board meeting to order and we'll start with roll call please. >> Burns >> here. >> Mickelson >> here. >> Powell. >> Miller >> here. >> Stripe >> here. Uh next we have the pledge of allegiance. >> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the
republic for it stands one nation nation under God indivisible with justice for all. All right. And then before we get started, um, Nick, we have a new public services director we'd like to welcome.
>> Yes. Nobody is happier than I am that this gentleman to my right. This is this is the last time you'll have to deal with the second string as far as me. You got the A team here, but um to my right is Zach Sworth. He started yesterday. This is day two um as the new public
services director. Um he will be over many different areas, one of which will be the park board and all of its activities. So just want to welcome Zach. He's just going to be observing tonight. I told him jokingly I said after 5 minutes I'm leave and say the meeting's yours, but I probably won't do
that. But but uh we're happy to have Zach on board. So please take a moment if you if you have some time afterwards to just shake his hand and say hi. So thank you. >> Perfect. I think behalf of the whole board, welcome Zach. We're very excited to have you here and
>> yeah, excited to throw you into the into the fire. Um, with that, we'll move to approval of the agenda. >> We'll make a motion to approve the agenda. >> Second. >> Any further discussion?
Hearing none. All in favor say I. >> I. >> Same sign. Agenda is approved. Next, we have the consent calendar. Notice the public. All matters listed are considered routine by the board and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless good cause is shown prior to the
time the board votes on the motion to be adopted by roll call. >> I will make a motion to approve the consent calendar. >> Second. Any further discussion on the items hearing? None. Uh Lisa, please call the
role. >> Burns. >> Yes. >> Mickelson >> here. >> Miller. >> Yes. >> Yes. That is approved. Move on to item six, the public forum. Time allocated for citizens to bring matters not on the agenda to the attention of the board. Time limits may be imposed.
Uh we'll open the public forum at 402. I think all of the folks in the room are for different agenda items. So we will close the public forum at 402. Move on to item seven, uh presentations,
the Rotary Park Pollinator Garden. Okay. >> David Wkelman and Tim Quincer. >> Uh we're proposing that we put in a a small pollinator garden at Rotary Park
off the end of the south parking lot. And pollinator garden means it's basically perennials that bloom hopefully every year. And uh the garden kind of takes care of itself once it's
started with a little bit of weeding here and there. And so we have a map here of where it's going to be. Oh, thank you. And there's things like wild bergamont,
cone flowers, blackeyed susans, various types of prairie flowers. So, it's kind of a labor of love for some of the Rotary members. Tim has spent a a career with the DNR and he
knows a lot about uh wildlife and uh he's also got a a pollinator garden at his home and I have two pollinator gardens at my home. So, >> wow. >> We have a little bit of knowledge on how to do that. And we're setting it up as an educational thing. We're going to
have signage in front of it so people visiting there can understand what the garden is for to help increase the number of bees and give them some things to work on. There you can see it my rough drawn sketch on the board. It's uh
10 by 50 is the dimensions. So, we're going to like split it in half most likely and one half of it we're going to plant fresh plugs this October and the other half we're going to do a solarizing event and kill the soil with
plastic. I don't know if you know what that is, but you put plastic in a wait a year and it kills all the weeds and grass and everything. So, we don't have to use chemicals. We don't want to use herbicides that close to the river
or anywhere out there. So, anyhow, that's the gist of it. You any more to add? Yeah. Um, I passed around a couple maps. One kind of a a broad view from a little further away and a closer one. As David said, approximal location is on
there and red on the more detailed map, I think. And 10 by 50. It's it's a rectangle as you see it there, but we're um you know, we're aware that the the city might want to limit any obligations you have and Rotary plans to take care of everything here, but if there's a different shape or something that would
work um >> for mowing the grass >> for mowing or whatever that, you know, we're open to any suggestions on that. Um >> we thought we might do some rounded edges with pavers >> so it's easy to mow right around to it
rather than a square edge. Any questions or >> I guess we're looking for your approval to do this and uh do you have any questions? >> Yeah. Any questions for Rotary folks? >> No questions, just comments. Um again, I
you know, walk this walk this park, this uh the whole Mississippi trail the entire mostly every day. So, this is just another great thing. Again, I think we were at home. It's kind of one of those deals too where yeah, we just see the immediate impacts at our house from just planting flowers and even seeing a
butterfly probably for the first time and I don't know like four or five years I can't remember the last time. So just the the natural beauty of this park just in general and and you know the majority of all of this is is right on key with what I like to see. And so I'm
completely in favor of something like this. Again, the logistics and the sizing makes sense. I think it's a great placement right next to uh the parking and yeah, I mean I I hadn't really considered the uh the mowing perspective, but um again, however staff can would like it to be constructed. I
suppose we have time to figure out the logistics to make sure that there's ease of mowing, but I'm fully on board with this. It looks great. >> Thank you. There wouldn't be any obligation for the park service for the park. We we've got funding from our own
resources and then we've got labor from our own membersh. >> Mhm. >> So, it's just a matter of kind of a formality. >> Great River Greening, who I think you're familiar with, um, has agreed to give us some funding. So, >> cool.
>> Y, did you have a comment? >> Uh, thank you, Mr. Chair. I was just going to throw this out there and you guys can see this in the packet under recommended action motion, but if if the park board is comfortable with what they're hearing, um a recommended motion may be to authorize staff to work with the Rotary Club for design,
installation, and executing any agreements. And again, we're going to be very cognizant of as we've talked to Rotary and as we've gotten direction from the park board, I think one of the priorities was no cost to the parks department both now and or in the future. So we would probably we'd have
some language in that in the agreement that would cover that. So if if the park board is comfortable with what they're hearing, that just may be a recommended motion for us to administratively work with Rotary to execute an agreement to make this happen. >> I'm ready to make a motion if I
>> second. >> Yeah, I I like Nick's motion. I appreciate what you guys have brought and uh I would make that motion to direct staff to work with Rotary Park and the installation and planning and long-term maintenance of this project.
>> I will second you. >> Any discussion? Uh quickly want to echo. Thank you for bringing this forward. I think it's going to be great. I love Oh, sorry. Go ahead. Nick, >> would that motion include um authorizing staff to execute an agreement reflecting
such? >> Yes. Yep. Yes, it's Yes. Continue to second there. Yep. >> Just want to double check. All right. Uh yeah, just thank you guys for bringing this forward. It's going to be Yep. >> Fantastic. Um any further discussion?
>> Hearing none. All in favor say I. >> I. >> The same sign. That is approved. With that, we'll move to item 8A, park special events policy. Thinking James. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, so city council approved special event ordinance
1604 at their July 6th meeting, which requires special event organizers to apply for a special event permit on public property. Uh, special event policy before you is separated in two sections, parks, and there will be later a street and parking lot section. Uh, city council reviewed the policy and had
no comments uh other than the park section should be approved by the park board. A few items to clarify from the last meeting. Um, I did tune into it. uh applications that have been turned in prior to the policy going into place would not be subject to these policies. Did add a line to kind of further
clarify that in the policy. Uh they would be subject to any existing regulations that we have. Um and also the deposit in the policy is for special events only. Um it would not apply to private uh pavilion rentals. Uh so with that uh um from the last meeting it
seemed like the park board was generally in favor. Um didn't have uh too many other questions or directions to change things. I can certainly answer any questions. Um, things could be changed tonight as well, but staff's recommended motion would be to uh move forward with
the uh special event policy park section. >> Thank you, James. Questions, comments on the policy. >> Oh, I'd like to make a motion to approve uh that policy. >> Second. Second again.
>> A motion and a second. Any discussion? Only thing I would add, I think James, if maybe we could roll or Nick slash eventually Zach, um, if we could roll maybe a review of this into our fee
adjustment or analysis at the end of the year just to take in any feedback we've gotten like, oh, the deposit's too high, things are complicated, whatever the case is. Um, just so we're touching it once a year and we have we feel like we're keeping it up to date. Um but yeah
uh any further? >> Yeah, to your point I think yeah if we end up needing as the city need to come up and clean things or something like we're seeing some people like trash to join pretty consistently or whatever. We're not outlining. I think that's the one main thing is the cleanup after special events. I mean we saw that with
uh concerts and things like that. Um just making sure that the city's not held responsible and if we are we're kind of factoring that into the language or the cost um for these events. So I think that's a a good a good call out. >> Cool. Any further discussion?
Hearing none. All in favor say I. >> I. >> Same sign. That is approved. Move to item 8B, the Lyman P. White prominade. Uh Nick. Thank you, Mr. Chair. The last park board meeting we discussed the prominade
and Lyman P. White. And I think the general consensus coming out of that from the park board was to restrict vehicle traffic in that area. Um since that time um and and for those of you who don't know our public works director Paul Sandy he did a stint in
the private sector but he was also with the city years ago. So he has some contacts that that I certainly didn't have. it. So since the last park board meeting, he did a come to me and he said that the prominade was actually designed and constructed to accommodate vehicle access. During the park's development,
the park board authorized additional grant funding to install a thicker driveway style concrete surface specifically to support vehicle traffic associated with park operations, food trucks, vendors, deliveries, etc. So in light of that new information, park board can still um we could still revise
the policy and restrict all access to that area. We could go to with the original design to allow the way it was designed for food trucks in the prominade area. Um and then whatever you guys decide, we could I think it would be prudent to draft up some type of a policy that kind of outlines this so a
consumer of this would understand what the rules are, what the dos and don'ts are, and when and when they can't do things. Um, but I just wanted to reintroduce this to the park board. See if you had some second some some some different thoughts knowing that it was designed for vehicle traffic. And with
that, we're just want to hear some discussion from the park board. >> Yeah. Thank you. Questions, comments, thoughts? Um, my thoughts, comments on it are it's not necessarily always just the vehicles driving on it and the risk of damaging the concrete as much as it's
also like vehicle maintenance if there's an oil leak or if they're dragging something that could scratch the surface. It's I don't I don't want to be in a park that's got a big oil stain in the middle of a really nicely designed area as well. And I I I just kind of go with the
consistency here. I mean, the the the inlet's really nice. The walkway is really nice for transporting things. We honestly, the few events that we have run, the food trucks have have been able to park really great. I mean, a little bit further away from the amphitheater, but the usage and and the location of the food trucks have been pretty good.
