kings Drive.

Oh, it's now where here in Anderson, okay.

Yeah, so it's basically you've got, you know, it's basically a loop that goes, and there's a couple of middle roads on it. But at the very end of the loop, so, you know, you kind of just like Queen Circle. It's more like a circle, but they call it Kings Drive. At the very end, there's a very large common area, and they all kind of own it. So, I mean, that's just a thought you could do with Cove Lane as well, so.

So give it to the neighborhood for them to maintain?

Well, they would, they would purchase from the city and then it would kind of become theirs as a community park.

So, so now at the end of code, at the end of Bunker's Cove, Joe Rowan, he went and they worked on the sprinkler system and then they got it and it was there. And then the city paid for the grass and Joe and his kids in the city, they all laid in the sod and then he cut the grass for the first six months. um and then calling up massive if new keith could help take take over cutting but that was citizen driven got none and it absolutely changed everything and people use it all the time which one is that the one in uh uh i mean we can always that's harry that's harry i mean the ken hammond's park we there's a parcel next door part of that deal could be hey you're going to get this property for something and you got to maintain this you got to build what mr mayor i mean so

Looking at this Ken Hammett's park, Elizabeth, part of the deal we have with whoever wants to purchase or lease the land next door to it, which is a city-owned piece of property that is buildable, could be, hey, you have to do X, Y, and Z in our park system on this schedule to reduce our burden. And have them take care of Greenwood Cemetery. Yeah, right. I mean, it could be a thing. We could do that. Just write down the rates. When you sell something, you get the one time. I mean, what Brian said, you sell something, you get money for one time, and then you have a perpetual funding mechanism.

So I want to come back. I'm supportive of these cost-saving measures and looking at Lanny Rowe, Ken Hammons, all of these things from the recommendation piece. But what I'm surprised by is $371,000. That's all we're spending on maintenance.

just on the, that would just be on, like, man hours. Landscape maintenance costs, yeah. So that doesn't include, like, equipment and seed and the water bill. That's what I'd like to know.

To me, like, when I look at that, I'm like, well, that's less than 10% of your overall parks budget. So that seems to me like, what am I solving?

The one column, so you have the one column, fifth one over toward us in the middle, it says the monthly minimum. So We know that we're mowing these parks more frequently than what's listed here, so it's two times a month. We know we're mowing Henry Davis Park more than two times a month. We're mowing that right now. four times a month so gotcha it's that's the minimum number of modes that we would need so these aren't actual costs these are bare minimums bare minimums now now you're saying like is this what you've done so far this year though this is what no no this is what a minimum this is the minimum amount it would cost us to maintain these parks based on the number is this what i'm approving in budget no sir what did i approve in budget hopefully more

I'm talking about just this last year. How many times did I approve cutting these grasses? Is it this or is there more?

It's more. This is the minimum. They're different than, I mean, this was prepared for the Pratt committee.

Let me just be blunt to my question because I've never accused of being blunt. If I'm going to go out and there's going to be people that are upset about something, getting rid of a park, those kind of things, like less than 10% of a budget going to maintenance and having to upset citizens and things like that, that seems unreasonable a request. Now, I will say based upon this, do I think it's enough to cut the grass in a park twice a year? No, I don't. There's no way. You'd get complaints continuously. So I think having an actual... representation of what the cost is rather than the minimum cost.

This is kind of like a shuttered approach. This is like, hey. It's monthly, though, not yearly, Mr. Commissioner. You just said yearly. I think you meant monthly. You meant monthly. Yeah.

I'd like to have actuals.

Okay. Am I reading it wrong?

It says yearly cost $371,000.

Minimum monthly maintenance and then monthly cost. So $30,000 a month. Okay, you just said cutting it twice a year. I just want to be – we're not cutting anything twice a year. Sort of cutting it twice a month. I got what you're saying. That's what I'm trying to clarify. Yes, sir. And I think the question – this question came up in my understanding, and I think what you're asking is a fair question, but also it was like what is the absolute minimum that we could do, you know, if we absolutely did not want to get rid of a park, what's the absolute minimum that we could do to kind of maintain it? That question was asked as well. Two times a month, yes, that would be – It's not ideal, but it is manageable. Yeah, okay. But I think the other side of the question is fair to be answered as well. I'm sure they have it. They just need to get it into a very similar format.

