Morehead Delaware Pedestrian Bridge Focus Group #1 Discussion Summary

Transcription

1 Morehead Delaware Pedestrian Bridge Focus Group #1 Discussion Summary Morehead Delaware Pedestrian Bridge Focus Group Meeting #1 Date: Monday, July 11, 2016 Time: 5:00 to 7:00 p.m. Location: Ann Arbor City Hall (301 E. Huron Street), second floor Council Chambers Attendees: Public Present: 1; refer to Appendix A for sign in sheet Focus Group Present: 4; Michael Psarouthakis, Steven Hiller, Debbie Merion, Yi Chen; refer to Appendix B for sign in sheet Staff Present: 4; Kayla Coleman, Sonja Karnovsky, Igor Kotlyar, Nick Hutchinson City Council Present: 2; Jack Eaton (Ward 4), Graydon Krapohl (Ward 4) Re: Morehead Delaware Pedestrian Bridge SUMMARY Note: this is not a direct transcription of the meeting discussion. This summary has been prepared from notes taken during the meeting. Staff comments and responses are noted in italics. Following direction from City Council to engage the public regarding the Morehead Delaware pedestrian bridge, a public meeting was held on June 7. Interested prospective focus group participants were asked to contact the designated Lans Basin neighborhood representative. All persons who requested participation in the Focus Group were selected. Focus Group members will work with City Staff to develop their recommendation for the project site that will be presented to City Council in September In the coming months, staff will work with the Focus Group to evaluate alternatives for this site. The focus group process will provide opportunity for detailed discussions and consideration of alternate possibilities. The Focus Group recommendations will be shared with the public in advance of presentation to City Council, scheduled for September Introductions Proposed Focus Group guidelines o Focus Group members agreed to move forward with the current roster of participants; an invitation for interest was posted and the deadline has passed. All members of the public are welcome to attend Focus Group meetings to give input during designated public comment time. o Focus Group members were supportive of moving forward with the proposed guidelines. Logistics o Focus Group materials will be distributed as PDF, unless otherwise requested. (Debbie Merion has requested to receive materials as Word documents) o Focus Group addresses will be BCC ed to protect privacy of personal addresses. Page 1 of 5

2 o Schedule o Morehead Delaware Pedestrian Bridge Focus Group #1 Discussion Summary Where can the Focus Group share documents with other members of the public? Post meeting update: the City of Ann Arbor communications office is working to create a project website for Morehead Delaware Pedestrian bridge project materials. Additional information will be sent once that is available. Interest was expressed to include contractors or bridge company representatives at future a future Focus Group meeting; perhaps via conference call. Updates Recreation Passport Grant o Overview (see Appendix C) o Scoring criteria (see Appendix D) o Past projects (see Appendix E) o o If the grant will delay the construction timeline Focus Group members are not interested Follow up questions for Chip Kosloski, Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) Could the project be constructed prior to grant application/award, and then reimbursed? City right of way (not in a park) ok? How important is it that this project connects to other paths/ trails? What percentage of grant applications get funded? What is average grant amount? Discuss details of the project with Mr. Kosloski and try to get a sense of whether this seems like this would be a successful grant application. Discussion of permitting requirements and bridge parameters: o Staff are working on follow up with MDEQ for clarification on questions raised at the June 7 meeting. o Was the Dexter Tornado in 2012 a 100 year flood event? No. Post meeting update: The storm event that occurred on March 15, 2012 is classified as a 10% annual chance storm. This means that in any given year, there is a 10% chance that a storm of that volume would occur. There is a 1% chance in any given year that a 100 year flood event would occur. o Are bridges in Gallup Park [Americans with Disabilities Act] ADA compliant? Bridges in existing parks may not be ADA compliant. ADA went into effect in the 1990s at which point all future construction was required to meet the requirements, however, existing structures do not have to be brought up to compliance until they are renovated or replaced. o Can staff check with other municipalities who have constructed similar bridges? For example, the Huron Clinton Metro Park Authority. Staff can request additional information from the Huron Clinton Metro Park Authority once Focus Group members provide additional information about the specific location that they are referring to and what information they are looking for. o Can City re use hydraulic analysis done when weir was replaced in 2010? Re using the hydraulic analysis may introduce additional liability. The contractor will want to perform their own hydraulic analysis. Hydraulic analysis is not a huge component of the cost. The hydraulic analysis previously performed could be provided in the RFP as a reference. Page 2 of 5

