Okay. Um, this is the Park and Recreation Advisory Commission. It's Thursday, January 8th at 5:00 PM. Um, I'm going to call to order. Can I get approval on the agenda? Make a motion. >> I'll make a motion to approve the agenda. >> Can I get a second? >> Second.
>> All in favor? I >> I >> carried >> carried. All right. Now, I'm going to open up to open forum. There's nobody here. Okay. And the department report. >> Awesome. Thank you. Um for those that
may be tuning in, um we do have Bruce Imhold uh reporting in from Florida. He is on Zoom with us. And we also have Dave Ree, city engineer here as well. Um so department report um we are in the
thick of hockey season. Um and so the rink opened December 20th. It was a very pleasant holiday break for everyone winter break. Um the rink was very well used. We have all the warming house
open. Staff are trained in. Um and we are experiencing some issues with the Zamboni. So, we continue to troubleshoot that. We've got it working. It goes down. We get it working. It goes down. Um, so I think hopefully we're through
most of that. Um, but for those that don't know, it's a very old old Zamboni. Um, and usually has some uh some issues each year. Um, so if you're wondering with some of the ice conditions, we've had some struggles
with the maintenance and then obviously warm temperatures uh make for soft ice. So, recreation wise, basketball started last night. Um, and we have over almost 40 participants in basketball this year
between the two age groups. And unfortunately, we had to cancel pond hockey um because we did not have enough registrance this year. So we have time for play going that continues into and through March.
Um the the Glay Trail project um mostly we're working on the Nisall Lake Park portion of it that amended scope um with the trail in the bathroom addition. So we did get the bathroom ordered. As a
reminder it's going to look similarly to what we installed at Between the Lakes Park. So, it's a pre-cast concrete. Same color, same kind of style. Um, this one will be flushing though. Um, so I do have a copy of the layout here if you guys want to see that. There's a whole
lot of, um, constraints and a lack of options on where to put things. So, um, we've been in contact with the DNR regarding all of it. Um, but the plan is to kind of finalize the layout, the budget, and get um kind of a stamp of
approval from city council, go get quotes, and then go um get those approved by city council again. Um, circling back kind of on a community center item, I was approached by a
community member and I wanted to bring it to you guys just as a sounding board. um they had an idea of or see a need for like community events in there. The
example they used was um like getting a caterer and having dances, line dancing, whatever kind of dancing. Um wanted to kick it to you guys and just kind of get your feedback in your areas of the
community. if you think the community may have interest in something like that at the community center and then subsequently if or to what extent there would be an additional involvement from the city and what may or may not be
feasible appropriate. Just kind of wanted to talk get your ideas on that. Um that's a well I guess from a city staff pers perspective like I mean with something like that how much
manpower would we have and or want to have in something that's probably geared more towards the evenings between setup having staff there and then take down clean up like I don't
know how that works with like the wedding, you know, if somebody were to have a wedding there. I don't exactly know all the operations behind that, but from a just from a city standpoint, would we I mean, would the city have any interest in staffing something like that?
>> Yeah, that's a good question. And immediately when this was brought to me, my mind goes right to logistics and how staff time, turnover, things like that. Um what that would even look like. uh their suggestion was weekly over the
winter and my first thought is we likely don't have the staffing or we need to change our operation. Um and so typically say for like a wedding we don't have it staffed. They pick up a key, they do their setup, they do their
cleanup, they kind of it's kind of self-containing. Um they find their own caterers. They find and so we just rent the facility. And so kind of bringing this to you guys before a lot of details would be even ironed out. Um because not
really sure to what extent the community may be interested in participating in things like this. Um obviously we run various recreation programs. Um from that staffing lens, I don't think we'd have the capacity to help find caterers,
things like that. >> Um I would see it more as we rent the facility. Bruce, >> Amber, is this the person suggesting that the city run these events? Is that their proposal? >> Um, it was more of a collaborative
effort. >> So, would people sign up for it ahead of time so you'd know that this space was actually going to be utilized? Is that how the the for >> And I kind of said, well, we typically rent the facility. Yeah. >> And we would have to recoup that cost.
>> Yeah. details from there. I don't know. >> I mean, I guess my my own personal opinion is if this was even if it was in collaboration with the city, I would have a hard time believing that there would be much
momentum into a lot of these events. You know, the city is going to I mean, they operate by just by the dayto day. Um, I feel like if either businesses took the lead or like
a Lions Club or they rotated, I think they could gain a little bit more momentum. They they'd want to market it. They'd want to do bigger and better. And I think more people would maybe get on board versus if you partner with the city. I just kind of like our marketing
for the park. It's just like it's hard to it's hard for anybody to like really ramp things up, especially if it's on a scheduled. I just feel like I could see that dying pretty quickly unless there was
take the Lions. I don't know how many people participate in the Lions, but it's a group of people. And so, it's a group of people that are going to be excited for their event that they're going to host at the community center. They can market it. they can, you know, theme it. They can do whatever they want. So, I could see
it maybe going that direction where you kind of rotate who hosts, but I don't know. Yeah. How much >> So, you kind of see it the city's role in it maybe more as what it currently is as we just >> allow the rental.
>> I think the city allows the rental and we stop at that. >> Yeah. And I'm Paul, I'm I'm with you 100% because I've been through this myself already. Um I think having the city try to like you said try to market it and organize it, it it just isn't
going to be the same. But if you get a an organization behind it, like you mentioned the Lions, I mean, if they go out and market and get people and and want to promote something, that's great. But I'm with you. Whatever you said there, I'm with you. >> Agreed. >> Okay. Awesome. Thank you for that.
Unless Amber, you really want to take the lead and and market some events. >> I do like making flyers. >> Amber, was was the question specifically tied to the community center? Was that >> It was specifically tied to the community center, not at local
establishments. >> Yeah. I mean, it is a good space and it's it could be utilized more. Um but again I just I have a hard time believing that one the city is going to want to do something like that and two yeah if it's going to gain any momentum.
>> Thought it was cost prohibitive for them to get rented each week. Is that why they were looking for >> um no just I think more just with a desire for a collaborative effort and kind of wanting to stay busy and provide opportunity. Um I believe is where the lens was coming from.