Let's include materials, too, please. What does it really cost to operate in this one park? Because for me, it makes it easier to explain to somebody, okay, here's a minimum, but here's what it really costs. Tell me how we're going to connect those dots. And until you put real numbers in front of somebody, all they do is just have a theory. And then we can talk about the real numbers. But I'd like to see that, please. Yes, sir.

I can do that. I will say that this... was not meant to be an extension of the parks budget presentation. This was more of the prac committee report. And this was, this was, uh, developed for that, for that purpose.

So if I add a, if we took every single recommendation from the parks committee and I laid overlay what I'm having trouble with, if we took every single recommendation, I see maybe $50,000 in savings. I think it's what's outlined for the year.

The downside of deed restriction. Yes.

So, I mean.

Well, no, if we take their recommendation on Carl Gray Park, the minimum is, what, $8,478. So there's eight. Yeah. To your point, it's not a lot, but it's more than 50. That's. The question I have is the Quad Old City Hall, is that on the marina? That little square, little patch of grass? Why don't we ask our neighbor, St. Joe, when they do their lawn, they just, you know, throw that in there?

Yeah, we call that Civic Plaza. Richard Simpson on the marina mm-hmm yeah I don't know it was called because it used to be in between City Hall and the in the Civic Center so it was called Civic Plaza is what I've heard oh that area yes ma'am okay like with the oval kind of weird oval yes okay so it's it's it's not the t-dot actually I think that's gonna go away when they open up when you come in take all that out

But the green spot that you're talking about. Yeah. Yeah.

Okay. I would like to add to Commissioner Street. I think this drives the point home on this list. Like this doesn't include like hiring a contractor to aerate athletics fields. It doesn't include, you know, a lot of those other maintenance items. And Keith's department does rely heavily on contract labor as well.

I know there's at least one person that's upset about our investment into the Oakland Terrace tennis courts of $900. There is. There's one person.

Hopefully that it's insufficient.

I would also like to get a list of all the parks that are, do we have all the ones that are non-unencumbered or encumbered? Unencumbered? Unencumbered. That's the word I'm looking for. Do we have a list of all the parks that are unencumbered?

That would be the 13 they referenced?

That's it. I think what you're looking at is the same thing. So if you look at these two tabs, the first X is whether it's waterfront. The second X is whether it's got a deep restriction. If it does not have an X, then it is not.

So the R column is restricted?

If it has an X, then it's restricted on the second X column. Yes. Yeah. Yes. The R column. Yes. Yeah. So one of the things that we've talked about considerably is the stormwater utility and some of these spaces. I mean, that's been a huge win is what we did at Hintz. Not only is the community loving using it, but it also has eliminated flooding in the neighborhood. So I don't know if there's some, like I think about moats, like, could we be selling stormwater credits on it as a mechanism? And then you've got a walking path around it. Can you land it in a row? That could be another one as a point.

Well, stormwater, especially if you're going to do DOT near investments on that near CPAR, they're going to have to have stormwater somewhere.

And if Northwest Water Management will permit the city as a whole, then all of these little areas could become potential. Like you could use Laney Road offset stormwater on FDOT up on MLK. Like it would open up a door of opportunity for those.

Our little chart here says call grade is restricted. What is that restriction?

It would because it's DOT-owned, so the city doesn't own the property.

Okay. Thank you. How do we sell something we don't own?

Well, that's why we have the recommendation is to divest it back to them.

Caroline looked confused on that one. I wanted to see.

The Coral Gray is owned by the city, but there is a restriction on it.

You probably need to come sit and have a seat or something. Yeah, only because we have people online. Sorry.

We'll get the info.

OK. All right, so what else do you hear from us?

I mean, I kind of like this. That was kind of my initial thoughts, and I didn't talk about this with any of the staff or with any of the elected officials, but I like the idea of identifying kind of maybe just a handful that we kind of start moving forward on. And, you know, obviously... We would put that on an actual commission agenda and have you all formally vote on it based on some feedback received tonight. To do what?

To sell off?

To divest of four or five of them to kind of see how it goes and learn from that process and move that forward. I feel like there are some that are... i don't want to say not controversial because everybody's going to have a little bit of affection for one of these parks but i think just from a city standpoint um they kind of the that low-hanging fruit or something that may be the easier ones to get to yes on um and you know we can put that forward as a package or we can do it you know a la carte if you guys want i'd look for direction from you guys but i think that you know the smaller bites makes a lot more sense than coming in and trying to you know paint all of these parks with one big brush.

