All right, I'll call the order of the Corkran Parks and Trails Commission meeting for July 17th. We'll start with roll call. Christensen here. >> Zberger here. >> Anderson here. >> Walsh here. >> NO here. >> Stander here. >> Excellent. I'll invite everyone to stand for pledge of allegiance. Pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> All right, we got our agenda. Any changes? Any comments? >> Otherwise, we can try to approve it. Nothing. >> Move to approve. A second. >> All those in favor >> I >> and minutes from last time changes, corrections. >> Got one correction. Chair, um, Commissioner Anderson brought it to our attention that he is not included at the top in the roll call, but is in the rest of the minutes. So, we will get that. >> He showed up late. >> Yeah. So, thank you, Commissioner. >> Okay, great. >> The other my only other comment was I know Commissioner Anderson has good points about inclusion and and the name of Heritage Park. I know those didn't make the meeting minutes. >> You had some >> some important call outs as far as the name Heritage Park and its kind of interpretation of like inclusion. And >> as I read it, I thought it was >> right. >> It's on the tape. >> I will double check. Double check that. >> Thank you, Vice Chair. >> Would you like that information included? We can update it. I mean, we're updating it anyway. So, >> you're the vice chair. >> I'll leave it up to Commissioner Anderson, but I thought he had some very good points that I think weren't really captured in >> Well, at this point, at this point, it's been the deed has been done. The park has been renamed, and I I'll have more to say about that, too. >> Anytime you do have edits, please, anything, let me know. It can be >> I think I was here, too. >> You were. She's in the bottom of the page. >> I did catch it. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> He's really mad at some of you. >> What a mess. Okay. >> Well, Tom, I hope >> I hope I keep doing everything right. It's >> age discrimination is whatever it is. >> All right, everyone else, look for your name. >> Thank you, Commissioner. >> Okay. >> All right. Does anyone want to make a motion to approve as amended? >> A motion. >> Do we have a second? >> I'll second. >> Okay. All those in favor? >> I >> I All right. Right along. Open forum. Do we have any public comments? >> I will comment on the parking policy. So, do you want me to wait or just >> uh we'll wait because open forum is for stuff not on the agenda. >> Okay, great. No presentations. Moving on to unfinished business. our park naming policy. >> Did you turn on the microphone? >> Not yet. Um, and please state your name and address for the record. >> And I do want you to know that you can hear me on the microphone because I'm close, but taller people you cannot hear. >> Oh, that's interesting. or it's very difficult to >> Yes, >> use my plate. That was good. >> It's been 5 years since I did my 24 years on Playground Junior, but I can do it. Um, Catherine Grievous, 6747 Oldbridge Drive. And I want everybody to know not speeding. I can get here in four minutes. >> Well, for my house. Um, I just want to say it's about time we have a park naming policy because it needs to be done. I um I live in a development that is adjacent to the open space park in the souththeast area of Corkran and I am tired of looking at the map and seeing Ribinia open space park. So I firmly believe and want to impress that it should not in any case be named any park named after a development and the reverse is also true. A new development coming in next to a park should not be named for that park. So if the if the um land to the west of Heritage Park is developed, it should not that development should not be allowed to use heritage in its implies ownership and exclusivity. So, um, I wanted to say that, um, I think they should be short and I really think it should reflect something in nature around that park. So, for instance, the open space to the east of my development is Woods Wetland. And I've kind of kiddingly said, you know, Woodland Acres would be a good name until one of my neighbors pointed out technically that's the name of our development. So I have to withdraw that. I mean, you know, I looked at that abstract 40 years ago when I bought the house. Not now. Um, but I think Woodside Park might be nice because it's woods >> beside >> again up in um up where the new boardwalk is. Boardwalk Park might be an appropriate name. And as we develop further west, maybe a meadow might be something to include or prairie, something that is permanent in that area that reflects the name. And then I think things within the park could be called different things. Like at Heritage Park, you could say, well, the fields of Heritage Park. So, I think there are all kinds of descriptors that could be put in, but I just want to say thank you for addressing this because it's time. We need names on our parks and we be a we need to be able to say, "Oh, I'll meet you at such and such a park." So, thank you. Thank you. >> Want to give us a little summary? >> I would love to. All righty. So, We have seen this a time or two. Most of us, sorry. Uh the park naming and renaming policy is really intended to be the framework for naming and renaming of parks, recreation facilities, and or recreation areas and facilities, but not amenities. Those amenities are things like the benches, bike racks, trash cans, I think someone said at one point. Um whereas a splash pad would also be eligible under this policy. Um object Yes. Oh, you turned really abruptly. So I thought was listening. >> Oh, objectives for this uh making sure that the park names are easily identifiable and can locate people can locate those parks, recreation areas or facilities. They should be consistent with the values and character of the area, neighborhood, and city, which I feel reflects Katie's earlier points pretty well. Um, and encourages public participation in the naming process. And if it doesn't include the public participation, it at least considers it within the policy and allows for um a decision to be made on that specific to each park. Um so names should be concise, distinct and avoid confusion with nearby locations. As part of the process um I did update it a little bit from the previous process just to include some of that engagement as well. So it would start with initiation by either a request to