>> Yeah. Okay. I do think Amber needs more stuff to do. >> I'm I'm here for the flyers, man. I like flyers. Um awesome. Well, thank you for that. Um moving on, we don't have anything under
old business. Um several items under new business here tonight. Uh first up is um filling the commission vacancy. Um so Sherry is uh leaving the parks commission. The new term begins uh
February 1st. Um so in your packet you guys have an application um from Stephen. Paul and I did meet with him earlier in December. Um Paul, you can certainly add comments. Um but yeah, looking that's our recommendation to you
guys to make the recommendation to city council. Happy to answer questions though. >> Yeah, I thought he is a great candidate. I think we all bring different aspects um to the board. I think he has a he worked for the DNR. He has a lot of
knowledge in grant writing. Um he's uh helped with um some of the G Lake Trail stuff. Um I think he would be a great member to the board. So, I would uh if there is no
other comments, I would make a motion to know how to word make the city council. >> Yeah. >> Second your motion. Okay. >> Um we can do a roll call vote since
Bruce is uh online with us. Bruce, >> hi. >> Alyssa. >> Yeah. Hi, >> Paul. >> Hi, >> Dan. >> Hi. >> Okay, motion carried. Excellent. Um, next up on the agenda is
a community center quotes. So, if you guys go all the way back to last April and March, um, we did a walkthrough of the community center, uh, looking at various things. Uh this was collaborative with members of city
council as well. Um and so we have the minutes from that meeting in here. Um in November I was able to meet with both Hi-Tech and Noran. Um did a full walkthrough just as we did in April. Wanted them to look at everything and
talk about everything just to see if they see anything different. Um talk talking through a lot of that. Um and so from those conversations, we have two very different proposals.
Um Norison proposed um services to create the quote and manage the project. Um Hi-Tech went through the steps and actually gave the cost to do the work.
Um so they're distinctly different uh proposals. bringing this to you guys now a to talk about the scope and revisit that to make sure that this is indeed um everything that we need on the list or if anything can be removed from the list
um and talking about that and then just kind of how we want to attack the proposals or make a recommendation to council on anything um when looking at state statute anything over 175,000 needs a sealed bid from 25,000 to $175
5,000. It's okay to get multiple quotes. These were the two proposals we received. Distinctly different though. Um so if you guys would like further comparison quotes um we can go down that route. Um but just want to open up to
feedback regarding the scope of work and then how to proceed with proposals. Amber, um, when you put the proposal out, did high-tech follow through in in terms of what you requested or did was there some
confusion with Noron on what they were supposed to give us? >> Um, nope. When I spoke with Noron, they felt that their best method was to um do this proposal to um
get the city's blessing before going forward with obtaining kind of all these individual contracted areas from the carpet like flooring to plumbing to electrical. And when I spoke with high-tech, um,
they were willing to talk to all those different subcontractors and put it together. >> And do we have experience with high-tech from the city standpoint of have they done work for the city before? >> We do. Um, they have done work within
the community center on the kitchen and then they recently did city hall um, some of the updates with the roof and and those items. and we've been happy with their work, >> I believe. So, >> yes, I would say they've done a really
nice job. They're easy to work with. >> I don't I might be missing it. Do I see an expiration date on this quote? Is there >> um I don't remember. I don't believe on high tech. Yeah, that would be the only one that
would have just because there's dollars on it. The other one, >> no. And I I've been working with Hi-Tech through the month of December. So, um it was actually not December 30th was when they the final revision of it. >> Okay. So, this is pretty recent.
>> It's very recent. Yes. Um, Emmer, what I guess my question would be there's been some hum and hon, you know, the future of the community center. Um, there's been different ideas as far as, you know, how much money they
want to put into it. Do we want to repurpose it? Do we want, you know, has there been any, has the council given any more input on like, you know, are we just going to keep it exactly as is or do we want to look at not necessarily a totally different use,
but bigger upgrades than even this additions or or is it really just bringing it back to where it needs to? >> No, not that I've gathered. And from our walk through back in April, I didn't get
any indication that the trajectory of that operation would change. >> Sure. >> Um, has there been further dialogue or additional discussion? No. >> Yeah. With Yeah. with with pricing like this. I just not to say that um it would
be bad to do the necessary, you know, replacements and cost updates and maintenance that's needed to bring it back up to compliance. But with these dollar amounts, I feel like it warrants at least the question of, hey, do we
look at, you know, instead of putting $150,000 into bringing it up to what it is already, you know, is there something that we can, you know, do put that money towards to,
you know, better utilize that building? what that is, I don't know. But right, I think the question I would have is what is the in the vision, the intended purpose of the of that building? What I mean, there's how it's been used, but then just the city council
have any ideas about like this is what we'd love to do for the city with this building or is this is it just a meeting place for when we do, you know, city hall meetings and >> Yeah. And that really wasn't a part of the master plan process. we didn't dive
deep into that. Um, and I don't think there's any standout items within the comprehensive plan >> either. Um, so it certainly is, you know, a question. I think we did bring it up at some point um earlier on in the dialogue, but I don't recall a
substantial answer. >> And is there any urgency on these items? >> No, that's the other thing. We just know that some of these items are coming due. Um, kind of the biggest thing when you look
at the basement repairs, um, that's kind of where the most like damage lies. >> Basement. >> Yeah. Um, and and a lot of when we talked about the exterior, so like the
basements get water in them. And so, one thing that's not a part of this is kind of addressing the water that gets into the basement. And we're looking at at tackling some of that stuff more with the um parking lot and the upcoming road
bond um versus like this component. Um so yes, a lot of it's cosmetic. Some of it's functional like moving floor vents to the wall, things like that. Um so um making some of the repairs in the
basement. Um the carpet's coming due. it is holding up. Um, and when we talked in April, we kind of talked about making it one project to reduce downtime. >> So, I did do the tour back in April, and it
was a several city council people there, and number one, I address Paul's question. And I didn't get the feeling because I did bring up to the council members about you know what is the long-term um you know what is the long-term approach or mission for the
community center and I I got the feeling nobody thought it was anything other than what it is now which is it's there are some weddings there right Amber and then the lions use it you lions use it pretty much frequently or monthly >> y
>> yeah so in answer to that question I I don't know that there was any appetite from the council members I talked to of of anything more than maintaining it. And then to answer Dan's question, I do think I do think since we've gotten a quote and there are some things that be
need to be done. Wasn't there some things in the bathroom too, Amber? I thought >> um yeah, there's a few different things within the bathroom. Um it's it what's quoted as more of a full gut job. everything from toilets,
partitions, tile, new vanities, all of it. Um, and within that there is relocating the floor. Their vents are in the floor and bringing them into the walls. Um, so that is a a little bit of a change.
>> So, I guess my my my point here is we've got the quote. I I well, there's maybe not an urgency. I think the work needs to be done and the longer we put it off, it's probably just going to become more expensive. So, my feeling is I' I'd like to see us move
forward recommending it anyway to the council. I' see what they what they want to do about the dollars, but I' I'd at least propose and I I'll make that motion that I we recommend to the council to accept the high-tech quote.