3 Morehead Delaware Pedestrian Bridge Focus Group #1 Discussion Summary Q&A document o What is the width and span of the bridge that would be built on this site? The bridge width must be a minimum of 5 feet for compliance with City standards. ADA requirements specify a minimum of 4 feet width. The bridge length requirement is dependent on responses from MDEQ regarding floodplain elevation. ADA requirements also influence bridge length. It is expected that the bridge will need to be roughly feet in length. o Focus Group members expressed concern that City Council will not approve this project until a lower price tag (i.e. total project cost) is determined. o The original bridge was platted as public right of way and constructed. Can the city find any permitting information from the early 1980s and use that information to find more information about the original bridge/ who constructed it? Goals Discussion The Focus Group will develop a recommendation for the project site that can be shared with the community and then presented to City Council in September 2016 Fundamental goals: o A bridge o Low enough cost to be supported by city council o Winter maintenance not needed Determine minimum parameter requirements. DEQ responses are needed to determine specifications, floodway requirements, support beam acceptability, etc. Staff have been in contact with MDEQ to try and get answers to questions, however, the process of determining requirements and acquiring permits is generally the responsibility of the design consultant. Explore design build as a possibility: o What is meant by design build? The City s standard practice is to conduct a design process and then award a bid for construction. In this case City Council takes action on the design contract and the construction contract separately. Design build is an alternative approach that would involve setting parameters and bidding the project design and construction under a single contract. In the design build model, there is only one vote from City Council. This is not done often, but may be a possibility for this project. o Could the bid parameters include a price cap? o Could the bid parameters specify that they must work with the existing foundation? (if it is determined that the foundation is structurally sound) o What are the risks of reusing the current infrastructure? The potential contractor would need to examine the site and accept liability that the structure is sufficient to support the bridge. It is unlikely that the contractor would accept that level of liability. The RFP could be written to require that companies examine the viability of existing structures. o Regardless of design build or typical construction process, access must be considered. Pre bid meeting might take place on site so contractors fully understand area. o Is City Council approval needed to put out an RFP for design build? No. However, we may not be able to determine parameters and get through the RFP process before September The Focus Group could recommend to City Council that a decision on the design contract be postponed while the design build process is pursued. o The Focus Group is interested in the design build option. Based on design build RFP responses we will have a total project cost figure to take back to City Council. The Page 3 of 5

4 Morehead Delaware Pedestrian Bridge Focus Group #1 Discussion Summary design build scenario may be the best option to specify an anticipated project cost and ask respondents to tell us what is feasible for that price tag. Cost estimate refinement o Can we ask the firm that was selected for the design RFP in March 2016 to look at the site and provide a rough estimate? The contract before City Council in March 2016 was for bridge design, not construction. The consultant did visit the project site in the process of preparing their proposal. The current, planning level cost estimate was prepared by an engineering firm that did look at the site to make their estimate. o Is the current cost estimate faulty? Was the cost estimate inflated by an assumption that vehicular traffic would need to be supported by the bridge? The existing cost estimate did assume a width and structural capacity to accommodate small winter maintenance equipment (not full size vehicles). The City does not have a preference toward providing winter maintenance. The bridge parameters could specify that only foot traffic needs to be supported. This may reduce the cost estimate, but is not likely to have a large impact on the overall cost. o What parameters have the largest impact on bridge cost? ADA compliance, construction access, elevation above the floodplain, constructing new supports for the bridge, remaking bridge approaches after construction, and creek restoration are all larger cost factors. Neighborhood involvement o Eberwhite School had a large community effort to build a playground. Is there potential for community construction on this project? Post meeting note: There is an existing marketing scheme that provides for community involvement in playground construction. Playground equipment manufacturing companies have capitalized on this interest by providing modular structures that are suited for community involvement in construction. The City is not aware of any bridge manufacturing companies that similarly accommodate community bridge building. In addition, the location of the Morehead Delaware bridge project over an open waterway presents additional liability concerns. o To what extent was the community involved for the Ann Arbor Skate Park project? The Ann Arbor Skate Park is an example of an opportunity for the community to be involved with fundraising. o The community perspective seems to be that a wood bridge would be the cheapest option. Based on conversations with consultants, the City anticipates that a prefabricated bridge would be more economical than a hand built, timber bridge (assuming that a free standing bridge is required, i.e. without intermediary support beams) o Can the community do the work of restoring the natural landscape after building? This can be written into the RFP. Establish a Plan B o Status quo is not acceptable o Remove sidewalk, replace grass, use shrubs to bar access to the creek o Something to discourage it as a cut through o Need a safety measure to address the existing condition: drop down to the creek o Reconvene this focus group for future discussion if bridge is not approved? Potential recommendations: May recommend that a Request for Proposal (RFP) for design build be pursued decision on design contract may need to be postponed Page 4 of 5