So, I'm kind of all for keeping the consistency of the no vehicles inside of the parks, unless, you know, um they're in a parking lot. Um, but I I just think like the functionality and the way that things have flowed naturally has worked. And it's again, it's not just drop off,
you know, of like the equipment or things like that at the amphitheater. It's just full-on parking behind it. And um, we've seen other organizations use the amphitheater without clogging it up and bringing a lot of, frankly, a lot of equipment up onto the amphitheater. So, we know it
can be done. So, I think it's um I'm more in favor of just continuing to disallow that sort of thing. Feel like kind of where I'm at is we approved a event application to park an ice cream truck there. So,
I I think I would like to give it a shot for the rest of this year and see if we get oil stains, if we get other issues. But like if we did intentionally make this thicker concrete for vehicles, guess I would like to give it a shot so
we're not kind of totally wasting that invested money. And if it turns out leaky oil trucks, they're dragging stuff, they're chipping the concrete because they're dropping heavy stuff on it, like then let's, you know, pause and and readjust. But, um, if we've done
this, I'd like to at least pay off that investment a little bit and give it a try. kind of where I'm coming from. Well, I'd make the motion that we go along with the proposed use of the this sideway that the that
that the uh cement is uh durable and uh I just think in my opinion for the people using and stuff, it just makes a little bit easier to
utilize that area. And I totally agree with what you're inputting that that yeah, there could be real issues of cleaning that stuff off and then then if we see u ongoing problems to potentially
change at that time. >> Was that a motion or a comment? I make sure >> Oh, I'm sorry. That's a motion to go with the new new plan. >> I will second >> that motion
comment. >> Yeah. I um I just my thing is with this is that you know again being a person who walks that park almost every day. Um we can't really control the people that are
skateboarding and things like that inside of that park already. I do I'm I'm totally on board with giving it a try given that the design of it was intended for this. Um, but I do want to keep a very close eye on this because again I I do feel like that park has
gone relatively unregulated. Um, with these types of things like I mean we had a sweeping policy of no vehicles in the parks and I was the one who was showing that we had vehicles in the parks not knowing that this again that this was part of the design and I I don't fault
anybody for utilizing because again to uh previous points it looks like a natural inlet so why wouldn't you drive up there? But um this is one of those things where I mean the skateboarding is pretty bad there. The the cars in the parks have happened and it just wasn't
something that we've necessarily been attentive or the the attention has been provided at least to the board that this had been an issue. And um again, I don't fault anybody for skateboarding and I don't fault anybody for driving their cars up in the park, but there was no real attention to this previously. So,
if we're going to allow vehicles in the park, let's let's monitor what this does to the foundation of it and kind of like if there's even a point to it, like if people are utilizing this for these events, um you know, if it's just not a thing that's happening all the time or
it's not a real need, then let's you know, let's do away with it. But, you know, I'm willing to test it because that's that's the design. So >> yeah, I think where I'm coming from is like through a special event application like that ice cream truck where it seems to fit with the purpose of the event at
amenities in the park with the rest of the activities. >> Sure. >> That makes more sense to me than >> we're backing up our Honda Civic because we couldn't carry a two totes, you know, extra 100 feet on. >> Yeah. And I mean, but that's what I'm saying like even with some of these
events that I've witnessed, right? It is people just backing up their Honda Civic and pulling out a couple of totes but then leaving it in the park. So, >> you know, part of this to me is like, okay, yeah, we want the ice cream truck parked in the middle of the park. I that makes sense from a business perspective
and a usage perspective, but when people are then bringing in equipment or whatever to set up a show at the amphitheater and then leaving their car inside of the park, again, there's just no consistency there for what what you know people are going to expect for usage. And so, you know, this kind of
just again continues to open open that door to something that across the system we don't want, but in one particular example we're okay with. So, again, willing to try it. I'm happy that this is actually was designed this way. Like, it's interesting and I'm willing to try
it, but please let's just keep an eye on what what impact this has to the to the park specifically and the usage of it, you know? So >> Kevin, >> just to be clear, we're talking about just allowing the food the under events.
That's what we're talking about now is it would be event only usage for vehicles in parks or we're talking about free-for-all. >> That's what I'm imagining. >> Which that it's just events. Okay. I just want to make sure we're all on the same page. >> Like things that come to the board as a
special event application. >> Understood. Y >> ice cream truck makes sense here, I think. >> Yep. Perfect. And that's how I understood it as well. So I just Yeah, that's one of those things that my my two examples were specifically for events like I mean again people are utilizing the amphitheater um and um
like I said parking in there whatever backed up to it but again willing to test it events only. I feel like John, your emotion was maybe we've maybe diverged a little bit when you made that. I think it's good. We're
coming to a consensus, but what are your thoughts on we allow vehicles in linemen through the special event application only? >> I think yes, that's how it should be. What you're saying through the
application. Now again, for clarity sake, they can just rent out the amphitheater, right? >> And then not be required to have a special event permit. >> So >> that's a good point. >> So now we're talking about the rental of
the amphitheater or a special event inside of the park. >> Both. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> I'm think just like you have to fill out the special event application because that's now a process we have. But if they don't have but it's not a special event if there are less than 50 attendees. Right.
>> Right. In which case I don't think you need a vehicle in the park. >> Well, it's getting a little tricky now. So I, you know, so it's, so I, um, yeah, I'm just kind of trying to make this so that it's, it's clear because again,
we're making an exception to a a systemwide rule for one park for special events only and not the rental of the pavilion or of the amphitheater.
Okay. Like I said, I'm just trying to, like I said, I'm just trying to make sure because that's, you know, we're getting it's getting a little muddy, um, in my opinion. So, um, so it's all right. Special events only. >> So, I see where you're coming from. In
my head, it was the only avenue for this is a special event. Every other way, >> because I just there have been there have been a few events, I mean, that have that have reserved Lyman P. white that you know I mean whether it's you know a church group or you know just
folks up on stage doing a thing that is just in there. Um so the park has been reserved for other things and I mean it probably would have been sure as heck convenient for those crockpots to be carried out using a vehicle. So, I'm just saying like it we probably just
want to make it if it's facility usage like reserve facility usage you can you can utilize it otherwise honestly special event usage here it just it's it's you know I mean it's it's very niche and we might as well just squash it entirely. That's my opinion on that. So, well we can implement it after the
the ice cream truck is in there. So, >> yeah. Yeah. I guess to me that's like that should be the level of exception it is for someone to be parking something in the park. >> Sure. >> Like >> there's a car show at Arts in the Park and that makes sense as an oddball exception because everything else is in
the park and putting them on the street would be a block from every other activity. And this like the ice cream truck fits with the layout of all the other activities. So great and we happen to have the infrastructure but like somebody should come to that idea on their own. Not, oh, I can drive in the
park. What stuff can I do? >> Well, that's what I mean. Coming to enable this sort of thing is just by saying, okay, well, you know, again, it's just letting somebody be in the park. Like, if people drive by and are somebody's parked in the park, that's just basically giving them the idea that
they can be in the park, >> right? And so, that's that's the enabling that that we're trying to avoid, I think, across the entire system. And so, again, I like the idea of the usage of it. It it it does line up well and I'm sure a lot of organizations that utilize
the amphitheater will be hashtag blessed if they can drive in and unload all of their equipment. Happy to try it, but I think it just needs to be facility rental or park rental, not necessarily because the the special event rolls into that, right? Because they have to
reserve a facility in order to have the event in the park anyway. So, let's just make it facility usage or park rental. >> Sure. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. just for just for standardization before we completely kill this. >> So, number one, I'm going to vote no on
this motion for the reason that there is no way to make this clear as to what can or can't be in the park. We're talking in circles. We don't want this. We do want this. We don't want this. And there's going to be no way to enforce what it actually is. And number two, we're saying, "Oh, well, let's give this
a try." But if there's oil leaks, if there's damage or anything like that, that's nonreparable. So trying it to see if something that we don't want to happen that we can't prepare is pointless. So there's there's my reasons
for not supporting this. >> That's fair. >> Let's check in on the motion. >> Yeah, I think Oh boy. >> Well, we have a motion in a second, so we should probably vote on it. >> No, no second yet. Just just a motion.
>> You second. >> Oh, did I second? Oh my god. With comment. That's right. >> With comment. Yeah, >> comment. >> Um I feel like I don't have a good handle on the original motion anymore because we've made some leaps.
It might be wise to vote on this motion and then >> and then fire a new one in. Gotcha. >> Yeah. >> All right. >> I guess does anyone else have a clear sense of John? Do you feel like >> I don't know where we're at. So >> would you like to withdraw your motion? >> I will withdraw my second.
>> Okay. I'll withdraw the motion. >> Cool. Just to keep things a little >> clear as mud. >> Yes. Okay. >> Okay. >> Why don't you piece together something here? I know it's unorthodox, but why don't you piece together what now that
you know where we're at. So, >> I guess I would say for the remainder of 2026, we allow vehicles on the Prominade and Lyman P. ITE through facility reservation or special event application.
>> Okay, I will second that motion. >> I can't actually make a motion. >> Oh, very good. I will then make the motion that Andrew just stated, >> which is to allow vehicles onto the Lyman P. White prominade via facility
rental or special application. >> Second. stumbled into some clarity. Um, any further discussion. >> All right. Um, hearing no more discussion. All in favor say I. >> I. >> Oppose. Same sign. >> I.
>> That motion passes. Uh, 8 C. Approval of Yeah, I'm in the right part. Approval of Memorial Park playground estimate and color proposal. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh in April's meeting, the park board reviewed uh and
approved two conceptual designs for the Memorial Park playground. One with DNR funding and one without DNR funding. We have been notified that we did not get award of the DNR funding. Um but we would like to still move forward with uh funding that on the second option one
without grant funding to maintain the project schedule and complete installation during this year 2026. Staff is requesting parkboard approval to proceed with the playground equipment order due to due to current lead times. Approval is need to finalize the equipment estimate and reserve a
production and installation schedule. Additionally, we're looking for direction from the park board on a color pallet if it is approved. Our traditional has been green and red, but if you guys want something differently, please let us know. Um, and we also want to prepare the site for installation. So, staff is also requesting
authorization to remove the existing playground equipment and to uh remove the existing playground surfacing. These approvals will allow staff to move forward with ordering the equipment, scheduling installation, and complete the necessary insight preparation work.
So, we're looking for a motion to approve the Memorial Park playground equipment estimate, authorize appropriate city officials to execute the estimate and and associated project documents, approve the playground color palette, and authorize staff to remove the existing playground equipment and surfacing, complete all necessary site
preparation, and proceed with installation of the new playground in accordance with the approved project budget and schedule. The financial impact is $100,000, and this is budgeted. >> Thank you. Thoughts, comments, questions?
>> I'm just going to make a motion to approve the playground equipment estimate and authorize city officials to execute the estimate of associate project documents and approve the playground color for our generic um park standard green and red. And uh authorize staff to remove the existing playground
equipment and surfacing, complete all necessary site preparation, and proceed with the installation of the new program playground in accordance with the approved project budget and schedule. second and I'm glad you read that.
>> Hey, this was a lot clearer. All right. Uh any discussion on this? Uh I have two questions. Uh first one, is there any particular reason that it says the playground presentation is confidential?
Uh, it was page 82 of the packet. It was just it's a playground. I was curious. Uh, Mr. Chair, I don't have an answer for you. I'm not even sure what you're referring to. I believe you, but I don't have an answer for you. >> It's up on the
>> Oh, oh, oh. I I do not know. I suffice it to say, it's not confidential. >> I hope not. It was in the packet. >> I was the top secret playground. I got to got to get this. >> It's the deep state in the
>> U. And then second question, uh the estimate says this is state contract 2809. Is that a sourceful contract or is that something through the state? >> I would assume they can go out for uh use the state contract that they don't have to go through the regular bid
process. >> So that the state has bids where you can purchase equipment. Do the state own? >> No. >> So, yes, that's the state. I'm assuming it's the state bid. >> Cool. >> That they used >> should have you here more often, Connie? No.
All right. Uh, any further discussion? Hearing none. All in favor say I. >> I. >> I. Same sign. We're going to get a new playground. Uh, item 8D, rebuilding the Memorial Park picnic shelter. Nick.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. uh park board. So the park board at or the picnic shelter rather at Memorial Park was taken down I believe last year. It was in disrepair. Um public has has has since said that that was something that they really valued. They would like to have that back. It wasn't in our current
budget. It wasn't in our 5year SIP. So we came to the park board I believe a month ago and said is this something that you guys would be interested in rebuilding? And we suggested potentially funding source would be the the banner line item which hasn't been drawn against I think in several years and I
want to say there's 23 $3,000 in there. Um and park board directed staff to come back um maybe with some design ideas, some drawings, some estimated cost, etc. So that's what we have tonight. So option one is the a traditional picnic shelter. The drawings
and the quote are attached. Estimated cost is about 14,000. It's this is the one that's similar in size and appearance to the previous shelter. No concrete slab. This would just be built on grass. Um option two is on a concrete a concrete slab which um boosts up the
cost quite a bit. That's $22,800 and there's drawings in there for that as well. Option three was similar to what's at Lum Park which is just the the canopy things. They're not waterproof. Um, so >> and they're probably the the most
expensive. Um, but this is just a, you know, we want to get some direction from the park board on what you are interested in and um, we can try to answer any questions you have, but you had asked us for some drawings and some proposed costs and you have those and
we'd love to hear what you're thinking. >> I would just have a question since Conniey's here. It's awesome. Um, is there any problem with using banner funds for this? Um, we have been trying to research the park board minutes and it doesn't really say that what they were restricted for
for park improvements. I'm assuming since they were like on the softball fields, I kind of assumed that it would be something for softball, but this looks like it could benefit the program as well. >> And I think the request did come from a lot of the softball players. >> My my thoughts are I don't like doing
things that are outside the capital plan. And I know the council doesn't like that. However, I do agree with listening to the citizens and requesting and discussing when they do have an idea for the park and when it's been somewhat funded by outside sources. I even like
that more through the banner program. >> And my my comment immediately here is that from a marketing perspective, uh this doesn't provide additional seating to view the banners that are being paid for. episode is somewhat of a boon I
guess um for additional viewing time on banners um because of the positioning of this. So I mean this is a good usage and I guess we haven't really utilized this before. I mean but so we have a couple of bucks in this program that we just
haven't used for anything and I think this is one of those situations where the banners are basically only up on softball fields. So, um the attendance and the uh the the programs that actually get us banners raised up um
should somewhat benefit from the uh the banner revenue. So, if we can utilize those funds for this, I'm I'm in favor of option one because I'm my understand this is just that that shade structure like left of the concessions, right? >> Yes. Right.