>> Is this ballpark where you thought it would land? >> Yeah. Okay. So, Bruce has a motion to accept Hightex or to recommend a council to accept high text quote. Is there a second on that?
>> I'll I'll second it. Uh so, Bruce, you the whole thing? The whole proposal? >> Yes. >> The whole proposal as indicated? >> Yes. Okay, we have a motion in a second. We will do a roll call starting with you, Bruce.
>> Yes. >> Alyssa, >> yes. >> Paul, >> yes. >> Dan, >> yes. >> Okay, motion carried. Um, one thing that I didn't talk about, so we do have the funds in the capital reserve to cover
this quote. Um, it does use all of it. So, um, there's an an allowance in here for certain damage on the outside, the exterior. Um, and we would do kind of a change order type
thing if there's above or below that allowance. >> So, um, I'm not sure who's chairing the meeting, but I mean, my comment here is the same one I've made before. the the council has authorized 500,000 transfer,
but we've had indications that there's a fundraising committee that, you know, is willing to help raise funds for the playground and the related improvements. My feeling or my goal would be to, you know, we're not going to get anybody that's going to want to sponsor 140,000
to remodel the the community center. That that's not something you can go to a business or organization to say do that. Although the Lions may help us out there, but um hopefully we can find the fundraising dollars that the city doesn't have to use the whole 500,000 that they've authorized and maybe some
of those dollars can then be um reallocated to the uh to the community center. And that's I've actually mentioned that to both the mayor and a couple of other city council folks. I haven't necessarily got a a yay or nay on that. more just uh trying to plug
that with them and see how this fundraising goes. >> Yeah. And the community center has its own separate budget, so that makes it a little bit unique here. Um so yes, that is always a a good thing to keep in the
back of our mind. Um and fortunately, we've been putting some money away knowing that these um repairs and updates are coming down the pipeline. So, um, pending no drastic snafooies through the process, um, we've
saved adequately to cover what's on this list. >> We have a capital reserve fund specifically for the community center. Correct. That would cover this. >> Yes. So, that would not touch the park funds. >> Gotcha. >> As proposed. >> That's great. >> Yeah.
>> Okay. Awesome. Um, moving on to the park. Um, so like I said, we have Dave here tonight. Um, in December, the commission um recommended that we bring to city council
um a re-engaging in our proposal for engineering services um along with the recommendation to transfer funds to parks. So, to just give everyone a recap, city council um did authorize
re-engaging with Woods um we brought before you tonight in your packet is the original proposal. So, we can re-engage with them um in terms of this proposal and going forth with the DNR outdoor
wreck grant. They did approve transferring 500,000 and they did resend on local option sales tax. So we will not be going forward with a local option sales tax.
Are we all caught up to speed? >> Okay. Um, so we have Dave here tonight, um, because we want to make sure that we are correctly directing them on what we need them to be working on with the goal
of the grant. Um, so in your packet, you have the original proposal with some updates on work that's already been done. Um, and then what I believe where we're headed with this grant. So,
um you have a little bit on kind of the parking lot and like I mentioned looking at that with the um the upcoming road bond kind of removing the pickle ball specs but making sure
that the location is identified. Um, and so bringing it to you tonight with Dave here, um, so you guys can we can all talk it out and be on the same page about what we're going forward with. It's my understanding that we will
be applying for the playground portion of the park in the the DNR grant this next cycle utilizing the transferred funds as the matching dollars. Is that what we're all in agreement on? Correct. We're understanding that
correctly. Okay. Um, so >> is DNR, sorry to interrupt you. DNR matched up to 300,000. Is that what it is? Or >> it did go up to 500,000. >> Okay. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Um, and so
in going through a lot of the materials, they did raise the amount. Um, they've added various different criterias of things that you got to find for them and answers to questions. Um,
so in your packet, I'm still recommending that $700,000 playground budget that we kind of from the get-go set out with. >> Okay. Um, and then I think as we get further into the budgeting, there's probably going to be a few other things where maybe there's some restoration
work. Maybe it's some trees or, you know, native vegetation or something. Um, so I'm not exactly sure what the budget will look like, but the playground, um, trying to figure out the allowances for concrete and things like that. Um, and so with like
the playground company will design what's inside the playground container and then working with Woods on kind of the surrounding areas, tying it all together, the connectivity. Um, for the grant specifically, if we're putting in
a sidewalk, we need like the cross-section of that sidewalk. So they what's up is kind of like putting the whole kitten kaboodleoodle together with some very specific plans that are required for the grant and then the playground company will design the
playground portion >> based on what we tell them >> we want. And Amar, I know we had this discussion last time u and just through your little bit of digging and um as you're filling out this grant, have you
understood um exactly how much detail the DNR is wanting as far as how final they want plans. Um, I asked specifically on like the playground um because this is a very tight timeline to get revisions
completed and I said, you know, how final does final have to be and we are allowed to swap out items. Um, we will need to give them a final design, but if you're going to go from like this spinner to that spinner, like you're
pretty good as long as it's within the spirit and it's not drastically changing. >> Sure. um kind of the scope we are allowed to make some changes. Um and then like there's specific on the sidewalk it has to be 5t wide and we're going to you
know 5t wide by 4 in deep and whatever base and right it's that simple right Dave? >> Yep. Yeah. Provide the details. >> Show the routes. Show the connectivity. show the ADA compliance meeting those
types of things. >> Sure. >> And uh you know um provide a basic overall plan that makes sense to the grant administrator and as it goes
through the process, you know, there's a pre-approval and then a final approval if you're selected. >> Yeah. Yeah. And so within the grant, they require things like maps, photos. Um so some of this with Seth will be helping um compiling
various components of the grant. But for here tonight, just making sure that we have the correct scope of work and what we need to direct Wizathon, any feedback they need on like overall layout, connectivity. Um they've been working on
it for the last week and a half again. Um, >> yeah. I'm just thinking with a $700,000 budget, even though you can eat that up pretty quick, I mean, that does give you a lot of flexibility in the design. And I do know that like fall protections are pretty significant. So, I'd almost
rather see us start big and then reduce it if necessary. But I don't know again how much flexibility the DNR is going to have with us. But um just to make sure we have the proper amount of or even
above and beyond what maybe is needed and then we can bring it down from there. >> And I would in my other grant experiences kind of what you say you're going to match is what you're required to match. >> Okay. So,
>> but relatively close. >> But in in response to Paul's point there, Amber, just because we apply for 350 or 500,000 doesn't mean we'll get that either. >> Also, correct. It's a very competitive grant.