5 Morehead Delaware Pedestrian Bridge Focus Group #1 Discussion Summary Depending on the outcome of Focus Group discussions, postponement of the September 2016 deadline may be requested. Other Why not hire a company that sells bridges to construct this project? They seem to know the requirements. Bridge manufacturing companies generally do not perform the construction. A bridge manufacturer may be part of the hired project team, but engineers and experts that focus on permitting requirements would also be needed. Procurement process: how are City projects advertised? Focus Group members expressed interest in being made aware when an RFP is posted. The City has a process in place to post new projects but can also reach out to specific contractors to invite them to respond to an RFP or Invitation to Bid (ITB). We need an immediate short term plan for the site to discourage crossing on the weir. This will be an agenda item for our July 28 discussion. Public Comment No comments. Appendix A: Appendix B: Page 5 of 5

6 Michigan Department of Natural Resources Grants Management Section RECREATION GRANT PROGRAMS Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund (MNRTF) Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) Recreation Passport (RP) ELIGIBLE APPLICANTS *State and Local units of government authorized to provide public outdoor recreation. *Huron-Clinton Metropolitan Authority and Regional Recreation Authorities. *School Districts that are the primary provider of outdoor recreation for their area. *State and Local units of government authorized to provide public outdoor recreation. *Huron-Clinton Metropolitan Authority and Regional Recreation Authorities. *School Districts that are the primary provider of outdoor recreation for their area. *Federally-recognized Native American Tribes *Local units of government authorized to provide public outdoor/indoor recreation. *Huron-Clinton Metropolitan Authority and Regional Recreation Authorities. *School Districts, if certain conditions are met. PREREQUISITE TO APPLY/MATCH ELIGIBLE PROJECTS APPLICATION DEADLINE *Applicant must have a current, five-year recreation plan that has been approved by the DNR prior to the application deadline. Match minimum 25% *Applicant must have a current, five-year recreation plan that has been approved by the DNR prior to the application deadline. Match 50% *Current annual Capital Improvement Plan (CIP): OR *Approved five-year recreation plan on file with the DNR. Match - minimum 25% *Acquisition Projects: acquisition of land or specific rights in land (i.e. easements). AND * Development Projects: for public outdoor recreation such as: trails, campgrounds, ball fields, tennis courts and restrooms. *Development Projects (only): for public outdoor recreation such as: trails, picnic areas, beaches, campgrounds, boating access and fishing areas. *Development Projects (only): for public outdoor and indoor recreation such as: trails, picnic areas, beaches, campgrounds, boating access and fishing areas. Renovation of existing facilities is emphasized. *April 1 (unless this date falls on a weekend) Submitted electronically online *April 1 (unless this date falls on a weekend) Submitted electronically online *April 1 (unless this date falls on a weekend) Submitted electronically online MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM GRANT REQUEST AMOUNTS *Acquisition Projects: no minimum or maximum grant request. *Development Projects: $15,000 minimum and $300,000 maximum grant request *Development Projects: $30,000 minimum grant request and $150,000 maximum grant request. *Development Projects: $7,500 minimum grant request and $45,000 maximum grant request. AWARD RECOMMENDATION DATE *In early December, the MNRTF Board makes final recommendations to the Legislature for funding. The DNR Director announces projects selected for LWCF funding in November. The DNR Director announces projects selected for Recreation Passport funding in November. SITE CONTROL REQUIRED FOR DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS Private land not eligible. Public land not owned by applicant must have a minimum of 25-year lease and landowner commitment to long-term maintenance and perpetual encumbrance. Private land not eligible. Public land not owned by applicant must have a minimum of 25-year lease and landowner commitment to long-term maintenance and perpetual encumbrance. Private/public lands. If private, applicant must have site control for 20 years for non-structures and 40 years for enclosed structures. For more detailed information, please go to and click on Grants or call (517) ( GRANT) Rev. 01/07/2016