>> The one that got removed. >> Yeah, that was removed. Okay. Yeah. I wanted to triple check before I I haven't driven by that in a while. So, yeah, I'm I'm in favor of option one if the funds can be utilized. If they can't, I mean, we'll probably have to look at this a little bit harder, but I
mean, if we can just build this for utilizing banner funds, I'm in. >> Kevin, >> uh, yeah, I was just going to weigh in just as a as a, you know, as an observer of seeing this play out. I I think for me what I'd be concerned with is building something that requires a lot
of maintenance, right? So if the if the building the the drawings that I saw on here didn't really speak to the methodology of what the parts and pieces are, whether it has full sophet or it was just exposed trusses on the bottom with plywood on top of that, which we all know gathers birds and bees and all
that kind of stuff. Uh also whether the posts were wrapped, not wrapped, do we got to stain those every year? what do we So I think my concern was that this is just underbuilt and leading to a lot of uh long-term maintenance. So um on
the drawing that I provided, it matched the architecture of the building next to it with the monos pitch roof versus the sloped roof and it was also fully maintenance-free. So it had full sophet full wraps on the post done forever basically completed. You guys obviously
can do what you want, but that was that's kind of my concern with building a structure that's just very very rudimentary built. So that's all. >> Just to clarify, Kevin, yours is the one that is
>> Mine was the handdrawn version, and I honestly would never have drawn the plan if I knew somebody else had already drawn the plan. I offered to do that because I didn't think we had a plan. So, um, then there was another plan. The sizing that I came up with, I apparently made an error on that. I looked on an
old document that I had when we assessed that park and it was listed as 12x4. So, I probably made a mistake there when I pulled out what it was, but this was my version here, concrete. It had LP smart side for the siding. It had a full set on the bottom and the top. No maintenance ever again. LP wrapped beams
on the sides, brackets on the bottom. You know, done. Obviously, it's more money though. So, that's I think the measurement that you know what you guys are up against is building the right thing here and measuring the long-term value and the long-term maintenance and all that and how it's going to look quite honestly next to an amazing
building which is like 20 ft away which looks super killer. So that's all. >> Uh how much of that cost, Kevin, is the the slab itself? >> Uh using sorry uh using their math, my
estimate was that the slab was around seven grand, but I'm not sure if, you know, they went from 14 to 22. I'm not sure that that was just that. It may have something to do with sono tubes and something subterranean, you know, sub subterranean concrete. I'm just not I'm fuzzy on that. But I drew it as a
floating slab which by my math and again my sizes may be incorrect to the other version and that may be leading to the gap that's exposing itself here but uh the slab in my opinion should be between five and eight grand.
>> Did we get this one bid? >> I can't speak to that. I just turned in the drawing because I didn't want to get yelled at. And this is the one that's roughly 228 option two. >> Yes. >> Oh, >> there you go. >> So, one of my thoughts is
that's like close to the total we have in that fund. Um, it's come to my attention that we have a surplus of crushed granite in the city that we previously used for playground surfaces, which is bad. But um would that Kevin be a potential floor
alternative in there? >> I think so. I think uh at least from from my we started putting concrete under a lot of these so that the tables could be bolted down, not moved. If you remember so we could use more a more permanent situation there. So that was really the impetus of the concrete,
right? It's less maintenance. You don't have to m you don't have to mow underneath it. You just zip around the thing. It's done. The tables are bolted down. Kids can't put them on a roof. And uh and that that was the idea with the concrete. It's just a more permanent. >> Yeah. >> Uh, also, if you have concrete, you can
bolt the structure to the surface versus having to drive down poles. >> So then the it's easier built. It that was the only thinking. Yeah. >> Yeah. I think my concern with the first option is
the it's going to be more maintenance than we expect. And so far we've done a good job as a board of only adding things to our system that either we get rid of when they they need
to be replaced or are very long term. So seeing and hearing some of Kevin's concerns give me I think pause that while it's appealing because we have that much money. We also have a pretty short-handed maintenance staff and saying oh you have
to mow in and around these tables on option one it starts to get to be we're paying for it in different ways and I'm just I'm just con I'm just guessing that what those surfaces the plan just doesn't really say. So that's was my concern. So maybe so maybe staff
knows that this is either open on the bottom not open has sophet doesn't have sophet what all are the post wrap not I just don't know so that I was raising that as a concern not saying that was fact so >> no >> when I was looking at that >> the agenda request says option one is grass >> okay oh I was talking about the poles
and the sighting and the sophet and all that kind of >> oh I see yeah I was just purely the grass like staff is already at capacity >> got it >> so like grass alone is >> yeah and starter And when I looked at the like the handdrawn plans, the dimensions of the slab were 12 x 14. So
I didn't think that was option two because this is based on a 16x 24t shelter. So I I didn't even think the handdrawn plans were in the estimates. >> So um I and again I don't I don't know how that works, right? This could be
technically a 16x 24 shelter on a 12x4 in slab or 12t x 14t slab. I don't know. But that's where I was at. I was like, "Oh, this is just Kev." I mean, this your signature drawing. So, um, so I was like, "This is uh, you know," but I didn't see this in any of the the
variations. So, that's why I was, if we were going to do one, that was why I favored option one, just simply because I'm like, "Well, this is I mean, we get a lot more bang out of the 16T x 24T, but I was looking at looking through this and that was the uh the estimate
here." So, I uh wasn't entirely sure. So, >> I have a a motion that I'd like to put out. I would make a motion to direct staff to look into option two, final pricing, um more firm pricing, just as
that does butt right up against the money we have, and bring that back at the August meeting, confirm the the dimensions of everything. >> Yeah. And I I was say, can I comment now? I think yeah I mean >> I think I would like a second. >> Yeah, I'll you know what? I'll second
that. I mean because I you know with comment um is that simply yeah I like I like the the thought behind that is the the longevity and again I'm not a mason nor carpenter so I don't know necessarily when a struct how how a structure will be built to last but um
if yeah if you believe that uh the structure would be better. I'd like to see a more flushed out plan on the on the 12x4 uh shelter idea. So that's where I'm at. >> Yeah. And maybe there is different size
options that would help that pricing. >> So these numbers are based on the actual size that we want, not the 12x4. >> Oh, okay. >> So it' be 16 by 24. >> So it's a 16x 24 version of the 12 by
14. >> Okay. >> Shelter. >> Oh, cool. >> Okay. Um, >> if that's the case, then in my opinion, the money is nicely balanced. If >> I remember right, we haven't used because Advantage donated the cedar
shakes in the roof. So, I think we have that money unspent in our budget for this year. Have to double check. Oh, wait. Conniey's here. You're going to really regret coming to anymore.
Um, I believe in our capital budget for this year, we had money to replace the roof on the stone arch thing in Lump Park and that was we had money donated for that or
advantage donated the whole replacement. >> I'm not aware of that. >> Would we be able to use that money for this? >> We can definitely put in the capital plan. It's up to council, approved by council. But you're It's about $20,000
was what this um Wait a minute. That's in the 206 budget. >> Yeah, 26 budget had that roof. >> I would think we could replace it, but again, it would just be a request >> to the council. Okay.
>> Further comment. I I I think the banner program is actually a good utilization. the money of the the program is is a good utilization of this uh for the building of this structure. >> Sure. Just aren't we a little short? >> Uh well, I said we have what 23 grand
>> Oh. >> in the banner and this estimated 228. >> Oh yeah. >> So we've got I mean in estimate enough money to do to pull it off. >> Again, I think this is just a good utilization of of revenue collected. So,
>> yes. Sorry. I in my head I was like the banner had about 20. >> Oh, I was like a couple thousand >> off. >> I was like that could fill the gap. But yeah, I like let's use the banner first cuz it's from softball and it benefits softball. It's their request. So I I love the closing the loop.
>> Okay. So the motion we have on the table is something we have an answer to now. >> Yes. So I would withdraw that since staff was able to answer that tonight. >> Very good. I will. Oh, I have to withdraw as well. I will also withdraw.
>> Oh, last time we drew a motion. Now we did two in a minute. >> Yeah, two. Yeah, I don't remember the last time. So, uh, now we'll make a motion to approve option two, utilizing the banner funds. >> Second. >> Any further discussion?
Hearing none. All in favor say I. >> I. I. >> Post same sign. As approved. Thank you, Kevin, for the standards compliant drawing. >> Uh, item 8E, tree removal, legacy trail,
and playground demolish for Lion's Park. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, the Briner Lions Club is requesting park board approval to begin the next phase of the Lions Park Legacy Trail and an all-inclusive playground project at Lions Park at Buffalo Hills. As part of this request, the Lions Club is
requesting permission to complete the removal of the existing playground equipment this fall, allowing the site to be prepared for construction of the new all-inclusive playground in the spring of 27. The Lions Club is also requesting approval to remove three trees that have been identified with red
X's on the on the attached site plan. Um staff has confirmed that two of these three trees are dead while the third tree must be removed to accommodate the footprint of the new playground. Furthermore, the Bernardage Lion Club is requesting authorization to begin construction of the legacy trail as
shown in the improved master plan. Lions Club will provide the necessary volunteers, equipment, and resources to complete the playground removal, tree removal, trail construction, and associated site preparation pending park board approval. Uh so basically, Lines Club is looking for three things. They
want to begin construction of the legacy trail as shown in the master plan. Um asking the park board to approve the 8ft wide paved trail. Number two, remove the existing playground equipment this fall and prepare for site construction for spring of 27. And three to complete all associated site work necessary to
prepare for that construction. Um as as staff went through this um if you look at the recommended motion, there's four items in there. Just to kind of paraphrase, number one is to remove the trees. Number two is authorize the construction of the legacy trail with the 8 foot wide path. Number three is to
authorize the removal of existing playground equipment this fall. And four is to authorize staff to coordinate with the Lions Club to prepare the site for uh activities for in 2027. Staff would I think staff supports all four of these recommendations. My recommendation to
the park board would be that the park board approve these four contingent upon staff doing a little bit of a little bit more homework. As I understand it, the Lions Club and they're here. They can speak to this if you have questions for them. As I understand it though, the Lions Club is going to provide
volunteers to fell the trees. I want to make sure that we don't have any liability concerns with that. Um, I've also understand that they if they remove the park board or excuse me, the playground equipment, they want to donate that equipment. I think we need to review our donation policy to make
sure that's appropriate because I think once that I think that playground equipment belongs to the city. So, I think we just I just want to make sure we're doing our due diligence. So my recommendation would be to approve these four items that they're looking for contingent upon staff doing a little bit
of work and we'll work with the lines group to make sure that we are make sure we're we're happy with all the things that we're covered as far as any legal exposure. The last thing I'd want is for somebody not a city employee to be cutting down a tree and it falls and hurts somebody and I want to make sure
we got our basis covered there. So staff would recommend the park board approve these four items, but let us do our little let us do a little bit of work and we'll work with the Lions Club to make sure we have all our questions answered. >> Thank you, Dick. Uh thoughts, questions, comments, John?
>> Well, uh exactly what we're up to. We want our uh you know, the city working our agreements and just fulfilling our end and having our service groups fulfill their end. So, um this is all part of the project plan and happy to uh have um staff work in coordination. So,
I am ready to make a motion. >> I have one question for friends from the lines. Um I just need you to come up real quick. Sorry. So, the mic catches you. Um super excited about all of this. I just I don't think I saw it in here.