>> Yeah, that's what I was going to ask. Is there anything that will give us a leg up on others? Um I in talking with the DNR, they do have um you are allowed to submit it in advance for feedback. So I think that's something we really want to do. So I'm
trying to make sure I hit that deadline to have a kind of feedback review process. Um and then it's really kind of how it ties into like the priorities and kind of circling
back on all of that. like safety is a really big one. Um, and what however we can kind of tie into some of that stuff. And it's not and I specifically asked about playground surface material. Um, and there's other things besides just
that that will tie into all of this. And so how we can speak to that um will matter. Outside of that, I'm not sure if there's anything that will give us a leg up or not. >> Yeah. Can you see who received it last year?
>> I did. Yeah. >> Okay. >> It doesn't It just kind of says the entity and Okay. project >> an amount. >> I wonder if there's anything that you know we could take from those. >> Yeah. And I didn't see any materials um
but >> trends or anything that >> not that necessarily caught my eye. But in the next section of your packet, there's some just two kind of sections on playgrounds and trails. And so you
can see kind of like the little snippet of what they're looking for. Um, in that in your packet, you guys had um a graphic for the location
of the playground. This is my handy dandy work here. Um, drawing boxes on the paper. So, if you guys remember this one, this is uh the original
um concept for the playground location. And I think through all of our dialogues, correct me if I'm wrong, but we are in agreement that we are going to work around the warming house. um so that's not impacted.
And so when talking with a playground company, they wanted to know they need to know the size and shape of our container and then if there's any way it can be expanded. And so in talking with Woods, we're like, do we want full rectangle like you
know a bean shape? Um yeah, you know, just kind of those things. And I've kind of just earmarked this area to fit it in. Um, but if there's further, if anyone has a really strong desire for a certain shape, now
is your time to speak. >> I don't anything with shape. I was just curious about the the trees that are existing. Are all of those going to be cut down? >> Um, there's probably potential. I think when I was starting to write some of this grant, we could probably write in
some restoration and replanting of trees and things like that and we could probably put some money on that in the grant. >> This is just more personal. So many of those kids climb those streets, >> you know, so >> it would definitely impact several of
them. >> Okay. Um, and so yeah, I would be very mindful of what we replant because that's also our shade and >> yeah, >> keeping the nature >> Yeah. >> present. Um,
>> do do we anticipate the shape would impact a decision about like a walkway around it or whatever? Is that >> I do have that question here for you guys. Um as to
in conceptually they had the sidewalk separated from the like playground container. So like right now we have a curb as our container.
>> Um or we can have the sidewalk >> right up to it. But that would shrink but that would shrink the >> um so that's kind of all the things I need to talk about. I have a couple examples of like sidewalks right up to it having
benches within the playground or outside the playground. Um just a curb sidewalk curb various things like that bench in the curb or in the sidewalk. Um,
so right now we just kind of have an area, a big old area. Um, but what Wood needs to do is figure out that exact size and shape for inside the playground to give to the playground company for them to design it.
>> Mhm. >> And then for us, it'd be really beneficial to know the sidewalk's going to be right next to it. Sidewalks, we don't need sidewalks around it. We're only going to have sidewalks to it. Um,
personally prefer the sidewalk by it like Yeah. just from a stroller, grandparent, not tripping, you know, because I do know that sometimes it gets really tight at the park right now if there's more than two strollers because you can't and then your kids are over
there and you have to be over here with baby. It's really like hard to navigate the park. um from a mom of multiple children. >> Yeah. Cir I would agree. Circling the sidewalk there's it one just the like safety of your children and the fact
that you can track your kids from a distance wherever you're at. >> It's really convenient >> and I think it's uh for the extra amount of money. It's an efficient way um because you're already putting in concrete curb. We're already get them getting them out there. It's it's a
little bit more concrete and maybe just a touch more work, but not a significant amount for the value that I think it gains versus just a curb. >> Yeah. Local examples would be the Jenkins playground and the Pine River playground um is what comes to my mind
when I see these things. Um having I know we've received a lot of feedback through all the planning processes that site sight lines visibility. Um, and then yeah, to your point of accessibility, strollers, maybe kids want a scooter, all the things, making
it wide enough, my recommendation would not be to put the bench in the walkway. >> Yeah. >> Right. >> To have the bench off of the walkway or then within >> the park, >> um, so couple of different ideas here.
Um Dave, do you have specific questions from your guys' end that you you've kind of been looking at, working through, wrestling with? >> Well, I think just getting a sense of, you know, kind of a consensus from you
on what your expectations are. Uh is it to maximize the area? That's kind of the direction we're understanding. we can do that within the bounds of the area that we've surveyed out there and we know
where the warming shed is. We can work around that. Um and then you know another thing that's important is the sequencing and phasing of these uh improvements
to work with the the rest of the project that's underway with the city. And that's the parking lot. >> Mhm. >> And so, um, you know, making making the sidewalk connections make sense and
associated with parking lot improvements is important for us to know, you know, that we're in sync with the park plan that way. And ultimately, you know, when we get in the
thick of design, making sure this is going to drain properly and um knowing that there's some issues with community center. Um, we're going to take that into consideration, but you know, I
recall Joe Hall mentioning that, you know, the phasing of this uh is important and he wanted us to play a role in helping to develop that. >> Yeah. So, in December, the parks
commission wrestled with that quite a bit, looking at playground first, then pickle ball, and finally everything else. um the whole warming house maintenance garage that half of the park would be at some later time. Um
so I think what I take from that is that the warming house and the existing garages are all staying where they're at. Um with the kind of shifting of the playground shape, there's a little bit more elevation change as you go east
towards the softball field. So, um it's not significant, but there is a slope. Um so, keeping that in mind as we try and tie it in together, going piece by piece. Um and then there's utilities under everything.
And so, making sure that we move what we need to move appropriately. Um playground companies specifically said they don't want they recommend not having utilities run under the playground. So, um just really diving in, making sure we look at that. Um the
for comparison, um the original playground and concept were about 10,000 square ft. So, I think that's kind of the what we've been shooting for in terms of
size. Um and I'm hearing that we don't have a strong preference on exact shape. Um, but yeah, just kind of shooting for >> Yeah, >> maintaining that 10,000. >> Think thinking about shape is tough
without like I'm I'm just picturing Okay, so I'm looking at a picture here with a curved shaped park with a tree next to it, right? Well, there's no like whatever you do, there's no saving trees, right? Too much is coming up. So
yeah, it's just interesting like if you could save a tree, I'd love to change the you know the shape would really but if we're not change if we're not saving any trees or I don't know maybe if like so one of the things that my wife and I talk a lot about is just what this is going to do for the shade for the park, right?