7 CHAPTER 3 APPLICATION SCORING CRITERIA The scoring criteria used by staff are described in this chapter. In some cases, staff will also visit a site as part of the application evaluation process; however, do not rely on site visits as a way to communicate project information. NEED FOR THE PROJECT (MAXIMUM OF 90 POINTS) Factors in determining the score for this criterion include: rationale, financial need, if the project is a renovation and the priority ranking of the project (if the applicant submits more than one application). A. Rationale: (0, 15, or 30 points) i. Applicant does not demonstrate a general scarcity of parks and recreation services and does not demonstrate a scarcity for the specific recreation service type which will be provided by the project. ii. Applicant does not demonstrate a general scarcity of parks and recreation services, but demonstrates a scarcity of a specific recreation type which will be provided by the project. iii. Applicant demonstrates a scarcity of parks and recreation services. B. Financial Need of the Applicant: (0, 15, or 30 points) i. Upper 1/3 and higher Median Household Income. ii. Middle 1/3 Median Household Income. iii. Bottom 1/3 Median Household Income. C. Renovation (0 or 20 points) - Project is renovation of a facility that is beyond its life expectancy (20 years for outdoor structures, 40 years for enclosed structures). D. Priority (0 or 10 points) - The applicant submitted only one application or, if the applicant submitted multiple applications, this application is the highest priority. SITE QUALITY (MAXIMUM OF 20 POINTS) Applications are evaluated on the quality of the project site based on the following factors, based on information in the site plan, location map, design drawings, photographs, application narrative, and on observations during the site visit. A. Location of Project Site (0, 5 or 10 points) i. There are many concerns with the location of the development given the natural resources present, the applicant s existing park and recreation system, location of similar facilities, proximity to users, proximity to other destinations, accessibility to public and non-motorized transportation, compatibility of surround land uses, safety considerations and other relevant factors. ii. There are some concerns with the location of the development given the natural resources present, the applicant s existing park and recreation system, location of similar facilities, proximity to users, proximity to other destinations, and accessibility to public and non-motorized transportation, compatibility of surrounding land uses, safety considerations and other relevant factors. iii. The location of the development is appropriate given the natural resources present, the applicant s existing park and recreation system, location of similar facilities, proximity to users, proximity to other destinations, accessibility to public and non-motorized transportation, compatibility of surrounding land uses, safety considerations and other relevant factors. B. Ease of Access (0, 5 or 10 points) i. Site is difficult to locate and is difficult to recognize as a public park. ii. There is some difficulty in recognizing that the location is a public park, or the location is somewhat difficult to locate. iii. The site is easily recognizable as a public park and is easy to locate or will have adequate directional signage in place. 17 IC1956 (Rev. 10/23/2015)

8 PROJECT QUALITY (MAXIMUM 70 POINTS) Applications are evaluated on the quality of the project based on the following factors, information in the site plan, location map, design drawings, photographs, application narrative, and observations during the site visit. Project Quality scores will also be compared among applications submitted in the same application round. A. Quality of Overall Park and Recreation Facility (0, 5 or 10 points): i. The application does not clearly describe the proposed, existing, and future facilities at the site or there are strong concerns about the expect traffic flow, access to facilities, environmental impacts or the impact facilities will have on each other. ii. Application clearly describes the proposed, existing, and future facilities at the site, including clear site plans. However, there are concerns about the expected traffic flow, access to facilities, environmental impacts or the impact facilities will have on each other. iii. Application clearly describes the proposed, existing, and future facilities at the site, including clear site plans. Expected traffic flow pattern is safe and convenient, access routes are provided to all facilities, facilities are placed to have the least environmental impact, layout maximizes groundwater infiltration, and the recreation and support facilities do not negatively impact each other. B. Compatibility (0, 5 or 10 points): i. The development has poor compatibility with the site. ii. There is some concerns about the compatibility of the site and its intended use. iii. Facilities size and cost are appropriate and development is fully compatible with the size, natural and physical characteristics of the site. C. Programming/Marketing (0, 5 or 10 points): i. The applicant has no plan for publicizing the project and facilities, including any universally designed facilities in the project. ii. The applicant has a partial plan for publicizing the project and facilities, including any universally designed facilities in the project. iii. The applicant has a clear plan on how to make the public aware of the project and facilities, including any universally designed facilities in the project. D. Safety Measures (0, 5 or 10 points): i. User safety concerns have clearly not been incorporated into project design. ii. User safety at the site is addressed through project design incorporating the above design considerations; however, some parts of the park raise concerns for user safety. iii. User safety at the site is addressed through project design incorporating the following: as appropriate, maximization of visibility of people and parking areas, adequate lighting, hours of operation are or will be clearly posted; project is monitored at appropriate times and locations as necessary; physical layout clearly defines property lines and provides adequate separation with private spaces if appropriate for the development; trails within parks minimize dead ends; public routes are clearly defined; and facilities in fire-prone areas are designed to protect from fire damage. E. Environmental Sustainability (0, 5 or 10 points): i. No facilities in the application utilize environmentally friendly materials and design. ii. Some facilities in the application utilize environmentally friendly materials and design. iii. Use of Environmentally Friendly Features (Note: Project must include at least three qualifying features to receive points. 1. Pervious paving materials 2. Recycling bins on site 3. Reduction of energy use 4. Landscaping with native plants 18 IC1956 (Rev. 10/23/2015)