Have you received the funding for the new playground? >> Not yet. We have applied to Lions International. Um, they probably won't see that request until maybe October, November. Money
would not be received until January or February. But in talking to St. Croy Recreation, uh, Chris Armmitage. It would be to our benefit to have that site prepared this fall, let it sit over the winter, and
then be ready for construction first thing in the spring. At this time, I believe we have about 127,000 sitting with the city of Brainard. um you know if that grant doesn't come
through the Lions are are prepared to see it through. >> Okay. That was just my one one concern was we get the money. >> We don't you know I because it's a matching grant through uh Lions
International. I can't go out and apply for a whole bunch of other grants. Um, I have to wait this one through. There are lots of different options out there for us. And if we're not going to put that in until spring, then I still have the
time to um to look at other options. >> One quick question. That 127,000 that includes the 80,000 we had budgeted. Correct. >> No. >> No. So, we now have 217,000. >> Okay. Because I knew we we had held money over
>> for that playground. Correct. >> Because there was a match >> 90,000. Yeah. >> Yes. >> So at 217,000 our total project just for the playground itself was it ended up being I think 265,000
275,000. So like I said, we are we we can do it if we had to. >> Sure. Oh, yeah. >> Yeah. >> All right. Yeah. I just wanted I didn't want to approve getting rid of the playground and then right because it's totally out of your hands.
>> You know, I I get it 100% because we don't want to have a hole in the ground out there and uh we would never do that. >> Frankly, I think a lot of kids would just play in the hole. >> Exactly. >> Worse ideas >> and they'd probably have a lot of fun.
>> Wouldn't exactly be ADA approved, however, which is what we're looking for. >> That's much perfect. Okay. >> Any other >> any other questions for me? >> All right. Anyone want to attempt a motion? >> Yeah. >> As far as comments before my motion is
concerned, I just I um yeah, always comments, but the uh the tree impact is low as we move into the fall and they want to to move it out because two dead trees and one that maybe is not necessarily dead, but the impact on tree removal is relatively low as we move
into the fall and then by then we'll still have a clearer picture moving in there. So the impact on the park itself, you know, before the playground removal is very minimal. So we can start kind of moving forward on that piece and then as the fall comes, we'll have a much better
much clearer picture. So I'm I'm still very much on board with all three points and then again coordination with staff and of course the Lions have been great partners the whole time. So it's not like we have a communication issue. So, I will make a motion to um authorize Lions Club to begin the construction of
the Legacy Trail um as approved of the master plan um with the 8 foot wide pave trail, remove the existing playground equipment this fall to prepare the site for construction um of the playground in the spring of 2027, of course, pending um all of those uh you know,
conversations moving up for it. and then complete all associated site work necessary to prepare the project. You know, again, free removal and then again contingent on conversations with staff and and you know, uh additional coordination for the lines needs.
Thank you. >> I'll second that. >> Any discussion? Uh one thing I thought of as you're he was making his motion. Um Nick, can we have Troy and his team grind those stumps this fall? I assume that's not
probably something we want to have the lines doing, but we have the we could do the grinder. >> Cool. >> Thank you. >> We need to vote on it. >> Yes. Any All right. All in favor say I. >> I oppose. Same sign. That is approved.
Thank you, Lions. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> Oh, yeah. >> All right. Uh move on to item 9A, our 2027 capital budget. Uh Connie. >> Yes. Thank you. U members of the board.
Um so per the city charter by September prior to September 1st, the park board is to present a budget for park and recreations activities and present it to the city council. So this is the first preliminary operating and uh initial capital budget. And so if we look at the
beg sheet the next Yes. Can we enlarge you? Thank you. So if we start by looking under the park maintenance, I just want to highlight a couple areas um for discussion and consideration and explanation. Um you can see total personnel services in the park maintenance budget increased by
about $75,000. And there was a change to the allocation for the director and administrative positions. For 2025, the allocation was 40% 60% respectively. for 2026 is 45 and 80%. Um there's also when the um park
maintenance employees do downtown snow removal, it is not coded to the parks fund, it's coded to a different fund. Most of their time, we only have a little bit of data to analyze, but most of the time was overtime. So there is no reduction in the budget currently for
any straight time that they might be working in the downtown snow removal. Again, we just don't have the data to support a good estimate. And it was pretty it's pretty small amount considering um that was straight time, the rest of it was overtime.
Um if we look down to professional services, um staff made the YMCA and community ed contracts the same amount. And then staff would like the parkboard to discuss the cost of injections for disease trees. The estimated cost is between $3 and $5,000. The current
budget does not include any budget for disease trees. An alternative could be using the $25,000 annual budget for trees, just meaning that fewer new trees would be planted with that budget amount. So, I think that's something that we could discuss. Uh Jonathan, it looks like you have a question.
>> Yeah. Did we make a decision on emerald ashbor at some point? I thought we were kind of in a general consensus on well I mean I guess it's all disease trees not just emerald ashbor but I think our emerald ashbor was just cut >> right
>> yes thank you Mr. chair. So, it was uh 3 years ago that we brought something uh before the park board. It was kind of decided in most of our parks that we would just let the ash trees go. Um they don't they don't make a large portion of a lot of our parks, but the one um that we did bring forward um that we had
concern about was Kowanas Park. Um so there we injected um we kind of picked about the best seven ash trees that were kind of the high quality shade areas that we needed it. Um because about 80% of that um park is made up of ash trees. So, it was three years ago we got parkboard authorization to go ahead and
inject I think seven trees there and then one of them that provided kind of the the only shade at Bane Park um near one of the dugouts. Um so there was about eight trees that were injected um that we got authorization for. So it' be reingjecting those same trees. Um they should be done every 2 to 3 years. The
company said you can stretch it to three, which is what we did here. Um, so we'd be looking to potentially use some obviously go out for bid um and then potentially use some of that budget um for the tree replacement to do the injections. That way you're not having to add to the capital budget. Um and
then I I did do a kind of an assessment of of some of our parks. I I would probably recommend both Bane Park and Kuanas Park be the the next ones that we do plantings in. And you know, I think we could come up with a good tree plan with the remaining funds. >> Thank you, James. So, that was kind of
the discussion was whether or not you wanted to increase the operating budget for these injections or if you wanted to use the capital $25,000 reoccurring trees budget. Um, if we continue on, if we look at the lease payments and sale of assets, staff needs more time to
review the plan for replacement of lease vehicles. um insurance staff use various percentages increases from the League of Minnesota City budget guide, but this seems like a a significant increase and I would like additional time to review because it just seems very odd to me. Um
if we go to um outdoor rinks, you can see the office or operating supplies that the budget was lowered by about $1,300. And this was um we removed the skate sharpening equipment that was actually purchased in 2025. So that is
why that budget decreased. Special events, operating supplies, um that one increased um by about $3,000 or $4,000. The $11,000 includes a budgeted amount for a
sound system in a new podium. Our understanding now is that we use community action sound system when we have special events. There something about should we purchase our own and our a podium is just in it's seen its useful life. a couple years ago.
>> Yes. So, I don't know if that's something that you want to keep in there, but that was something I wanted to highlight for you guys to discuss that staff just didn't put it in the budget. You know what kind of the plan is? As well, if we look at adult softball, um, you know, revenue, we've seen a decline in the last years,
basically looking at what was collected for 24, 25, and projected for 26. We're at an average about 38,5 or $38,900. If we look at the last five years actual, we're at 43,000. So staff put a budget in there of about $40,000. And I
bring that to your attention because another item on tonight's uh agenda is to consider it the increase to the umpire rate from 23 to $25 per game without an increase to the registration fees. The estimated cost of this increase would be about $2,500 a year,
estimating payroll taxes and that kind of stuff. To make a long story short for my agenda request, um if the increase were to approve, staff would not change the current personnel services budget just based on history of what we've actually seen versus budgeting the actual number of games that we hope to
have. Um without increasing the fee and increasing the the um wage for the umpires, the estimated expenditures would exceed the estimated expenditures by about $250. But one repair maintenance of not being
spent or one operating not being spent, it could potentially make up the difference and you could see a positive. So that's just an item to consider. The current operational budget is a $59,600 increase from the 2026 operating budget
for the park board. If we look at the capital equipment, that's the next page. Um you can see that the capital request this is comparing to last year when we were looking at 2027 when we were
budgeting for 2026 kind of you can see the difference of the plans like we mentioned council doesn't like when you add things or when you you know or price is one thing but adding and subtracting things is another item but we did um add $21,000 for the buildup of the lease
vehicle. Again this is for the plat flatbed truck that they use in the park system. They use it a lot. I don't even know if we can get it replaced in 2027. So, we might be able to remove that from the capital budget, but for now, I think it's a good thing to lead it in. So, these are all the add-ons to the lease
vehicle. We have to add the I don't even know. I not even talk intelligently. We have to add equipment to the lease vehicle, and that's what the 21,000 represents. Um, you can see that we added $4,000 for a new trailer. Um, we're going to replace an aluminum one
with the steel one. Um, one broke and we're using the repairs and maintenance budget for 2027 to rep or 2026, excuse me. I got my years mixed up. Um, to replace it. It was unoperable. This current other one that we have, it's cracked right now, so it's just a matter
of time before it breaks. Um, we have the $25,000 for the tree replacement as we talked about using some of those funds for the disease. And then security cameras. Um this is a question from it that um so this is generally new cameras
for new parks. However, Gregory and and Memorial are on their own system where all the rest of the cameras are on a verdict uh system. And so it would estimated cost about $4,000 to get those existing
cameras onto the new system. So we're asking if we want to increase the budget for that as well. And then when we talk about the facilities, I'll let um Andrew take that over. So, is there any questions? Any discussion on the items that have been
proposed by staff? You like them, you don't like them, leave them in, take them out? >> Should we jump back to the trees and go one by one? >> Yeah. My thoughts on the trees are we just use the we inject them again and
use the tree replacement cost for that. well or how many new trees we plant. Um, I look at that as offsetting needing to replace those and just keeping what we have. >> Yeah, I'm trying to think. It's kind of a I feel like
it just depends on the the volume. I mean, cuz the if we're going to focus on replacing, I mean, eventually we're just going to want to be done injecting these in 50 years or whatever it takes for an asht tree, you know, whatever. I'll be long dead. But the uh I'm just
eventually we want to not be injecting these trees. So, as as quick as we could realistically improve the inventory at these locations that have the ash trees, I would prefer to spend the money now to get those completely replanted while we're doing
these injections so that, you know, six six cycles from now, we don't have to do this anymore. We can be in a position to eliminate the injections. And so, if we could frontload that because, you know, it's going to take 20 years for us to see any sort of gains. I would like to
have the if we can use the 25,000 in the trees the tree budget annually to get this completely set in motion and replace these trees and there's money left over then great let's utilize some of that money for injections if not I just want to get these trees planted and
get this inventory caught up so that we can be done investing in injections in in 18 to 20 years would be ideal and I again maybe yeah James can speak to that potentially Yeah, I'm kind of on the same same path. I would right the the best time to plant
a tree is 20 years ago and the second best time is today. So, I don't think there's a harm in asking for additional operating budget to do the injections knowing that it lets us get a little bit ahead on some of those tree replacements
that we know, to your point, we're not going to inject them hopefully for 30 years and this would let us stop paying for that and have a more resilient, less attacked tree variety, I guess. James. Yeah. >> Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So um with the injections and the money that would
be left remaining for plantings, Kuanas would be the top priority and then um with what staff would bring for a plan um then beyond that, you know, if there are more trees that can be planted would be Bane Park would be kind of the next priority when I did look at it. Um we'd plant with tree diversity. That's kind of the problem right now is we have no
diversity at that park. Um but that would be um the next one. And I don't have any concerns that we'd be able it's not a huge area um in Kowanas Park there. So, I I think we could certainly plant every tree that we'd need to this year and and have no issues and and and still be able to inject with that
25,000. >> Very good. Then I am on board with JD's original assessment. >> Cool. So, we >> do not want to ask for that. >> If we don't need it, I don't want to ask. >> Sounds good. >> All right. Next was
I think the umpires. >> That's a different agenda item. >> A different agenda item. Yes. The next item would be the um well the outdoor rinks was uh give me um I don't think we really need to discuss that. That was just removing a skate a piece of equipment that we've already purchased.