There's there's just not going to be any for a long time um if ever depending on what we put back. >> And I just want to be really thoughtful about that. >> I agree. And I I think shade for a park is a really big deal. >> Huge.
>> Um so again, I don't know what that means for the shape, but I'd really like for us to make sure that we think about that before we decide on. And it's hard. It's hard to because fall protection a lot of times dictates the shape. I mean,
if you want as many swings as we currently have offh hand, I don't exactly know, but it's it's about double the size of, you know, if you have 10 foot high swings, you got to go 20 ft out on both sides. And so, you got you stack up eight
swings, you know, you're looking at 40 feet by whatever. And so, you know, your edge is sometimes going to be dictated on that. And I like the idea of having some some interesting curvature. I mean, you look at some of the the pictures
here. It's a little bit more interesting than just a square >> a rectangle playground. And you can use some some curves to your advantage to maybe save some trees as Dan was saying.
Um but yeah, without sometimes the design is going to dictate it too. >> Yeah. So when Paul's talking about fall height, this is kind of their layout of that. So you have a 5ft um fall height area and like the 2 to
five land and then through half of the 5 to 12 playground is a 7 foot fall height and then as you get into the taller structures and the swings um it goes to an 8 foot. Um,
>> so just looking at this design, you have that notch out there. How Dave and I think we I feel like we know each other is Reese. >> Yep. >> Yeah. Okay. Evan and Jess and I swam together. Dan Nichols. Ethan. Sorry. Reconnecting to someone I haven't talked
to in a long time. >> Oh, dang. Dan. >> Yeah, it's been it's been a while. Right. I I celebrated New Year's Eve at his house when I was like 16 years old. Yeah. Right. Right. Um >> I'm not old.
>> So to the conversation though, like how not considering how long how long it's going to take for the tree to grow it makes me so sad. But uh how close can you put a tree to like if you got that how close can you get a tree? Can you get a like and just the idea of provision of shade and like is that
something we can think about in 20 30 years? Is that a real thing where we can kind of recapture that? >> Yeah. I again it all goes back to expectations of you know what do you really want to see there? Um is it is it
a grand oak tree you know with a big wide shade circumference? Um, you know, I think everybody knows that kind of the drip line is kind of generally speaking the red zone that
trees will expand out to. And so, you know, um, placing or planting a tree that you're expecting to have something like a 20 or 30 foot shade zone should
really be kind of that far away. >> Um, otherwise the roots will tend to start going underneath the concrete and heaving that in time. You could probably go a little bit closer and sneak it in
so you can get the shade benefit, but but still you need kind of weigh that a little bit. >> I think another two two do two two additional thoughts. One, falling from above limbs and things like that, trimming from maintenance standpoint,
that's something we look at. Um, so there's not there's overhead clearance and not creating a safety hazard that way. Two, we can look at it from the design of the playground and what if we need canopies, if we want a park shelter
in closer proximity. Um, like if you've been to Cross Lake, they have just a one angled roof really close. And so that provides very close proximity shade. So another way of looking at how to provide shade, not just with trees. Again, we love trees. We want to keep trees in the
park. I'm all for that. Um, and there's other ways to keep it maybe closer to the playground. That ties in that way or within the playground. What kind of um, coverings are we picking? >> We also talked briefly about putting
some trees in for another reason and that was fly balls. >> Yeah. >> Potentially. So on that side where the ball field is strategically placing some landscape trees to be more
of a barrier. Yeah. >> Okay. So I'm kind of blurring engineering and playground design here cuz let's roll with it. Um, so we're all in for sidewalks as the border. Shape can morph a smidge. Um, but looking for
a rather sizable playground within that area that was identified. Um, in terms of the playground design and talking with the playground company, you guys saw the feedback from way back in
last March. Um any new thoughts, different thoughts, things you want to see in a revision >> just generally speaking about the the playground. >> Yes. And also surface material because I
know that's going to come up. >> Um yeah, it's hard with such a big such a big budget and big design. um feel like I have a thousand thoughts. Um but at the same time, it's hard to
Yeah, I'm always more so it the the rushing into this is and not having a ton of flexibility is what's kind of getting me right now because I I'd much rather take like a custom approach to something like this. >> Um
>> but time is not on our side right now. That's why I'm struggling with this design. Um, not to say this is not a good design. I'm just saying with this budget, it would be fun to really bring something unique to Niswah.
Um because I just I mean with my experience doing this um I know that there's a lot that you can do with the topography um with different surfaces, different colors, different custom play elements
um that maximize the playground even without equipment. Um, yeah, >> I I would I would agree with that. I I don't like I don't like the timeline for
playground revision. I It's a lot of money to make decisions on something that's going to last for a long time. Um, and there's so many specific things to talk about. Um, I mean, my wife and I, we lived in the cities for, uh, you
know, 10 years, visited a ton of different parks, and there's just so many little things that are worth evaluating. So many different ways that like you can really curate something that works for the community that you're
in, that represents the community that you're in. >> And you just can't do that on his timeline. And I know that I know that we the grant has been the big conversation and or one of the big conversations in all of this, but I'd hate to rush and get a generic looking park in Nysaha for
650,000. Can I ask this? What can we review the timeline again? And you know, would it be possible to either as a group hold a couple of
special meetings or if a couple of us want to break off to like a committee and maybe like and I'm not trying to like dictate the design of this playground, but just help speed things up if we want to put a
little bit more time into it like break off as a subcommittee, have Flagship Recreation come in here. You know, you would be the one, you know, running those meetings, Amber. >> Yeah. But like, hey, for the next if we
have for the next month, we meet weekly, you know, and have these meetings to really try to like narrow in and see if it's even possible to, you know, get a little bit more custom
with this and still meet our deadlines. But I I I need to get refreshed on exactly the the timeline that we're up against. >> Yeah. So, what's in your packet is just um we know the grant submission deadline is March 31st. We know when our parks
commission meetings are. Um you see February 27th is uh the feedback deadline to have like the narrative submitted by um design would be helpful to go with a narrative. Um, and then I think it'd be
a really good idea to re-engage the public since we haven't had any sort of feedback since the um, open houses back with the master plan. I think it would be beneficial to
invite the public to see a revision to get some feedback from them. I think Paul, there's absolutely a way that we could have some subcommittee meetings or toss in more meetings. Um, and then again with talking with the grant like you can make some revisions after your
submission. It does need to stay within like the spirit and >> sure >> pathway, right? But it's not like >> it has to be absolutely committed to that exact design. >> Um, and that was my understanding of it. So >> can I ask? >> Um, so
>> Oh, sorry. Go ahead. Go ahead. >> Well, so I I hear this about, you know, wanting to have uniqueness and I I'm fine with all of that. And if you guys want to have some a couple of people meet with Amber and the playground
committee or playground company, I'm all for that. I guess I would just bring up though that number one, I mean, I I know we had this a year ago. We had the meeting about the design. It was one of the first meetings I was on the park board for. So, um I know this has been
vetted before and um I'm a little concerned that if we start talking about uh wanting to to delay this um you know, right now we've got the the council on board. They're fired up. They've they've agreed to to transfer the money. We've
got a fundraising committee out there that's fired up supposedly. Anyway, I guess, you know, that's in my mind still waits to be seen. But I would be concerned that if all of a sudden we miss this this grant deadline and now we're another year or more down the line