9 5. Use of natural renewable resources (solar, geothermal, etc.) a. Using building materials with high content of post-consumer recycled materials b. Toilets or other reduction of water use c. Efficient lighting d. Storm water management e. Other F. Universal Accessibility of Park and Facilities (0, 10 or 20 points): i. NONE of the proposed facilities incorporate Universal Design and/or insufficient documentation was provided. ii. SOME of the facilities incorporate Universal Design and are designed beyond the 2010 ADA Standards and current Accessibility Guidelines for Outdoor Developed Areas. Dimensions, preliminary drawings or cut-sheets were provided to demonstrate Universal Design features. iii. ALL of the proposed facilities incorporate Universal Design and are designed beyond the 2010 ADA Standards and current Accessibility Guidelines for Outdoor Developed Areas. Meeting minutes or letters documenting dialogue with persons with disabilities were provided. Dimensions, preliminary drawings or cut-sheets were provided to demonstrate Universal Design features. APPLICANT HISTORY (MAXIMUM 40 POINTS) The main factors considered under this criterion are the applicant s performance in handling recreation grants in the past five years under the MNRTF, LWCF, 1988 Recreation Bond program, and Clean Michigan Initiative (CMI) Recreation Bond program and the applicant s stewardship and maintenance of their existing parks and recreation system. A. Stewardship of Existing Facilities (0, 10 or 20 points): i. Applicant is in compliance with all requirements at park sites that have been acquired or developed with recreation grant assistance in the past, including signage requirements. Also, the applicant has complied with DNR procedures while completing grant-assisted projects (acquisition and development). ii. Applicant has not closed, sold, or transferred use of a park or public recreation facility for non-public recreation purposes, or the applicant has never received a grant. B. Maintenance of Existing Facilities (0, 5 or 10 points): i. The park and public recreation sites in the applicant s system are appropriately operated, maintained and staffed. C. Past Per Capita Grant Assistance (0, 10, or 20 points): i. The applicant has received no Recreation Passport Fund (RPF), MNRTF, or LWCF grant assistance in the past five years (20 points), the applicant has received below the median of per-capita LPRFF, MNRTF, or LWCF grant assistance in the past five years (10 points), the applicant has received above the median in per-capita RPF, MNRTF, or LWCF grant assistance in the past five years (0 points). CONVERSION HISTORY (-20 POINTS) Applicant has a known, unresolved conversion of a grant-assisted site where the new use does not qualify as public outdoor recreation. RECREATION PASSPORT TIE BREAKING CRITERIA In the event that any projects receive the same total project score, they will be prioritized according to the past per capita grant assistance amount. 19 IC1956 (Rev. 10/23/2015)