>> Um special special events. Oh, I'm let me back up. The other items for lease and sale of assets and insurance staff will continue to look at those as we move forward. Outdoor rinks was removing the skate sharpening equipment. um special events was if you want to keep the uh sound system and the new podium
in the operating budget. >> I I have been saying for the last couple years that we need a nice sound system and as we do more events it'll be very useful and better communication with the public. >> Yeah, I think that levels up our
internal events >> and that podium is that's a nice way to call that a podium. piece of wood. >> Yeah, I'm on I'm on board with the adjustments >> that one in there. >> Yeah. >> All right. And then then it was the umpires. Okay. >> And that's a whole different agenda
items. I was just kind of giving you information that we did lower the budget and our basis for lowering the budget for the revenue and then how we would handle the increase if you went ahead with that. Um the other items on the capital budget um you know I think that we kind of explained why and how we
needed them or why we added them to the capital budget and now I think you can talk about the facilities. >> One other thing before we go Yep. Go ahead. >> Uh security cameras. >> Yeah. >> Yes. Yes. Yes. Sorry. >> Yes. >> Um is that 4,000 included and 8,000 to
transition to the new system? >> No. That would be an additional. >> Um, do we know where the police department stands? Would they prefer it on one system or not? >> This is coming from it and it sounds like they would prefer it to be on one system. So, it costs about $4,000 a year
to change out two part camera systems to the different platform and the same as cameras and new devices, the software that they would be on where Gregory and and Memorial are on their own system and it doesn't sound like it's the best system. So that was why it is suggesting
to change those two cameras onto the new system which would cause about cost about $4,000. So it' be an additional two the two cameras a year replacement. >> I would be in support of that. I >> I have to imagine there's some sort of savings as well usually on like I mean
there has to be some sort of subscription or some sort of interface that we have to pay for to utilize these and >> you know that sort of thing. So yeah, I'm in favor of getting it all up to date and then if we're going to make changes to the security camera system, let's just try to sweep it across the system instead of peacemailing it out to
individual companies, I guess, going forward. But, you know, that's something obviously hopefully decades away. >> Perfect. >> Right. And then I just wanted to address the going forward the budget process. So, um like I said, the park board has
to um present the budget to the city council prior to September 1st. So, we have an option of doing that at the second meeting in August, or we could do it at the budget workshop, which I'm going to request council to schedule, and I'm hoping that they will schedule
on the 31st of August, so we hit that September 1st deadline. Hint, hint, hint, hint, Kevin. Um, so you can either present the budget at the second meeting meeting in August or you can do it at the workshop, which then you could possibly have another
parkboard meeting to discuss the budget if there was anything you wanted to change before presenting it to council. >> And it don't have to have a motion, just kind of what you kind of think because Andrew, you will probably present the budget as the board president. And so it
depends on how comfortable you feel and how ready you feel if you want to do the second meeting in August or at the workshop. >> So I think my only comment is I think given our like emergency budget workshop that we we agreed as a board to council
that we would provide it as early as possible. So I mean again is it is a couple of days negligable? Maybe. But I mean we we did kind of just say hey we'll get it to you as as soon as we can. So, and I think we outlined like maybe a budget
like glimpse or something early on and then to have that done on the second meeting in August. So, um I'd kind of like to stick to it unless council wants something different. >> My leaning would be to get it in as soon as possible. >> Yeah, >> earlier is always better.
>> There's more absorption time. It's it cuts down potentially the meeting time at the budget meeting. So also, so >> yeah, I think today we'll get to a good spot for that. So >> that's true for a second meeting. >> Um I did want to bring up the Weeden
feed program. Um so talking with Troy, that 25,000 really just gets us the ball fields. So, if we want Gregory Memorial, um, Gustoson, which is basically grass
and dirt, uh, right, if we want any of our other parks, Triangle, which is 0% grass at this point, it's clover and sandirds mostly and dandelions in the spring. Um, if we want to start working on any of those parks, the 25,000 is not
going to help us make any progress there. So something to think about today is whether we want to increase that. I think Troy was getting quotes. It looks like he doesn't have them yet. So I think it's hard for us to make a number today and maybe that has
to be a consideration for the 28 budget. But I think that given that's our top priority is grass, um that may be something we want to look at increasing either speculatively this year or um in 28.
I understand the idea of increasing it. Um, I'm a bit of a grass nut myself. However, if we're not going to be watering them consistently, putting weed and feed down, expecting that to give us green grass alone is going to do nothing. I'm not in support of increasing that budget. I'm assuming
Gustas and Triangle and all those places do not have a sprinkler system. So, water is going to give us the best green grass. Weed and feed will help with that water. Um, I I love grass. I want grass. looking great in all of our parks, but we are also at the mercy of mother
nature. >> Fair. Kevin. >> Yeah. Just real quickly, you need to dig into this a little bit, but you could also weed but not do the feed. So, you could you could do something in
the parks that are not irrigated to just cut down on the invasive species, but not necessarily add feed that would then need water. So, uh, somebody would need to kind of dig into what that looks like and what the cost is of that, but weed and feed don't
necessarily have to be together. So, just food for thought, maybe. >> Yeah, I I think realistically I just maybe would like staff or whoever um to put together some sort of proposal that handles this. I mean, yeah, to I I said, yeah, planting the the metaphorical seed
right now and uh trying to figure out, you know, what this is going to look like, but yeah, I mean, what what are our options? How do we take care of the grass in the system and how do we make it affordable and handle those things, I mean, going forward. And so, I mean, yeah, I'm in favor of handling the grass
in the best way that we can and maybe if we don't have necessarily enough budget, we're handling the more dire, but I'm I'm a big fan of clover to begin with. So, um, >> it's always green. >> Yeah, it is always green. So, I mean, but that's kind of but looking at that
from like as for a whole system, right? What does it look like and how much does it cost to do each one? I mean, we we're talking about how long does it take to cut the grass, right? We we just a few of those elements that we still don't understand about what it takes to manicure a beautiful park lawn. And so,
a lot of that needs to be kind of wrapped in one presentation. and and and what it takes to actually take care of our our system. So, >> we could also look at morganite if you just want green grass. Morganite and nitrogen additives are going to green it
up fast. >> So, there's there's options and maybe that's something that Zach can work with maintenance staff on and what is the best use of that $25,000 to get our parks looking the best. because I I felt coming out of the out of that priorities
workshop that when we originally found out about what the Weed and Feed program is actually for, I didn't feel like it was $25,000 well spent um just given some of the context. So, you know, looking at it and increasing it right now in its current state is probably not
something that I'm interested in doing, but if we can explore what a pro what a robust weed and feed program looks like that that handles, you know, the entire system or, you know, is at least a boon um to the system instead of just being
kind of again to some point like ball field improvement um because we're losing money on the ball fields right now or like the usage of the ball field. So, um, you know, looking at the the real estate and trying to make an improvement on a program like this is
where I'm at and seeing what those options would be instead of kind of, in my opinion, uh, wasting $25,000 a year on this on this program. So, um, yeah, good uh good bring up though, I think. >> Yeah, I like your idea of a more
holistic proposal because the ball fields are fabulous. like they are green. They're all grass. But yeah, that's that's a different uh cost center than >> I want green grass in Gregory or Triangle or Gustoson or Boehner Memorial
or anywhere. Okay, cool. Uh let's get to the really fun giant mega spreadsheet uh that Max has so graciously pulled up. Uh so my thought is I can edit this as we go. Um, so if you see something in the spreadsheet and you're like that is
wrong, let's change it before we move on. Um, because the idea is this will kind of be the foundation of our capital long-term capital plan uh when we're done. So, very quick refresher um on how this is set up. Uh, thinking a bit of a
journey backwards now. Um, several park boards ago, we made a list of every item in the park and roughly guessed at when it should be replaced and its value in 2023.
Um, so what we'll be looking at today is I think the next four or five years, probably not through 20 or up to 2030 because that's Millsfield and that's a whole other thing. um when I look at is the replacement year correct? Do we think that actually needs to be
replaced? If so, um what work needs to be done? And then what is a rough estimate for that work? Whether it's a full replacement, if it's just a partial replacement, things like that. So, um, the goal is just to go down the list starting in 2027 through 28, I think, up
to probably Millsfield because that again is a whole other thing we probably need to workshop on. That makes sense. Cool. Screen chair is working. We're living in the future. All right. Our first 2027 item is the Memorial West
parking lot. So this is what is facing our soon to be very nice picnic shelter. Um it is in rough shape I think is a good assessment. Um our plan at the time was to convert
that to gravel um because we didn't want to find the hundreds of thousands of dollars to pave it. Um questions would be one is it bad enough we need to replace it now? two. Do we still want it to be gravel?
>> James, >> I'm there every week. I don't know that it needs to be replaced right now. I I think we've got another couple years yet. >> That and I think uh part of that early conversation was with the skatepark potentially going in. What does the
footprint of the skate park look like and how does that impact the parking lot and what can come out of that parking lot or what usage we can get out of that parking lot and then shrinking it because a portion of that footprint does still we are taking a portion of the the
parking lot away but then applying the footprint of the skate park which I mean I would assume a lot of those uh you know uh they would skate over but um a lot of those people are going to drive over and utilize the skate park. So removing all of the parking or the at
least a percentage of that parking now maybe seems less um pertinent. Um again the usage of the you know of the parking lot now is of course not to the maximum but if we have a large skate park there we will probably we could potentially be
hurting for parking. So, me personally, I I'd like to see what the skatepark footprint looks like and the natural flow of traffic and parking um that's going to come out of that lot. Does it then need to be restriped and all those things if we're going to let it stay? I
mean, the striping in there is pretty terrible and you know, the flow traffic might need to, you know, we might need a little update there, but I think that's a negligible amount of money compared to the actual demolition of this and conversion. So, I'd kind of personally like to move it a little back, maybe a
year or two, um, just to see what the uh what it looks like with the park, the skate park in. So, >> yeah, I I've been there not often this year. I was looking at the trees and it seemed rough, but not objectionably
rough. That Kayla, do you have I know you're there a lot. >> I would agree with that. I think it looks in decent shape as of now. So, I think we could push it back. >> Cool. You thought one year?
>> I think two years is probably good enough for us to like evaluate and get feedback from from everybody that utilizes Memorial Field and then the skate park during that time. Like we can start to understand if the parking really sucks. um you know or if it's or if there's just or like anecdotally if
there's enough right um that we can shave down a portion of it and and uh repair it to gravel. But I also think you know if you're going to have two facilities or two potential activities going on in that parking lot that being able to direct traffic a little bit more
utilizing you know actual flow of a parking lot might be a little bit more useful than gravel uh than leaving people to their own device. But um you know, Lions Park will give us kind of an indicator of that here relatively soon as well. So >> yeah, just a little uh just want to
chime in here. I was part of this uh acquisition of the or at the time frame on the park board when this happened. And just as a refresher, the park board at that time didn't want this parking lot. They assessed all of those spots that they have as well as the on street
parking that was all created basically from Milfield and found that this westerly parking lot was not needed. Convenient but not needed from a spatial standpoint. So at that time the parking the the park board didn't want this maintenance. They didn't we didn't
really want this parking lot. So but city council at that time decided we should have this parking lot. we had an opportunity to get it and so we were gifted the parking lot. Um, now I think that everyone is has the basic
assessment. When I was actually the person that met Anderson out there at the parking lot, came up with the numbers. I basically regurgitated exactly what I was told by the person about how long it would last, what it would cost to just resurface, mill, and completely redo. And that's how those numbers, that's not the 75 grand. That's
it was basically to rip it out and to turn it into gravel minus the uh the the skate park. So, um yeah, it can probably continue to go on for, you know, quite some time. You could defer this maintenance. I could see that. But I just wanted to speak to the space count.
Plenty of space count on the internal lot. That's all. >> J. Oh, Kayla. Sorry. So, the parking lot has been getting really full because we've been adding youth sports um in the open field behind what is it field uh
two. >> So, that's been two or three nights of youth going on as well. >> Yeah. And then of course the usage of the warming house and the splash pad during the summer uh evenings as well. I mean, yeah, again, Millsfield definitely a different conversation, but that
internal parking lot um is seeing a little bit more action and then people who are playing on that other field are also going to park over there as well. So, um yeah, I just feel like we're adding a lot of facilities and usage to the park and activities that I I do still think that the the parking lot
itself is relevant. I mean, not that you're not saying it's not, you're just giving context, but um yeah, I think just given given the volume and the activity and then the potential for a pretty explosive amount of activity in, you know, and convenience to the parking there because again, skateboarders are
are going to have to utilize the street if they park in that central that inner parking lot. So, um actual convenience to getting to the amenity that um is, you know, going to be incredibly expensive. Um, I'm still kind of very much in in the camp of of keeping this
around um for again, yeah, to Kevin's point, maybe even longer out, but we'll uh assess it in 2029. Just see see where we're at. Good. Yeah, I mean, not spending money. >> Super good. Super good.