that the momentum we've established here goes away. So Paul, if if you and Dan or whoever want to meet um over the next couple weeks, that's great. But I know Amber, didn't you have a February meeting then there for the public? >> Yes, I do. Um I have that listed as
>> I would say February 10th. I would hate to miss that meeting and I would hate for us not to be able to submit a grant this year. Then I just feel like our momentum is gone. Um so you know that's just my thought. >> And when I talked with the playground
company and part where this timeline came from, they indicated that they need about two weeks to do revisions. >> Okay. So, whatever feedback we can give them, they're and getting the the shape of the playground, they're going to have two weeks to get us that information for
then us to look at it in February at our meeting. Um, it's not uncommon for playground designs to go 8, 10, 12 rounds of revision. That's not uncommon. Um, does does the playground
company need elevation drawings or is a is just a plan view or a 2D drawing suffice? >> I know they asked for the shape file and a little bit of that, but Dave, you can go in. >> That's what we intended was, you know,
try to get this to a point where we submit a shape file to them. >> Sure. And then, you know, elevationwise, we're just going to take a look at it and and see how it lays within the surroundings and see that we're not creating, you
know, any obvious issues from an elevation standpoint. >> So, >> yeah, we have obviously now that we have existing infrastructure, we got to tie into a bunch of those items with the warming house staying where it is, the shelters staying where they are. You got
Updating the parking lot is a small space to make sure it all >> flows where we want it to flow. >> So review January 8th review playground design version one to be able to give to Woods. So that's the that's the big
thing is the shape. >> The big thing is the shape for Woods and then the components of the playground for the playground company. So, if we're like too many spinners, I want to see an additional slide. Um, and this is where I think some of the
public engagement can come in where um the play panels, right? So, like, do we want a kaleidoscope? Do we want tic-tac-toe? Do I want to pick dinosaurs? And so, like, I think that's where we can get a lot of feedback from the public um in terms of what kind of
elements they would like to see some of those. and they can select some of those items. Um, single slides, double slides, curvy slides, tube slides. Um, getting some input from them on that I
think would be helpful. And does the playground company? Um, so this is also part of my thing is like when you work with a like a marketing agency or you work with a branding company, there's a degree in which like the professionals
are the professionals and we're not the professionals. >> Do they have a a do they do part of this with us? Do they go like >> do they play or maybe that already happened? Maybe that's all that happened last year. do they can we
>> in January um of last year the parks commission kind of set some themes and overarching goals and so within that um the main goal was like destination inclusive playground that's outlined in
our master plan um within that we wanted to keep more nature up north boats trains niswa type themes as the under like carried through the mark. Um, and so that's kind of the the framework that
we set them off with and this is the design that came back. So there was they are obviously the professionals. They're going to know what is required for safety and how the spacing of everything and what the ramp slopes are going to be and um they are the experts on that and
we set them with direction. if I like this type of spinner and they had that one in there, we can certainly ask for a diff, you know, to swap some of the things out based on just preferential um and then what they can make work within the space.
>> I do apologize. I'm catching up on a lot of these conversations because I wasn't here for them. So, when we say destination inclusive, those were the two words. Destination meaning people want to go to it. Yep. >> They want to drive to it. And inclusive meaning it needs like all types of kids no matter what sort of like whether it's
>> also mean uh different types of age ages, abilities, backgrounds kind of a universal design I think is what I wrote in the grant today. >> Are there any playground elements that
this company cannot provide? Like >> no >> not to my knowledge. So if we've seen >> so Amber I've asked this question before I mean they're the leaders in custom and then they're the leaders in inclusive
play and so if I can't imagine they wouldn't be able to >> produce something that we see you know by pictures or anything like that >> there's no turtles in it. Like if there's anything this was known for it's turtles. I can't believe I don't see a single turtle.
>> Paint one on the sidewalk. >> I mean that just kind of blows my mind. Like, and that's where I go the whole like tailoring it a little bit where I go like, "Yeah, a train. We have the train and all that, but we're Turtle Town guys." >> Yeah. >> Like, let's let's incorporate let's incorporate that. Let's get the turtles
in there. I like that. >> Um, Bruce, you were going to say something. >> Well, first of all, Dan, my my wife's bringing back some pictures of turtles uh from a a community in Florida, and we'll show you those pictures. Those would be neat to have in our park. Yes,
>> big turtles. Yeah, they're they're they're turtle sculptures, but I don't know if that's what you meant, but >> cool. >> But what what I guess I was going to ask is this kind of goes back to Paul had mentioned earlier and and I wanted to
bring it up the the the surface material. I know I've asked before about, you know, we've got these rubber beads that we've got planned versus other types of surface material and and the the rubber is more expensive than
sawdust, right? Or chips or whatever. What What's the feeling of the commission for that? >> Um I know there's going to be some different opinions on this. Um and this is just my opinion. Uh if the
goal is to make it all inclusive, which that is what it's designated, I do feel like it's a disservice if we don't go with um with something other than a port and place material. Um I'm biased in the fact that I do have a son with
disabilities. like he is a prime example of somebody who needs a port in place material, but a mother or father with a stroller, a grandparent or somebody who just tore their Achilles. Um we have an
assisted living um right next door to the park. Um somebody in a wheelchair, a grandparent, a walker. Um I just I think it's a really important aspect and like I said it also you can also bring some
topography um and different elements to the playground through that surfacing with the right design elements color like on that one they had water um they have pathways with the surfacing so you can
you can integrate design um and different things through the surfacing Plus, it's the safest. Um, it provides the best um um I can't remember the terminology, but the best um ball
protection. Um, so that would be my opinion, especially if we say an all-inclusive playground is what we want as a commission, as a town community. If they're like, "No, we don't need an all-inclusive, we just want a destination." um then I would think that we could you
know go a different direction but in my personal opinion the important place to me is very important. >> I would also argue it brings play because kids you know that they like the feel of it can bring more active play as well. Yeah. >> So I totally agree with you from a
safety perspective and from an inclusive perspective. I will say though that I agree that a $300,000 or $250 or thousand price tag for surfacing is it's tough to swallow, but
>> I so I would I would affirm what Paul is saying. Uh certainly if if if your two vision words are destin if I think those can compete a little bit but uh if it's all inclusive if that's like the key
certainly um and if that's like I don't know what was voted on and I don't know I don't know about all that. Um but I for me I look at it and there's two pieces that concern me. one, there are a number of long-term health studies about the kinds of materials, whether it's
playgrounds, uh whether it's um like sports facilities, there's just a lot of information like this has been studied. >> Yeah. um uh cancer and uh hormone altering just a lot especially uh hormone altering in in women just
significant and the idea of like little kids crawling and spending time on like 90 or 85 or whatever how like that is really concerning to me. Um, and so I be like until I we dug into that a little bit, I
would just like if we had to vote on it, it'd be an automatic no on my end no matter what because like these studies are real. Uh, and so I'd go, okay, what's what's the risk assessment of that and what are we what are we comfortable exposing our community to? Um, so there's that side of it and then
I just you just when you you think about like uh $250,000 um and for instance the earlier question of like shade, right? What what are shade and otherwise? What are all the different things that you could do with $250,000? >> Yeah.