10 2015 Recreation Passport Program Applications -- Director Approved December 8, 2015 Applicant County App. No. Project Title Project Description Banks Township Antrim RP Banks Township Park This development project will improve the accessibility Improvements to Lake Michigan and the site amenities. All proposed main elements of the project will provide barrier-free Calumet Charter Township Houghton RP Phase 2 Hockey boards and glass replacement City of Boyne City Charlevoix RP Ridge Run Dog Park Fitness Trail City of Detroit Wayne RP Howarth Playground Improvement Project enjoyment. Complete replacement of boards and glass around the ice at the nation's oldest hockey rink--the Calumet Colosseum. The City of Boyne City proposes to install two separate fitness trails at the Ridge Run Dog Park. The park consists of two fenced areas, one for smaller dogs and one for large dogs. The proposed project will upgrade the children's playscape area, replace and add picnic tables, upgrade the basketball courts, make minor repairs to the walking path, and clean up the surrounding landscape. Grant Amount $44, $10, City of East Jordan Charlevoix RP Community Ice Skating Development of an outdoor ice rink. $10, Rink City of Harrison Clare RP Town Square Band Shell Construct a walkway and music/band shelter. City of Hudsonville Ottawa RP Hughes Park Bathroom Renovation The proposed project will include extensive bathroom renovations, walkway development and parking improvements. City of Ionia Ionia RP Shattuck Park The proposed project will include basketball court upgrades, playground improvements, barrier-free access, park benches and picnic tables, landscape improvements and a park sign. City of Ludington Mason RP Ludington Mini-Golf Course City of Manistique Schoolcraft RP Central Park Baseball Field Project City of Marquette Marquette RP Tourist Park Day-Use Playground The proposed project will transform an old mini-golf course on Ludington's Beach into a new, updated mini golf course. The City of Manistique proposes to build a new baseball field with accessible walkways and parking. This project involves installation of playground equipment, accessible surfacing, pathway, parking and site amenities. Upgrades to the Black River Park Restroom facility with improved accessibility. City of South Haven Van Buren RP Black River Park Restroom Renovation City of South Haven Van Buren RP Bicycle Pump Track The proposed project is the development of a bicycle pump track for a variety of ages and abilities. $43, $37, $42, City of Swartz Creek Genesee RP Elms Park Community Renovation Project The proposal includes renovation of restrooms and a replacement backstop for a softball facility. It also includes a large amount of accessibility improvements and the development of a recreational/exercise trail. City of Whittemore Iosco RP Whittemore Railroad Memorial Park Delta County Delta RP Equestrian Center Improvement - Speed Barn Renovation Genesee County Genesee RP Bluebell Beach Park - Barrier Free Beach Access The park will provide picnic opportunities with a pavilion, tables, benches and landscaping in the heart of the downtown. The proposed project involves the renovation of a building on the Upper Peninsula State Fairgrounds. This building is located at the head of a non-motorized trail, once renovated, the building will also become an information center for trail users. This project will provide a barrier-free walkway to the beach with a transfer system on Mott Lake. The park is accessible by the Bluebell trail, a 1-mile non-motorized trail segment that connects to the Flint River Trail segment of the Iron Belle Trail.

11 2015 Recreation Passport Program Applications -- Director Approved December 8, 2015 Applicant County App. No. Project Title Project Description Golden Township Oceana RP Golden Township Park The proposed project will improve access for visitors to Recreational the park with bike and trailhead parking, bike racks, and Improvements benches. This park will connect people to Silver Lake and to the Hart/Montague bike trail. Grant Amount Iron Ore Heritage Recreation Authority Marquette RP Iron Ore Heritage Trail head Amenities The proposed project is to make improvements at 4 trailheads along the Iron Ore Heritage Trail, including bike racks, benches and bike fixing stations. $16, L'Anse Township Baraga RP Electrical Improvements at L'Anse Township Park Marquette Charter Township Marquette RP Lions Field Recreation Area Barrier-free Trail Project Marquette County Marquette RP Iron Belle/North Country Trail Project The proposed project will bury the existing overhead electrical wires at the park. Development will include a universally designed pathway in the park with picnic tables, benches and cooking grills. The proposed project will finish the construction of incomplete trail segments along the Iron Belle/North Country trail in Marquette, Luce and Ontonagon County. Powell Township Marquette RP Burn's Landing Development Sanilac County Sanilac RP Handicapped Accessible Playground Equipment Project Suttons Bay Township Leelanau RP Multi-use Covered Pavilion Village of Constantine St. Joseph RP Well Field Little League Park Upgrade Project Village of L'Anse Baraga RP Waterfront Park Splash Pad Improvements Village of Nashville Barry RP Putnam Park Improvements The proposed project includes upgrading an existing boardwalk and parking area to meet ADA & Universal Design Standards. Development of an accessible playground. Construct a universally accessible covered pavilion at Herman Community Park. Renovating the restrooms for ADA compliance at the $20, Little League complex. Construct additional water features at the Splash Park The proposed project includes improvements to the restroom and parking and development of accessible walkways and ADA fishing platform/observation deck. Village of Newberry Luce RP Atlas Park Renovation Development of playground equipment, benches, picnic tables, grills, and lighting. Village of Ontonagon Ontonagon RP Ontonagon Rec Building The proposed project will replace the existing lighting Lighting Renovation fixtures through out the building for energy efficiency. $42, Village of Sparta Kent RP Rogers Park Splash Pad The development of a splash pad at Rogers Park. Waterford Township Oakland RP Clinton River Riverwalk Development of a paved pathway connecting the Phase 4 Riverwalk to the sidewalk system. Wilmot Township Cheboygan RP Wilmot Township Roadside park The proposed project will replace the existing playground equipment and improve the parking.