>> All right. Uh, the Lum Shower Building. So, we got some estimates for this last meeting. Um, we had planned for 110. I don't know if we got the updated estimate back because we're going to have the two ad alternates. Is that
still with TWWM or whoever was bidding on that? >> I I am not sure. I'll have to find out. I don't know if I've seen that. So, have Okay, we haven't seen that. Okay. I didn't think so. If I remember
110 was not quite enough for everything we wanted. >> Correct. >> Yeah. So it seemed Yeah. was not enough. >> So if we are deferring the 75 um actually let's talk about the JC's. >> So we know we want to do the sh >> we do want to do
>> let's come back to the number for that in a second. So JC's um the two-story building um maintenance, this was for specifically the um epoxying the
concession in the bathroom floor. I believe that was done. Was that that was one of the things that we had done, right? >> You're talking about the epoxy. Yeah, >> JC's hasn't been completed yet because of the BBBA tournaments.
>> Oh, >> that's the only one that's not done, >> but we paid for it already >> or >> there I don't there there's no invoice for the JC's one. We did we did Bane, you know, all the >> Okay. >> Memorial um >> Lyman
>> Lyman all of those. But JC's is the only one we've been holding off on. >> Thank you. Cool. Yes. So, that one I think we've had good results at the other parks. I think it makes sense to do this as well. So, I'd be in favor of leaving that. That seems
to make sense to me still. Anyone have strong epoxy feelings? I Well, I hate using it uh as I've kind of discovered recently, but yeah. No, I uh I think it's very very very good u just to have this entire epoxying project
completed. So, and then giving potential actual use of the concessions booth uh back up and running for tens of dollars. >> All right. So, what I think we have the potential to do is one of our goals is to keep our ask of the council
relatively consistent. Obviously, if it goes down, they're not going to be that mad. But, uh we also don't want to have it shrink by a ton because then it right, that's also not a great sign. So I think given that we we know the lum
bathroom work will be more than 110 and we're not spending 75 in the parking lot. Do we increase the lum amount to roughly what we think it will be which keeps our ask more consistent from last year's prediction.
Um and then right this is now delayed a couple years. >> Yes. My concern with that is that parking lot is still up in the air as to what to do with it. So that 75,000 should stay in there somewhere >> until we know for sure. >> Just moved to >> it does. Yeah.
>> But we're we're just adding to that capital plan if we take that 75,000 for just this year. You're you're Robin Peter to pay Paul. Well, our our 2% increase actually is or the the way that we acrue money into this fund actually gives us additional like that that
percentage allows us to make a smaller ask potentially in two years instead of asking for 75 or 2% uh contribution might allow us to to request less or uh less new funds out of that. I mean if you if you know what I'm saying the
theory behind it is that we'll have two years of additional acral that um our our fund will actually be um reduced. So we actually have two additional years of saving towards this project. So our ask for the project technically is two years
shorter in dollar amount. >> Yeah. The longer term goal is that we get to a point where we're not asking council for anything but 2% of the value of the assets in the >> correct. But I I also believe that there's more that we could take out of that budget. We're we're still robbing
Pet Peter to pay Paul for this future year in these next couple years. I mean, if if we get into 2028, I think there's $40,000 there that we can discuss taking out and putting somewhere else instead of saying, "Oh, let's take the $75,000 we're not spending this year and put it
in the One Park bathrooms and then, oh, hey, we're going to add 75,000 into 2029." We we have we're adding 75,000 for one park bathrooms and still keeping that 75,000 in something else. >> What is the size of the fund right now?
I don't >> we're we're looking at the ask. We're not looking at what's in the fund. We're looking at what we're asking from council. >> We're we're trying to determine where are these projects falling. So changing the dollar amounts is changing your ask for from council,
>> right? And I think we made the 110 estimate with the best information we have. >> I I'm not debating that. That Yeah, that's what it is. But saying we're going to take because we're not going to spend 75,000 this year and add that to the one park just to get to where we need to, but we just moved that 75,000
to 2029. You're you're adding money without you're robbing Peter to pay Paul from a future year and adding money later. I would rather we take the 40,000 out Augustus and park for the back stops.
and look at it that way. I mean, we haven't got to 2028 to discuss that, but there's other options there. >> Yeah, and certainly things in 28 or 29 are going to move farther out as well. So, that's a a good point.
Um, Kevin, you're our resident building expert. >> Oh. Uh if you had a guesstimate for where you think that Lumpark worked with the two ad alternates is going to come back. >> Uh can can you refresh what the what the
bid ultimate what the ad ultimates ad alts were? >> It was the second door. Well the core bid I think was the second door and all the bathroom facilities for the camp >> for the inside. Right. Then we add alternates for the roofing,
the sophets, and the >> Yeah, the 110 was just basically to freshen up the inside, but didn't really do much with the outside. Correct. Yeah. I If I had to guess, I'd say you're you would have another 25 grand to 30 grand into spiffing up the exterior roof. It's
pretty Yeah. >> Yeah. helpful. >> Um, so if we add 30, >> yeah, >> a guesstimate for where that's going to come back. >> 140. >> All right. And then, yeah, this is 29.
All right. So, that is those are the the now two items we have planned for next year. We're going to epoxy J's booth. We're going to do pretty significant work to the lum bathrooms. Is everyone comfortable with that plan?
>> Awesome. All right. Um I think let's I know we're not going to stay here until the end of time. Otherwise, we could look out a hundred years at Mason. Everybody's favorite activity. Um I think if we get through 28, we'll be in
good shape, though. Just anything that we think needs to pull forward. Um, first in 28 we have the Gregory Southeast Playground. That is the one with the funny tree is probably the easiest way to describe it. Um, I think that's about right. The
equipment there is not in great shape. Just like the paint alone, the sun fading is it's had a it's had a good life. Um, I think that's a reasonable estimate for doing that replacement. >> That's what we've been doing for playgrounds. >> Yeah. >> And they've turned out pretty well.
Yeah, I think they're a good size. Um, that's good. Sounds like J, do you have some strong feelings about the Gustoson back stops? I have not been there in a hot second. I I mean, I haven't been there recently either, but are we going to spend
$40,000 for on back stops that are barely used? I I have very strong feelings about this park in general and it's extremely underutilized and now we're looking at putting $40,000 into an underutilized
park. >> One thing I I will add, so that's just the value we've guessed they're at. That's not saying we need to spend 40,000. We might say, "Oh, some of the fencing has come loose. We need 5,000 in maintenance." >> Yeah. Do Do we actually need those at
that park or could they just come out and have it grass like everyone wants? What kind of programming are we running there? I know T-ball was there for a little while, but I mean, how many nights a week is there T-ball? Do we know? >> Twice. >> Twice a week. Okay. Yeah. I mean, I I
know the signs been destroyed on that. So, it's not necessarily like we've been keeping up this part like the the fencing to begin with, but we should at least, you know, I think yeah, the as far as the valuation is concerned. I mean, we definitely got to replace the sign, but apart from that, like, you know, looking at it, I don't think
necessarily that the back stops are even in that bad a condition, um, that they need to be torn down and fully replaced. Um, so just again, from my vision, I mean, somebody can dispensing, but I don't think these are we're at that
point right now where these need to be torn down and and replaced. Now, as far as, you know, Yeah. as far as taking a look and you know in general like staff keeping an eye on these like if staff thinks that they need to be replaced of course we'll we'll take a little bit
closer look but I from my uh citizen eye we don't need a we don't need to replace these just yet so >> and we probably don't need back stops for T-ball either >> not not likely or at least not a not a 20 foot back stop but you know I mean you know we can of course assess that
when we need to pull him down so because right how it kind of works, you know, and we don't need to crank them, but >> yeah. >> Yeah. So, for me, I mean, we're we're probably on a a yearby-year basis. Again, I don't even think they're they're a yearby-year thing. I think this is a 2030 or 2031 problem and just
letting staff let us know if these start to get into disrepair, letting the community and the programming let us know if these if these back stops need any attention. So, just kind of reaching out to our partners that utilize the park for their feedback. >> Yeah. like three years. >> Yeah, I'm I'm I would
>> at least 2030. >> All right. Uh next we have the Boom Lake Trail. I know this one has been flooded a lot. >> I mean, um it is in terrible shape, but I mean it's still very walkable. There's not a lot of roots bursting through this
thing. I mean, like I said, it it it looks bad, but it does still function pretty good. So, um, again, yeah, and you really can't because of the way that it is. You'd have to build a pedestrian bridge over that certain section to just keep it out of the water. So, I think we
let it ride until we really see some serious decay and then have a conversation about it. I mean, I don't know what kind of damage pavement's going to receive for that sort of flooding over the next couple of years, but this is at least a 2030 sort of deal.
>> I mean, it's hideous. But >> I think it's fine leaving it for 2028, right? Because we can >> get to next year and say, "Hey, it's actually worse than we thought." >> Sure. >> Um but I think because it's in rough shape, I would leave it for now. Um and
this number is an estimate Jesse got for us. So that's >> yeah, >> one of the more confident numbers we have on here >> at 10% or something. >> There's that. Um, next we have the uh sidewalks at LUM
going from the boat parking to the ramp. Um, part of that now is at least served from the ADA sidewalks we put in. Uh, which is exciting. So, this number is probably lower, but I think that's a fine thing to leave because that's used pretty heavily. So,
>> pretty heavy. >> Sure. >> Uh, row 20 is the miracle field. I think this how was that bane for the on the ED? It looked okay.
>> It's in need of it's actually probably in need of replacing prior to 2028. And if you actually look at the field, it's not level anymore. Like the ground has shifted. So if you were to put a ball at the pitcher mound, it will end up in the outfield fence and actually under the
outfield fence very quickly. And I believe there are some cracks and other stuff too. >> So I I believe that one should probably move up. I don't know where we can find the funding for it, but it's it has
definitely hit lifespan. >> What partners do we have for Miracle Field? Any >> It was fundraised. I was on the park board back when we did this. It was fundraised from donations and grants. Um, since it does serve children with disabilities, there is likely plenty of
grants and opportunities out there. It would probably be some research needed to see what's available, though. And if we want to see who it is, you can go look at the columns and post. Um, I know there was a lot of families and stuff that donated.
>> Well, let's uh let's get it back. I mean, as we uh make a push for accessibility playgrounds and things like that, let's let's keep it in 2028 and probably get staff looking at grant opportunities for restoration as soon as
possible. So, try to cover what will likely be probably still pretty sizable even though it's just the surface, >> but uh yeah, I mean the surface is probably the most expensive thing. So, so we'll uh try to get uh try to be really proactive, but we'll keep that.
And unfortunately, I don't >> Yeah, I don't think you can patch that surface either. I think it's it's all or nothing. >> Ethereal seems Yeah. not something you can ad hoc. So, yeah, let's keep it there and and try to be proactive and and getting it replaced.