>> Um so I I have you know I think we both have relatively but it does it it comes back to what what is the >> the vision? Um and and if it is that I don't know how you do anything otherwise. Um >> so what would be your suggestion?
>> Uh I would say uh I would say somebody on probably other than me because I'm already biased. I think somebody on the commission or tied to the commission look into some of the health studies
uh or we seek out a professional uh on that. um because I wouldn't just trust me on it. No. Um so I would I would say we look into it and and at the same time I would say let's let's get the price points on some organic materials for for
the floor of the park. Those would be my two. >> So So Dan, the the studies you're referring to is that is that on the rubber? >> Yeah. Yeah. Yep. So the whether it's the port in place or even just like the the recycled tires like there's studies on just recycled tires like
>> basically when you start getting into non non-organic material. >> Yeah. And I know like from a city standpoint they typically have to order something that's CPSC certified which is like almost like your four options. You
have the wood chips. It's like an engineered dyed wood chip. It's not like they're going to Lansburg and getting their wood chips. It's like they're they're buying it through a or like a company that specifically
does playgrounds. That's And I don't know the I know it's like a >> It's not organic. >> Yeah. >> There's like you said, there's the rubber the cr the crushed up rubber that's also dyed. >> Yeah. you have artificial turf. Yeah.
>> And you have board in place. Those are kind of like your four options. Um, and there might be more out there. Those are like the the four main ones that you'd see on 99% of playgrounds, but I think it's worth exploring to your point.
>> Yeah, me too. >> I would think I mean think that there'd be more options out there, but those are kind of the standard. I mean, I can certainly ask the playground company. What we have right now is engineered wood fiber wood chips. >> Yeah.
>> Um, that is an acceptable ADA surfacing. So, that is completely fine to do a whole park with wood chips. Um, that satisfies the grant criteria and you just still put it at its appropriate fall depth. Um, both have different
kinds of maintenance. you're supposed to fluff the wood chips and you know, we've seen the divots under the swings. Um, we've probably all been to playgrounds where a chunk of the port and place has been ripped out and it doesn't look so awesome anymore, right? Um, for anyone that's not sure what port and place is,
Eagleville Elementary just did their new playground in that. So, if you're out perusing playgrounds, that's one to go look at. Um, and so both are acceptable and a hybrid is acceptable. >> So, I was going to ask, can you do a hybrid? >> You can do a hybrid. um
in places, you know, one of the cons is now the wood chips are on the ported place and now you're blowing off the wood chips, right? So, like they all have just their pros and cons. I think there's a >> all of these truths coexist together and
it's just finding what is best for us and our situation, our budget, our abilities, our capabilities, and our town's desires. And that's what we are wrestling with here tonight. But for the budget, I need to know which
one to put in. So that's where the decision has to be made. I guess when you've talked to the DNR, have they mentioned anything about, you know, is there a better odds of getting something like this if we do go uh all-incclusive
or >> they've said they'veed all types of surfacing. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Or varieties in surfacing. >> That doesn't >> because that was one of my questions like if that's a differentiator on if you get the grant or not get the grant. like I think you know if you want the
grant then the grant would cover the port in place >> um aspect of it. Um, so yes, that was a question that I did ask them and it didn't sound like um it was a disqualifier to not do port in place. going to ask if it was more natural if
that would provide >> and I don't think on the on the contrary I don't think that's you know I think it's >> yeah overall >> okay >> safety um accessibility and you know when we're looking at the park as a whole and we're looking at the sidewalks
and you know the visibility and the safety and we can tie in sight lines and all those types of things that might aid in our Well, so Paul, you you you I don't know if you were volunteering, but if there's a couple of you that want to hook up
with Amber and the playground company in the next couple of weeks and try to come up with some more unique stuff, I I'm I thank you for that and I' I'd applaud you to do that. I'm just again kind of pushing us to keep on track here to not
to not have it get to to the point where we're not going to be able to do something. >> Yeah. And I I agree with you, Bruce. I mean, if we it would be hard to lose momentum at this point with we've gone from zero to 100 in a matter of like two
weeks, it seems like. And so, it would be hard to lose that. So, I do get the importance of of trying to move this thing forward quickly and just with now the granted money from city council, I think that can give us
momentum and not only the DNR grant, but it can maybe give us avenues for other grants, too, knowing we've got a little bit of a pot of money to work with. >> Yeah. No, good point. So, I mean, my suggestion would be is if a couple of you want to work with Amber and the
playground company to to fine-tune the design a little bit, go for that. Maybe we can get some feedback, Amber, from the company on, you know, some different materials and see uh by by our February meeting if we can get a consensus on
that. Uh I do have one request, which I mentioned before. I'd like to have at least eight eight benches Corners, corners, you know, two at each corner. That says a grandpa talking. >> The the b the bench would the bench is
outside of the footprint, right? If we do the >> Yes. >> Okay. So, yeah. >> Um, this does actually have benches within the footprint as well. Um, so kind of um both um throughout there there's
different like log type benches to sit on. There's acorn chair. I've looked at this extensively in the last week. Um but you have like um acorn benches. You have these log benches to sit on. Um so and then
there's regular benches and so you can have benches inside, you can have benches outside. We can always add benches later. We can take sponsorships for benches, like all sorts of ways to go about it. Um, style of benches. They're only going to
offer so many styles, right? So, >> but if we but if we have the benches inside the playground, does that eliminate our possibility of some of the equipment we might be able to have? >> Um, potentially. These are um in this particular design, they're more like a
log. I think that's too, right? >> Yeah. And um you know that's place to sit. It's a place to run and jump and >> yeah, >> kids will play on it and parents will sit on it. >> Um so I see it as a dual functioning in
this particular scenario. Um but yes, definitely something to think about of what's inside the playground and what's taking up space and what's outside the playground and then what this company offers versus going with a different company. Yeah. >> So, >> so what do what do we have to do
tonight? >> I'm collecting feedback tonight. Um, do we want do I can only have two two people for a subcommittee? Do we want to have anyone meet with the playground company to talk
design further or would you like me to take this direction and kind of run with it? I'd like to do a meeting with the playground company. I guess I would too. >> Can I send you Well, I have like a park that I find ideal. I'll send you that
that information. >> Send it to >> Send it to me. >> Send it to Amber and then Amber can forward it to me. >> Yeah. If you guys see parks or love parks, um you can go I have um landscape structures. I've been doing work. It's
flagged all sorts of stuff. I have their catalog here. You can go online. You can look at landscape structures. You can look at flagship recreation. You can send me playgrounds for inspiration. Um, obviously different playground companies might have different copyrights on
certain items um that they can't copycat, but they could find a comparable. So, yes, if you guys have inspirations and you want to send them to me, I will take them. And for Paul and Dan, I will look to set up something as soon as possible. Um once we get work
on the shape file, you want to be invited too, Dave? >> No, I wasn't going that direction. >> I was going to offer up that we could give you our baseline survey. >> They have that and you can when it goes to the shape question.