That was kind of my thoughts. What would clarify for me, we've got 38 parks, 25 have restrictions, so that leaves 13. And 13... Is that what you're considering, Mr. Hayes, presenting to us, those 13? No.

I mean, I heard here tonight Oates, Kraft, Ken Hammons, Cove Lane potentially. I was thinking some of the more easier ones that I, again, totally subjective. I'm sorry. Sorry. I left the letter off. yeah again i admit 100 subjective so it's okay if anybody disagrees but that are probably less controversial than some others to me carl gray that's a that's a big that's a big one well i think i think we should be willing to have the conversation oh absolutely as well as you know would there be interest in being a state park i mean the state just spent 80 million dollars for waterfront over and yeah over in destin so i mean

It's already brand new. You don't have to do anything.

Just to kind of clarify, in my mind, again, this is totally subjective, and I caveat what I'm going to say with that. I think it's a much easier lift to talk about Cove Lane and maybe the neighborhood buying it. or not, and potentially say Ken Hammons as opposed to Carl Gray. I think there's a lot more conversation that goes around Carl Gray.

That's my point. I would say with Moats, definitely open to further discussion on that one, but it just needs to be strategic from the standpoint of like could this be a stormwater walking park could this be part of something else could this help do the enhancements that we need to do at frank nelson something that stays within that neighborhood that's also a compliment i mean i've not had anybody reach out to me about specifically that park But also it's not until you actually start talking about take action that typically people start paying attention.

And I understand Lanny Rowe, but I mean Lanny Rowe does serve a valid stormwater management component there. So my question is how is someone going to make money off of that?

I think the area that Alan identified was a good one, that if there is no restrictions on the Cherry Street side, that is completely open to being some type of P3. Can I clarify? There's a commercial right there, right?

Parking lot.

No, no.

You've got a book barn over there, and you've got parking over there. Yeah. Laney Road needs to be a stormwater refuge. First. First, and... If we clean it up, it's just the outside that we need. It will become a lot easier. Let me say this. I would encourage us to think about this. We can't get rid of lots that are making people happy to build houses. I would certainly not sell a park off before we get rid of lots because they came out of the woodwork with me when we started talking about them. This guy didn't even know where the park was in his neighborhood, and he was mad at me. I was like, okay. And I told him I wanted to have a dollar on your water bill. He didn't like that either. And I said, well, I'll tell you what, $12 a year, when you figure out where it is, you can go to it. And so here, if we just sell it off, now that's not something you can get back. But from the public's side is that's something they're going to be upset about, where we can also make the public a little bit happier by selling and improving the areas where these parks are. And just throw that out there for a thought process.

rushing into this doesn't necessarily have to happen and i do want to answer janice's question uh so some of the parks that are not that have no deed restrictions that are not recommended to do anything other than keep and improve think mckenzie park think bay memorial and so imagine what would happen if we said let's sell mckenzie park Well, I haven't been given the information, so I don't know.

And that's in order to begin to think about making some decisions. I'm trying to make sense of these various numbers that have been given.

And that was why on the report we tried to condense it down to here's what we would recommend starting that conversation on that has no known restrictions and potentially the least amount of neighborhood upheaval.

Okay. Tell me about the dog park. $10,768.80. But when I compare it to comparable man hours, comparable other numbers in the columns, those annual fees are much less. So what makes the dog park more expensive than, say, the Harvey D. Mathis Park that also uses 12.5 man hours but only is $5,000 a year? The edges area edges are that it has 800. So that's a difference. That's a considerable difference. But when I look at the beachfront park that has 2750 edged areas versus 2375 at Alhams Dog Park.

Commissioner, so the big things with Al Helms, one, it's completely fenced. So we're having to, you know, string trim all those fence lines each time that we go. We do that. weekly so Al Helms is a weekly mo regardless I mean that is one of the things that it has to be a weekly mo that's Bermuda we do have Bermuda there so we oversee with Bermuda and continue to try to keep it that and so compare that to your RVD Mathis that's a two times a month got it so there's a double thank you

Did the parks committee have this?

Yes. Okay. All right. It was created in conjunction. That's part of that project. That's part of the project.

So I'd like to see some ideas come back with Ken Hammond's park about reducing overall costs. And we could potentially P3 the land next door. Those are two separate issues. I think the little main street kayak, I think that's an easy one. Anytime someone spends time on a piece of property, they're going to have an emotional attachment to it. That one has very little, in my opinion. I think Motes is another good one that we should be considering, and Sweet Bay as well, keeping the watersheds, but defining an area that we can work, and that's in a CRA, so we could actually engage neighborhood evolution to come up with something that... Which one? which is on Michigan and 19. Can you clarify on this one?