>> Yeah. Um the main playground, I think that one feels very similar to the Gregory playground in terms of age. Some rusty bits. It's very sunfaded. Um feels like it's had a good run. I actually put that one ahead of Gregory, but I have
not been to Gregory as recent. Maybe maybe we could have staff check those two playgrounds and see which one is in need of being replaced first if one could last a year longer. >> Yeah, I'm I'm more on board with Gregory. The
the volume the volume of play and uh and just the utilization just seems a lot higher. I mean again anecdotally I can't I don't have a ticker counter but um from that and I I also have a like a thought with the bank playground just given that the miracle field is there
that maybe that maybe that blueprint that that uh that footprint does have some accessibility I feature ideas um you know just given I mean that was always a thought of mine so we're going to replace this maybe we're spending a little bit more than $100,000 and I
maybe like that uh an accessibility um like theory on that playground, at least a part of it. Um so I'm kind of still okay with 2028, but maybe pushing this out um a little longer if we we
come up with a different idea or there's a um you know, a tie in with some sort of grant or accessibility grant that we can do with Miracle Field. But I know it's also Yes. in in disrepair, especially even just the the box that it's in. So
>> yeah. Yeah. So >> that was what stood out to me is like the enclosure is >> and that's where I'm at with that is like we got to rip the enclosure I mean the enclosure is a steaming pile as well. So if we're going to rip the enclosure out and the playground out then maybe there's an there's a thought given to accessibility given that
there's an accessibility ball >> that makes sense >> right there. So >> 100% >> just kind of uh futurep proofing that a little bit. So maybe we would have a further conversation, but 2028 still I mean it is a dire need. So um we can probably push some of that but the conversation with Morocco field does
give us a potential for additional grant uh if we can combine the footprint perhaps. >> Cool. All right. So that feels pretty good I think given the time. Um, if anyone has strong feelings about 2029,
um, feel free to email. >> Oh, I just had a quick question. Um, the Gregory tennis courts I remember being in 26 or seven. Do we did did they get bumped somehow? They're bad.
>> The court with two or the court with three. >> The south courts. >> That would be three courts. >> Yeah. I do recall when we were talking about pickle ball that they were quite a ways back. So, they were likely bumped prior to my time on
the board. >> Okay, >> there you go. 2043. >> 2043. >> Um, I can't speak to how that is, but I can tell you right now they're bad. They're they're pretty bad. Uh the the court that's to the west is
probably the best of them, but the two the two that are on the easterly side are almost not playable. I mean, you you can, but there's cracks a good 3/4 of an inch and lifting that's or separation and lifting lipage that's half inch.
That's pretty bad. >> I knew I knew it was bad when we were discussing the pickle ball option and it would not last till where they were at. Yep. >> Okay. I was just asking the question. So >> yeah, I think hey, we need community input on a lot of this, too. I mean,
Brainer, if you're listening, um, we need, you know, we need the community and staff and everybody to come together. If there are amenities within the system that look like they're in severe disrepair, I mean, we can't we can't be in every place at once. So, we do definitely need people to tell us
when things are in not great shape. So, um, and that's always subjective, but, uh, you know, bringing it to our attention really >> and our staff is in these parks every single day. So, >> well, hey, look, >> they got to mow the grass. >> Um, but yeah, that's, you know, this
relies on, yeah, not just the community effort, but yeah, staff as well. We we really again I mean going back to the back stops I mean if they're in good repair then you know we need we need an active thought or at least a quarterly look at some of these upcoming agenda items even two or three years out and just saying hey what does this look like
you know should should we even be talking about it so Steph can present or have a conversation about upcoming budget items as as we're presented it and just saying hey we think this is good you guys can strike it or move it back um because those guys are that spend the gals that spend all the time
out there So, but again, community, if you're listening, >> Kevin, I feel like the earliest we can pull this forward is 28. >> Uh, yeah, like again, I I would try to pull I I just I remember it being in 26 and 27 because I I'm at a lot of these
north side meetings and so that date was getting thrown around for quite some time. So, I was just curious to see why it wasn't there. And I I'm not saying that a mistake was made, but it it make when I see that the 2043 that might be right for the North ones, but I'm wondering if they both
just accidentally got lumped together. >> I I bet that's probably what happened. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I think that's one part of the reason why the pickle ball conversation heated up because it was due to be replaced soon originally. So those guys were like, "Ah, maybe we can get some matching money, you know." So, um, but
uh which But otherwise, I have no other real strong feelings on uh 2029 as it sits. I think I think we do need to probably start looking at the meals field situation sooner rather than later
because this the 2029 situation does uh make it so we have you know a lot of frontloaded things and if we make a decision one way or the other we can make a decision on the future of all of this funding and also reduce our ass to council because 2% of all assets uh is a
lot of that's a port a large portion of that is tied up in Millsfield build uh upkeep as well. So >> yeah, I wonder if we could ask staff to there's just so many stakeholders like maybe start getting a list of Millsfield
stakeholders together so that if we do have a workshop we can because it's like the Mills, it's the baseball teams that use it. It's community action who puts on the softball game and some other events. It's the concert organizers.
um just get everyone get their input. I think >> to have a workshop. So maybe that would be a good first step. Um because yeah, you're totally right. There's a ton of big big ticket items. >> Yeah, I mean if we can shave I mean
again what I I know I'm a partial I mean until the facts are all laid out in front of us. I'm not partial to one side or the other right now, but um you know that's just I if we can reduce our ass to council annually by you know a 2% of
a million dollars that wouldn't be that wouldn't be too shabby because again I there's no way we're actually going to be able to afford to replace all of these things in 2030 without community assistance. So, I mean, what does that conversation look like? And and uh you
know, tough questions, right? So, >> Andrew, just so you know, I do have a conflict a little after six, so we should Yeah, let's get going. >> Let's keep on trucking. All right, so this is in good shape for next year's budget. And then I think 28 we got to get grooving on some of the bigger
lifts. >> All right, cool. We will move on to our next item which is go in here. Green heron research in Rotary Park. Nick. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. The parks and
recck department has received a request from Hannah Slassinski, a master student at the University of Minnesota seeking permission to conduct a research project at Rotary Park. Uh the her study would be to better understand green heron behavior, habitat use, migration
patterns, and other ecological characteristics by safely capturing select birds and equipping them with lightweight GPS transmitters. The research team will utilize mist nets, which is a standard and widely accepted bird research tool designed to safely capture birds without causing harm. The
mist nets will be temporary, continuously supervised by Hannah and her team, and removed following each research session. Um, she has obtained the necessary authorization to conduct this research through a federal bird banding lab in Minnesota DNR. A complete research proposal has been included with
the agenda packet for the parkboard's review and additional information permits are also attached. Stat's recommendation is for the park board to approve the request from the University of M Minnesota research team to conduct green heron research at Rotary Park, including the temporary use of supervised mistn nets and GPS transmitter deployment subject to
coordination with parks and rec staff and all applicable city policies and permit requirements. >> I'll make a motion to approve the request from the University of Minnesota research team. >> Second. >> This sounds cool. Secur discussion none.
>> Sounds pretty cool. Yeah. >> All in favor say I. >> I I post same sign. That is approved. Uh umpire pay increase proposal. Nick >> Connie touched on this and she may jump in here if I get uh off course a little bit, but staff has received multiple
requests to increase the umpire pay due to taxes being withheld, etc. It's just it comes down to a dollar and cents issue. Um concern was also also discussed with the adult softball manager meeting team expressed that their league fees are already high so they prefer not to see their league fees
increase accordingly. After reviewing the budget staff determined that increasing umpire paid from $32 per game to 35 is financially feasible. Connie touched on this a little bit earlier. Uh the margins I think are slim, but oh thought you were going to say something.
Um the estimated additional cost would be about $2,500 a year. So options for the park board is to increase umpire pay to $35 a game from the current 32 or to make no changes and maintain the current rate of 32. Staff does recommend a motion to approve increasing umpire pay
to $35 per game and include additional costs in the budget without increasing adult league fees. And if I may, could I ask Connie if she has anything to add? >> I have nothing to add. I think we touched base on the budget. That's the we touched base on the budget. That's the main thing. Um I don't know how
comfortable what the park board wants to see for revenue over expenses, but it is a budget. So um I guess it's up to the park board. >> I think just from a like a policy standpoint, um I are they city employee? They're temporary city employees.
So they they can't be 1099 employees though. >> When you get 1099, it's a very wishy-washy. We direct them. They're not independent contractors, meaning they don't provide they may provide the service other to other entities, but we
dictate the time. We dictate what they need. We give them the supply. So therefore, they're not considered independent contractors. >> Okay. But we could contract them via I mean, I'm like I said, I'm just trying to understand the actual cadence. This isn't a suggestion, I guess, but we
could contract them to be there at specific times and dates as dictated by the city government. >> No. Okay. saying once you tell them you have to be here at a certain time, here's your schedule, then they're no longer an independent contractor, they're employees because we're directing them and and umpires and independent
contractor has been a very gray area. So, I would definitely want to do some more research. I know when I first started with the city, we looked at that whether or not they could be independent contractors and it was determined that they were employees, but we can always revisit it, too. But at this time, I would say that they're employees. Could
they form a company of Could they form a company of umpires and then uh be contracted by the city to facilitate softball games? >> Okay. >> Go that. >> All right. Just curious. I mean, because the the tax thing is just one of those weird bugaboos um that I I just didn't
quite understand. I mean, especially because I don't think you guys are making trillions of dollars off of this. So, your your taxable income is probably not incredibly high. So, I understand the the withholdings thing and like the take-home of that just being basically nothing for your efforts, but um yeah, I
just kind of wanted to understand like the the cadence there or like what the requirements were. >> So, I will be abstaining from this vote as I am an umpire. Um however, the I have a hard time believing and I'm probably going to take heat from all the
other umpires. I have a hard time believing the take-home pay is why they don't want to work. Um, if you had any other job that paid you $32 an hour, you would be absolutely ecstatic. $32 an hour is fantastic for what we have to do. Number one, the umpires could
dictate better behavior from the players. They complain about it that they say they don't want to do it. It is in the umpire's hands to deal with that. And we have proven this year already that we will address that behavior if they do what they need to do. Number two,
if if they're 1099, they don't like getting withholdings, they still are supposed to claim that on their taxes. >> We're doing the easy work for them. >> Like it it is what it is. It's I They can go work elsewhere and they can take
the hit on a 1099 from other places. I I honestly, as an umpire, I do not support this. >> Sure. >> Increasing to $35 an hour. $32 an hour is a fantastic rate of pay for an hour for the little work that we have to do. And it has been very fun and rewarding
actually. And the players really are good as long as you are consistent and set clear expectations with them. >> Just for your information as well, the last time the umpire wage was increased was in 2023. Um it in 2020 it increased to $30 a game
and in 2023 it went to $32 a game. Just to provide you with additional information. >> Um another point about recruiting umpires and I know I've brought this up and it's I've been told that it can't change. I had to fill out 21 forms to be
a temporary employee. If I was not sitting on this board, there is not a chance I would have filled out those forms and been an umpire for the city of Briner. It took me over an hour to fill out those forms. >> Something should change with that. >> You're a city employee. >> Yeah.