>> We can drop off some bump wad and you guys can go >> with draw whatever you >> that'd be great >> would like to see. >> Love that. um give you some materials to work with >> and then that's that would be great
feedback back to us so we get it headed in the direction that you want to see. >> Mhm. >> And then I have one other question. Yep. when it comes to, you know, uh this is great because I'm starting to understand what is important
to you and um when it comes to the grant amount and what you're going to apply for. Um cost questions start to really come into play. You've got an expensive surfacing material potentially that's
going to weigh into this. Um the grant itself will allow um things like driveway accesses and parking and access ways to be 40% of the total project. So if
you wanted to try to maximize the grant, you could potentially go that route, but then again, that might, you know, take away from a material that you really want and you would not include that in your grant application.
And so, um, and in my experience, there's, you know, everybody's trying to make their application look, um, the best, uh, so they get it awarded and there's always a little bit of strategy in how
you go about that. Um, is maximizing it to the full 500,000 a good strategy or is it not? Um, you know, is it what you need? Can you really demonstrate the need um to fill
the purposes that you have? And I always go back to um and don't think less of me for this because it's kind of a crude statement that um you know there was a really wise old mayor that told me once that pigs get fed and
hogs get slaughtered and we were working on a grant application and that's that that was his viewpoint and I always remembered that because it kind of makes some sense. You know, you
got to think about what the grant application reviewers are thinking about your application. >> Yeah, that's >> Dave. That's that's a great point that we actually had the same phrasing in tax
work, too. Pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered. You're right. So, I think what I hear you saying is if we we go right to the 500,000, does that really impact uh when the reviewer is looking at it if uh because we're just adding things that
maybe um don't necessarily impact. Is that is that kind of what you're saying? >> Yes, that's it. Yeah. >> Everything has to have a place and a purpose. >> Yeah. And have we really thought well about what we need? >> Yeah.
>> And can that does that come through the application? >> Yes. >> Dave, from a standpoint of of of you and your firm, uh the timeline that Amber has laid out here, do you see a problem with you guys being able to to work within that frame time frame?
>> No, I don't see a problem. you know, if we can be diligent and keep working it forward within the next couple of weeks, try to get this shape nailed down, >> I think that'll >> um I do think it's important that we get
the community feedback. Um, with the knowledge for all of us that this is not even close to maybe the final design. Um, but based on the timeline, I think it's most appropriate. so their feedback can get into a
revision before it gets submitted. >> Unless you guys have any serious concerns on that, >> how do you want to approach the public on it? >> Are you going to just have it be a
what do you think or is it a you know, here's three ideas or is it >> um the playground company actually had a lot of different ideas and gave me a few different examples. Um, one I think we can have kind of similar to the open house that we did with the master plan where you have some picture boards. Um,
there's an example he showed us different elements and we can have photos of separate elements and you can kind of vote on different things or like I said um, here's six different play panel options. Vote for which ones you like the best. Um, and then you know and
ways to keep kids busy and you put out you know butcher block paper and kids can draw what they most love about the park and just different ways to engage people in different learning styles and different visuals um were some of the examples that they gave. >> Do you feel like February 10th is a an
appropriate timeline? >> Oh, this timeline is extremely stressful to me. the whole thing of it. Um, but in order to incorporate the community's feedback into the grant, I think it's 100% appropriate.
>> Yeah. >> And not to say that it's the only open house either. Um, the grant says you need a 30-day period. So, it would be an open house plus available here at city hall. >> Yeah. Yeah. You you'd want to do the uh
the open house early enough because if you do get significant feedback to make changes, you said the company's going to take two weeks. >> Yeah. >> To incorporate that. And >> and so that's why I picked February 10th. So then they'd have two weeks to make edits before our March meeting and
any final tweaks before submission. Okay. I will circle back with Paul and Dan for a subcommittee. Anyone else, even the public if you're listening, um, send me your favorite pictures. Um, email them to me cuz I love playgrounds.
And, uh, we'll get rolling on this. Any other final thoughts? >> Just a subcommittee quick question. Do we have to ratify the subcommittee like via vote or anything like that? Okay, >> you're in. You volunteered.
Well, and yeah, thank you both for for volunteering. I appreciate that. >> Test our relationship. >> Um, any other thoughts on the playground? Any questions before we
kind of roll on? It's exciting. It's fast, but it's exciting. Uh, I'm thankful for council for kind of hopping on board and getting, you know, hopefully rallying the city around this and so, yeah, it's
just a matter of getting her done now. >> Yes. >> Get her done. >> Yes. >> Awesome. Um, cool. Our next meeting February 5th. Um, and uh we'll keep
plucking away at it. Um, if there's no other final comments or discussions, we'll take a motion to adjurnn. >> We'll make a motion to adjurnn. >> Second. >> Second by Dan. Alrighty. All in favor? >> I.
>> Excellent. Thank you.