This was the one that had some type of deed restriction.

You can't ever build anything on it?

No, you couldn't build anything more than a park. But I want to confirm that.

is that what you guys found on sweep bay i know it was purchased yeah so yeah so any of these deed restrictions like i said anything you give us direction we can go back and look at it now a deed restriction is just a restriction not an absolute so there's something you can pay for a restriction to have it removed or you can do something else or for example Well, it depends because if it's a state grant and they put the deed restriction on it, they may want the grant funding back. That's what I'm saying. So there are legal ways that we can get rid of some deed restrictions if it's possible. If it's not possible, it's not possible. Carl Gray Park, for example, is actually owned by the city, but its deed restriction is that it's for a public park use okay so that means that if it goes to someone else then the restriction would be that it runs with the land it's a public park use um so so um i'm and we'll research this but it so it doesn't necessarily mean we can't divest of it it just means that there's um something that's limiting us

and we've said sweet bay a lot tonight we just want to be clear this is the sweet bay wetlands park over by michigan not the sweet bay development on build airports now that's what we specifically we're talking about okay yeah so speak for yourself sir

So I think then moats could be sold or leased and that money could go into sweet bay. It's exactly half a mile away from the other park.

That was one of the things we talked about really early on.

I think any sale has to stay in that area.

Those were, those were all part of our recommendations is that, you know, you don't pull from one ward to go to another ward. Um, and so just for the record for moats park, It was initially on our divestment list. And then in the process of forming our really forming the final report, the volleyball community reached out and said, Hey, that's one of the only volleyball courts, beach volleyball courts in the city of Panama City. And so they proposed, you know, a version of a P3 where they would help maintain it. And then and then also one of the things was At the current moment, this again, we did not have the information immediately that there was a playground being built on the Sweet Bay Wetlands or proposed playground. And so for the neighborhood there, there is not a playground that's within walking distance, primarily for the younger age groups. And so we're thinking eight and under. And so so the initial was recommendation would actually just to bring the playground down on Moats Park and just have a grass lot. and just let it be, you know, whatever floats your boat, you want to bring a towel and no, I think we say sweet Bay is a great spot for a playground and a volleyball court.

And so I mean, we have, I mean, we have to make a decision. Every road can't be a dead end.

And, and so that, so that's one of the things is if we're able to solve the solutions for the neighborhood, um, you know, we're not against it, but that was one of the reasons why we pulled it off of the initial recommendation list.

Wasn't there a playground at. Frank Nelson?

No. At one point? Bleacher.

So, Keith, have you gotten a quote on renewing Oakland Terrace tennis courts?

Frank Nelson was originally a baseball complex.

It's about 15 a court, maybe? Tennis courts at Oakland Terrace.

Let me describe something because I know maybe you guys. So, Hintz is a great example of what happens when you do a park ride. So since Hintz has been complete, the neighborhood that is south of 19th Street, the neighborhood north of 19th Street, everybody is out, almost every night. They're out, you're knowing your neighbors, there's kids constantly, there's a ton of activity. It's because you have a place to congregate. I do think that there is a significant number of parks that we have that are not capturing their full potential. And I do believe in the philosophy it's better to have fewer parks that are done well versus a lot of parks that don't really do anything. 100%.

Okay, so some of the need restrictions that y'all ran into. How many of them were re-burner or sell back to the families?

A lot?

Probably half. One across the street from me. It's got nine deed restrictions. Break one of them and the family can buy it back for $2,000 from the city. The last one sold for $900 in the last lot. So we want to make sure if we can have a deed restriction and it doesn't negatively impact us and it's a part that's not being used, Okay, some money benefits, but there's something there. I'm still concerned that we haven't talked about how we're going to pay for all the other things these parks that we're keeping. That was part of the reason we had this done. And by the way, they did a great job here. Where are we budgeting for all of that? Because you're looking to go down in parks, but kind of have a higher level of complete and feeling use. And Josh, to that point, I told you before I moved across the street from where I live in the park, 50 people a week went there. There's 50 people a day that go there. So it helps a lot.

so I can I can support there's the marks recommendations I think there's still some that maybe need a little further getting on the legalities behind some of them you know and if there's a couple others like I think Ken Hammond's that's one of their recommendations I completely see that one of some sort and trying to figure out a p3 or something with it Laney grow same thing but the Laney wrote recommendation just shifts the spending to public works yeah what i would say is if we shift something to public works public works needs to work on a plan that creates a stormwater utility with whatever they're taking otherwise if there is no public works use then it shouldn't be transferred to public it's just a drain on the general fund so there needs to be some type of pragmatic reason why it's there and some funding mechanism associated with that program you like how i use drain with stormwater so when i when i see okay i could support plenty road going to public works but that would be as if it has some type of stormwater utility with it or some type of other use that can be done with it.