>> And you're W2 by the city. So if you're 1099, you wouldn't have to. >> But I don't get any benefits of being a city employee. >> Yeah, I understand. >> So I there's multiple things that could change to help us recruit umpires. >> I think my only other question is I just want to remain competitive. So are we
like far as market rate is concerned, where are we at? uh for a market rate for soft recreational softball umpires in the middle of nowhere in Minnesota. >> We're pretty low compared to others. >> That's all I want. I mean, I just want to be competitive um to provide for
wreck. And again, outside of that is like if we're if if the leagues understand that we have a an umpire shortage and that we need to pay more to have them, then the fees go up. That's kind of how it goes. And so I'm fine paying market rate for maintenance, for
staffing, for all of those things, but I think part of that falls on the actual cost of a team signing up for these for these leagues. So, I'm going to be totally okay with improving umpire paid to a competitive rate. I'm I'm on board
with it. But again, the conversation needs to have continue to happen as we see on the budgetary side. we we can't just continuously lose money. It's okay to break even on a program like this. I'm okay with that. Um with upkeep, right? But if we're going to continue to
lose money, then the rates need to go up. So, I mean, that's the nature of the game, but I'm in favor of of increasing umpire pay to remain competitive. >> And I'm I'm not going to be mad to make more money. That just throwing that out there. I'm not going to. However, I don't think it has to happen. It is not going to solve our issue of getting more
umpires. Real real quick, where does Brainer lay in the landscape of what we charge softball players? Low, high, average. >> So, like the cost to play, the cost to enroll in a softball, are we about what everyone else pays around us? Are we
less? Are we more? We don't know. >> Uh, that I'm not sure. I would have to look that up. >> Relevant question. >> Yep. When we're talking about market rates, um, we we'll need to look. >> I I see that the two are connected. I they they are connected. Yeah. Facilitating the leagues is is all part
of one. So I think >> I would want to table this until next meeting until we get that info. >> Yeah. I want to defer I and because it's it's a big convers a continued conversation, right? We talk about weed and feed of the fields and upkeep and things like that. We basically set aside $25,000 a year to make sure that the
softball fields that are utilized by the league are also completely well manicured. And then we want to improve umpire pay to make sure the programs ran well, right? Whatever it might be, we we have to we have to assess what we're
charging and uh and I'll try to include the the weed and feed and the other the other parts of this that are part of the upkeep that the league necessarily isn't being paid for and they get the highest amount of volume. And again, I love the program. I want the program to stick around, but we need to make sure this is
sustainable. And if we have other challenges outside of $3 per game for umpires, right? So, um I'm happy to table it as well, but I am in support of having market rates. So, if if the market rate for an umpire is 35 bucks, but the league market rate is, you know,
this x amount of dollars for this many games over the course of this many months, then then it needs to be that as well. So, those are probably a future conversation after we have some statistics. >> Yeah. So I think we'd like to see for sure cost per team in local areas. I
think a rough comparison for umpire pay too would be good just so we have some data points. Uh yeah, >> and enrollment because I I think if if you have a very highly robust softball program and say like Detroit Lakes or wherever, the money is a lot different
situation than if you have low enrollment, >> you know, then I think you start looking at do you light these fields, you go to just daytime play, you know, those types of things to try to strike the balance. But more information the better. And I and I feel again to to the argument of the league specifically, I do feel like
the league is on an upswing again compared to where we have previously been in in years. So I'd like to continue that momentum and looking at again when we when we take into account enrollment, we do need to take into account that our league has suffered
significantly in previous years. So now that it's back on the upswing, we got to we got to take all a lot of that. And one more thing I might add, being city employees, the city pays for our training and registering us as officials. If you are in an independent
league like I am for basketball, I pay that myself. >> Sure. >> So, I'm actually in the grand scheme of things coming out better by doing it this way than if we were independent contractors and having to pay all of that out of our own pocket. >> That's a good point.
>> Yeah. Interesting. Uh, Kayla, you feel like you have good direction for next meeting? >> Yes. >> Cool. Thank you. All right. Um, moving on to item 90, master plan review of Rotary Park. Uh, we had all had a good idea that we'd
review these master plans on a regular basis. Um, I think I did. Kevin, do you remember did we have a master plan for Rotary? We did not. I do not believe I sent all of the plans. We did not have every single park master planned. I believe Rotary, we just did not have
one. >> I'd never seen >> I can't speak to why we don't, but I don't know if we just never got to it. But >> yeah, I had never seen John's document, John Forest's document. That's quite >> Me neither. Y >> quite a thing. >> Yeah, I was And some of the notes from Ferd are wild. >> Yeah.
>> Um I'm just going to lead off for the sake of time. My assessment is this park is in a good spot. I think we didn't make a master plan originally because Rotary has taken a strong lead. So, I am comfortable with where that's at and I don't see any change necessarily needed.
>> And I'm of the same mind. They've been a great steward of the park. And again, um my belief is that our service groups and and community leaders are the people that should be the driving factors for change and uh development inside of these types of amenities. So, and
Rotary's done a great job. >> Perfect. >> I love what Rotary's done and what the Lions have done. We have a couple great partners that have jumped on board. >> That is an excellent segue in item 9Ee. Park partnership meetings and annual calendar review.
>> Uh Nick, do you want me to just run with this one or do you want to >> I think if you want to run with it, I think you this is I I had Andrew Ship's name written down here. I think you were pretty involved with this one. So you can take it, sir. >> Getting into trouble. Um, so as part of our calendar, uh, we agreed we would
meet with our park partners, uh, say that five times fast. Um, ideally twice a year just to check in with them, understand their goals for the park, um, opportunities, things that line up in our capital budget. U right? So saying, Lions, we are looking at a playground.
Um, I think had we had this three years ago, we would have probably shifted how we did the capital budget for that playground. I think it's working out great, but the idea is to capture some of those things. So, um, what I'd be looking for today is
four people who are interested in meeting with Lions, JC's, Rotary, and Kuanas ideally twice a year. I think it could be once a year. Um, I think Rotary and Lions are very busy. Kuanas I think we've had trouble getting in touch with and same with JC's. So
that could be a once a year. Um >> I feel like the Kuanas club may not be a club anymore in town. I know Sertoma has taken over the triathlon and I think they've really struggled with numbers. So there might not be people to meet with >> that would
>> and if someone is listening from the Kuanas club, please come forward. >> All right. So maybe we ask staff to see if there is a kowanas club still and then um look for volunteers for Lions, JC's, and Rotary.
I'm happy to be a part of these partnerships, but my time on board could come to an end beginning in January. So I'm happy to be part of the initial conversations and whatever segways um that we might need. um if we want to speak this year to these clubs, I want
to be a part of, you know, any conversation with the partners, ski loans and all those types of things. But um yeah, I just don't want to I would like somebody else maybe take a stronger lead on uh on the partnerships just in case. >> I did have you kind of pegged for the Rotary because you are
>> Yeah, I absolutely love it. Yeah. And I'm happy to meet with the Rotary and we spoke in the elevator. Um happy to meet with Rotary um for the time being and you know as a representative of the board and as things change you know maybe being just a liaison of sorts.
>> You could still be the Rotary guy. >> Happy to. They're they're excited. So >> why don't we each send you ones we might prefer. >> Sounds great. >> And then we can also get Jeremy in on that as well. >> Yes. Good points. Yeah. >> So, let's maybe each of us send you who
we would prefer and then you divvy them out. >> Oh, good. >> And I think I don't know. I think for the sake of a lot of this, I mean, because LSA and the Skylons are a portion of this as well. So, not just the service groups and that sort of >> the other ones like I have community ad. >> Yeah. >> Already.
>> Yeah. We have it kind of listed, right? I mean, you know, the disc golf association handles some stuff. I mean like if we want to actually in the BBBA that sort of thing like we could have a master list of everybody that's at even I mean at this point who's involved with
our parks or have a park named after them and then you know make make the call to call to action to get people involved that want to have you know their uh especially if K want to assist out you know then maybe you know we want uh other things but um yeah I think we
had a master list of everybody that's involved Um even even if again for Roselini is there a partnership of the park, you know, of of the concession stand. Those are those are the types of partnerships that we really want to make sure that we nurture and have conversations about successes and failures. And I like I said, I know
Curtis is doing all right, but that's not something that as a board we're asking questions to or having, you know, I mean staff is doing it for us, but we're not, you know, having those conversations um directly on the um with our partners. So, >> and just having that person that can call. >> Yep. For Instead of asking who do I talk
to, they know >> y >> we can be a good customer service aspect ourselves too. >> We also set out of staff we can do that ourselves too. >> Okay. So then we'd be emailing >> you >> say to Nick Andrew to Nick who will
forward things or to Zach bless your heart who will forward things. >> Um >> I'm gonna copy you on it. >> I will delete. No. Um so okay we'll be picking from the list. Lions, JC's, Rotary, Kowanas,
Discolf, Baseball, Soccer, YMCA, Community Ed, and Ski Loons, and LSA. No, I said I said soccer and baseball. Okay, >> sounds good. >> Send me your preference. Send Zach your
preferences and then he'll send them to me and I will send some ideas out to Zach who will then individually. >> That's exciting. Sorry in advance. Okay. Yes. Um I think that's great. I
think having that contact is better than asking them to present outside of YMCA and community ed, which I think is valuable because we're paying them money for services. >> Yeah. I mean, we could maybe potentially even a amend the agenda to have those types of like service group
conversations or whatever if there is something or they can be part of our board member reports, that sort of deal. So, yeah, I think there's just a a lot of the times it's not some grandiose thing, and if it is, it's probably an agenda item. So, >> perfect. All right. Um, I know you have
to leave. Thank you for staying for two plus hours, J. Um, we'll do staff reports, I think, rapidly because the newsletters >> attached. >> Newsletters attached and it looks great. >> I love it. >> So, beyond that, we we can we can certainly get verbal reports if you
like, but we're going to try to encapsulate most of updates in this newsletter wants something different. >> It's excellent. I mean, >> yeah, >> very digestible for sure. >> Excellent job.
>> I had one very small question. Um, when park staff is doing stuff downtown, is that coded against the parks or is that coded to the downtown special district? >> I believe it's the downtown special
district, but I will have to confirm. I believe that's the case. >> Okay. Part of it was knowing where the money is going. Part of it is we only have so many people and so even if it's not our budget, it is time away from the parks and that's a whole separate thing. But I was just curious. Cool. Um, any
other questions for staff? Otherwise, we'll go to board member reports. >> Start with our liaison since you're on the end of the row. >> Uh, nothing. Nothing tonight. >> Very good. Um, I Yeah, me Rotary. Uh, the goats are awesome. They're back.
They're a I love them. Uh, the wife loves them. Um, so apart from that, like I said, underneath the bridge, all of that paint that Team Ascension put on is starting to just completely chip off and and come off the bridge. I'm certain you guys are aware. Um, but it's gotten pretty bad. Um, so all the old graffiti
starting to show again. Not all of it, sorry. Portions of the old graffiti starting to show again. So again, just kind of staying up to date on the graffiti happenings. But that's it for me. >> I have nothing new, but again, I'd like to praise for the sign put up for Wayne
Hitch Park. I continue to uh get him or get stuff from people that grew up in the area and and were there for a while and and know the history of it. Um but it it's and the way it was placed. I
didn't realize it driving down Sixth Street. That's so perfect that that it's a real clear view there. So, thank you for all the people and time that was put into putting it up. I'm It's greatly
appreciated by a lot of people just remembering having fun there and probably bringing their kids or like me grandkids. So, thank you. Uh just a very couple short things for
me. Um I got to ride along with Troy last week. It was very good time. um took me all sorts of places. Um I would encourage anyone else who's interested to do that as well. Uh had a lot of good discussions. We actually looked at the College Avenue Bridge. Um one of the
things he's looking at is uh working with the DNR because getting that chipped paint off. It's going to go into the river. So, how do you catch it? >> There's actually a lot of paint on the rocks below it, which I had not noticed. >> Um so, that's kind of a whole thing to unwind. And then he said the DNR can be
touchy about um >> what we do to it and that they wouldn't even let them repaint where someone had set a fire under the bridge. >> Oh jeez. >> You weren't allowed to repaint. So um yeah, it it is definitely not aging
well, but um Troy is on it, which is exciting. >> It sounds like there's some layers of bureaucracy, which is fun. Um, the only thing that stood out, well, many things stood out with him. Um, I had forgotten how many random metal grills we have in Lum just like in the middle of nowhere.
It's like, there's a grill here in case you want to grill while you run between our weirdly disjointed playground. Um, I was kind of asking him like, can we just get rid of these? He's like, well, I don't have formal directions. So, is anyone here in love with the rusty grills that you wouldn't really want to eat a hot dog off of? Nope.
>> They're already hot dog colored. >> No. No, that's a >> I have no attachment. >> Love that. Okay. Um Nick, if you can communicate to Troy that they can go away as he sees fit. >> Yes, sir.
>> Love that. Um he even showed me I hadn't seen these before. There's an attachment on our new picnic tables for people that bring either like a Blackstone or the portable grills. It's kind of a ramp that keeps it above the very melty bits. So, um, we have some of those and people
are using those more than the tetanus grills. So, um, yeah, that's all I got. >> Um, I my report. Um, welcome, Zach. Glad to have you. Um, I want to say thank you to the police department for everything they are doing to try to help us with
the vandalism and they have been finding those responsible and hopefully there can be some restitution coming. I would like to make the process for them easier. So if they need something from us, they don't have to come to us. Um I plan to reach out to Tony and just see is there anything that we can do as a
park board and then I'll report back to us here. Um I want to make it as easy as possible for them to do what they need to do on our parks. So thank you to them and uh thank you to Nick for filling in with Zach. And you don't have to be a stranger. You can come back anytime you want.
>> We also definitely scared off Connie tonight. That that happens each year. I scared her last year, too. We appreciate Connie and all the work she does. >> Yeah. >> Anyone like to make a motion to adjurnn? >> I'll make a motion to adjurnn. >> Second. >> All in favor say I. I. I. Post. Same
sign. We're adjourned.