And then from a – I apologize to interrupt.

It can't. It just needs to be divested. That means there is no public use.

And so I just wanted to – because I think we forgot to put it on the official report. The one park that's on the recommendation for P3 would be Chapman Park and Ward 4. 3. Ward 3. Primarily because you've already got a designated parking lot for this particular parcel, so you don't have to add additional parking for it. And we would look at... uh again pursuing some type of indoor uh company a facility that provides uh you know walking track around it um yeah in a perfect world i'd move all of the tennis and pickleball to that particular property um and have an indoor pickleball facility that way it has this the sound solution but then have outdoor tennis because then you can get grant funds from the U.S. Tennis Association, which that's the reason why we haven't been able to get some grant funding for Oakland Terrace because you have pickleball and tennis on the same pad of concrete, and the U.S. Tennis Association will not touch it because it has to be solely tennis for them to assist.

So the desire, well, not desire, there was at one point an interest in putting baseball back at Chapman Park. Has that resolved?

I grew up playing Carl Turner. In the world of baseball that we are now, it would be a – very poor use of public resources to assist with any form of baseball going back at Chapman Park.

Yeah, it's too small now. Sunneth is almost that way.

And I think Mr. Myle and I had a conversation about this early on when he started. If we did move tennis and pickleball over to Chapman and kind of Go all in on that. You could then enhance the Little League options and parking as well to support that at Oakland Terrace, which is right in the middle of the city. So that was just kind of a back of the napkin kind of idea that he and Mr. Hamilton and apparently Mr. Brown came up with.

Yep. And I like that with one exception. We already have tennis courts on the ground at Oakland Terrace, and it will be cheaper and faster to get those up and running. And we need them. We need public courts in town. And that thing, whenever that man is, that just doesn't cut it.

Yes. Commissioner, I don't know that we've ever had this conversation, sir, but it actually wasn't. The courts at Oakland Terrace are a total redo. Oh, I know. They're total. Yeah. So you really are starting from scratch. We hope for a season that we might be able to do more like a simple mill and resurface and some targeted base repair there. But you're right, sir. It's a total tear out. So the difference in expense is minimal. You're going to pretty much have to build brand new tennis courts, whether you do it at Chapman or whether you do it at Oakland Terrace. We actually did core samples at the tennis courts. We're not just stating that.

Yeah, the real benefit you get from OT, Oakland Terrace, versus Chapman is just the grading. You already have your site graded. compared to what you have out of Chapman.

So if you were to do that, Mr. Myerl, if you were given the go-ahead by the commission, what would you do at Oakland Terrace if we were able to move all the tennis courts away? What would you do with the lot we just bought from Girls Inc.? And what would you do? Which would you do, baseball, and which would you do, parking?

uh just kind of back of the napkin thought so we've had some conversation to potentially put in an indoor batting cage at oakland terrace so you do that an indoor batting cage in the spaces where you have your your courts currently if they're able to be relocated to chapman then you expand your parking into there for the for the indoor batting cage and then the corner lot becomes another 200 foot baseball field so that that corner lot that we just found that we got from Girls Inc. would accommodate a 200-foot baseball field. Or something. Or something.

and it's and it's in the center of town well that's that's the indoor batting cage model that would be that's a that's a p3 i'm trying to go through the math of i mean there's there's high voltage lighting that's already at oakland terrace there's fencing there's i mean i i get there's storm water that's already done there i mean i i don't see how it's cheaper to relocate that than it is to rebuild it it's not it's not okay nor faster but if you get but in to mr. Brown's model if you were able to get a p3 of indoor pickleball complex out at Chapman yeah now I can understand dividing the pickleball and the in the tennis court aspect and maybe that's just what we need to look at is transferring pickleball courts to other locations and going after grant funding for just tennis or something

that neighborhood doesn't want that little lady stop

Certainly outdoor courts bring noise, but indoor hopefully does not. I think that's what we were discussing is indoor pickleball for the P3.

I mean, they also have silent pickleballs now.

Really?

Yeah. Plus, I mean, it's been a park for decades. I mean, tennis.

They reset baseball.

Not you so much. I hit a few out of the park. Not true, John.

Totally true. All-star, too. There is probably nothing more controversial than parks. Whatever we do, I think we should proceed forward. I think we should be proceeding forward with care, open communication, letting people know throughout the process. But there's obviously some more work that we need to do on the legality of some of these recommendations.

And I'd like to see if we don't already have a uniform language for adoptive park so that that can go forth. And there may be ideas that come from the citizenry that we've not thought up if they know what the process is.

What else?

Is there anything else you guys need from us? think we have i think we have clear direction you have some public it's on that one more time there's been a couple comments i don't know i didn't get into it i can't no not a workshop okay

I don't have any other questions. I am interested in P threes. You've got a lot of great models, other cities at P threes on parks. Yep.

We'll continue looking those. And so obviously we won't have this on the July 14th agenda because that deadline is, you know, in the morning at like 7 00 AM. Um, but, uh, but we'll, I don't, do you say like August 11th? Do you think, um, I think So based on just the feedback tonight, we'll have something for y'all to discuss and consider more formally at the August 11th meeting.

If I could just say thank you to everybody that served on this. I know this has been an exhausting life to go through. I mean, fantastic work to go through all of it. And this is more information I've ever had on parks since CERC ever.

Who better yet to serve on the public park committee than Ethan Brown, his grandfather, who was named after at the park. Thank you. And just, yeah, thank you very much, guys. We really appreciate it.

Yes, so Ethan Brown, I'm representing Ward 1. We had Ms. Nancy Hudson, who's representing Ward 4. We had Ron Gabaldon, who represented Ward 3, with Danielle Pierce, who represented Ward 2, and then Shameka Arnold, who represented the mayor. The city at large. The city at large. At large. The mayor represents the city at large. Oh, that's right. Excuse me. And I will say from a diversity of perspective standpoint, so you have Nancy who's been here for years, not decades because she's not that old. So now I'm a third generation Bay County resident. My granddad, to give you an idea, Jerry Register learned how to throw a curveball from my granddad at Mid-City at Oakland Terrace. That's not an indication of anything, except that we've been here a while. And Danielle has been here for, I believe, her entire life. Shamika has been here her entire life. But also, Ron, who is a transplant, and so he has no emotional connection to any of the parks, which was necessary because I am absolutely biased towards Oakland Terrace. I just am. Danielle is absolutely biased towards... um henry davis no robert and mary kane field but robert robert thank you thank you um and uh yeah and so we all have our emotional attachment to all of the different parks that we grew up on i'm emotionally attached to rl turner but also able to be objective that you know hey little league isn't the way it used to be um you know and so having uh you know really you know i would say and was it always you know so it was absolutely a rose committee there were some blossoms and there were some thorns um you know but if you have a rose without thorns nothing gets done and so uh so we very much um you had some very good passionate uh conversations leading up to um that may 12th report well thank you all of y'all did a great job

Can I get some clarification from the legal side? It sounded like you all were interested in hearing maybe a summary of what types of restrictions are on each parcel and maybe give you an idea of the difficulties removing a restriction or what could happen with the restriction. It sounds like you wanted a summary of that. Is that correct? On every parcel that has restrictions?

We're not in the city. We don't need to know about it.

there's an opportunity to do that tell me that okay I would prioritize the ones that the parks did but I would like to see what I mean like yeah we can give you a easy list yeah we can give you an easy list what's the appetite for having staff begin looking into Calgary Park

It's a big one. It's not something we could do in the next 30, 60, 90 days.

I might maybe not even in the next year, but if we don't at least start, I would do the launch fees and then maybe talk to our legislative delegation about what the process is to be a state park. I mean, that's a win-win for everybody. Then sales tax dollars go and pay for it. And probably they would do a better job than what we do on the dredging and everything else that comes with it.

Yeah, and that discussion might start with our legislative delegation championing a state park.

I'm going to wait until I have that election in November.

Well, I know FDOT is not going to take it back. They will not take it back. But could the park system, I mean, it's a, I think that would be a win-win to me. A win-win-win-win. That's a win all the way around.

All right. So we'll bring some stuff back to you all to discuss and consider at the first meeting in August, Mr. Mayor.

Sounds good. Thank you. Meeting adjourned.