staff from a resident or someone who would like to propose a name for the park or during acceptance or development of a park. Um so the commission you all would determine what the course of public engagement is. Um so there were a few different options within the policy itself. There were options where the commission can just provide some options and we can go out and maybe have people vote on it. We can have public engagement for naming submissions. So people can submit their own names. You all review it and then council makes a decision. or you all could provide names and then the public could vote on those names. There are a few different options and dependent on, you know, what's going on, how applicable it is to each park, we can determine that when the time comes, but this gives us some wiggle room at this point to decide that. Um, beyond that, there would be a public input opportunity and time for you all to review the name that was name or names that were proposed. uh determine what your recommendation is to council and then city council would make the final decision. Um as I said, the policy has been brought back to the parks and trails previously. I think this is our third time seeing it. Um so I'm seeking hopefully final feedback. Uh and I've got two main questions beyond are there any updates, adjustments, did I have any typos in the policy that you'd like to see adjusted? Additionally, would the commission prefer to identify a bank of potential names or categories for future use? And would the commission prefer a more standardized process for naming and renaming? So, if you wanted a cut and dry, clear process on um public engagement, you didn't want to have the variability in what you could do, we can go with one straight process. Um, and then as far as having a potential bank, that would eliminate some of that community engagement as well and that public input because we could pull from the bank, but that also requires coming with the bank of names and hoping that they fit for many parties. So, at this point, I'm happy to hear any thoughts, concerns, advice that you all have and update it. Beyond this, it would uh go to our city attorney for review just to make sure that we're not doing anything we can't uh and then council for acceptance hopefully. >> Thank you. Good summary. >> Any thoughts? >> I think I like the idea of names being very much tailored for the location and what's at that park. So, I would not be in favor of a bank of names being part of it. >> I agree with that. >> You don't name your kid until it comes out, right? >> Depending on what they look like. >> Um I thought there was something in here that specifically addressed the characteristics of the park, >> like the natural characteristics. Is that still in here? >> I believe so. Um, under objectives, we do have names designated for parks, recreation areas, and facilities should be consistent with the values and character of the area, neighborhood, and city of Corkrand. So, it doesn't I mean, let's say it was an Oak Savannah and we wanted to name it Oak Savannah Park. We could, but it doesn't have to be Oak Savannah Park. >> But we shouldn't call it Wetland Park. >> I mean, your call. >> Okay. >> I work at your direction. >> Why do we have this use the fewest words possible? >> Cuz like with that Grand Canyon National Park would be Canyon National Park. >> Yeah, but it's grand and that's a descriptor. >> But that >> you want it to be as short as possible. >> Sure. Pre concise enough so that >> should use the fewest word possible. future parks committees are going to look at that and say, "Well, let's come up with one word names because that's what our policy says." Like this here, it says be concise. That makes sense. >> Change it to concise. >> Yeah. Can you just change? >> What line is that? >> Uh third one under general naming guidelines on the first page bottom >> should be concise. We can update that. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Absolutely. >> And are we the appropriate designator for type of park like is Heritage Park for instance going to be Heritage Community Park or is are we following that our own good rule there? That was another one >> rename to be fair so it doesn't have to follow. >> No, but it's an example. >> Can we vote to rename >> but like wild like wildflower park isn't wildflower neighborhood >> neighborhood park? No, it's just wildflower. >> So I I don't know that that we want to remove it is an important one to me. >> Some of these I pulled from other >> policies just to get what is standard. I'd rather Yeah, >> I like the idea of it, but you're right. We haven't really followed that >> should consider an appropriate designator. >> Sure. Like open, you know, if it's Yeah, like I could see the open space park that be important part of the name or something. So should maybe they'd rather consider than should. >> Okay. >> Okay. Yeah, let's keep it on there. >> Why don't we like adjectives? on the second bullet point in second page. >> Again, I'm pulling a lot of these from other policies and so a lot of these were very standard in all of them. >> And so I I hesitate to not include them because I'm thinking there's probably a reason. I just am not pretty to what that reason is, but it appears in so many that >> it's I think that one's trying to get at things that may change over time. Like there may be another park that's west of a west park and then your west name gets >> at least when I read it I was like relative ones are should be lower priority because it could be >> that's how I read it but >> our big park might get bigger. >> Yeah, it might be another a bigger part. Okay. Uh other noteworthy areas that we've discussed in the past uh naming approved for an item that has a life, excuse me, a lifespan such as structures, equipment, etc. shall expire within the life when the lifespan of the item is met. And then it allows them the opportunity to come back if they would like to name it again when we get either a new piece or >> what have you. >> Do they get first write a refusal? Then >> that kind of that works. >> Yes. And then is that based on IRS depreciation tables for useful life? >> I think we establish >> we have a list somewhere. >> Yeah, it's like a playground is generally 15 to 20 years. >> Um, splash pad. I would have to look it up, but we also >> but we do have something. >> We can put something >> because someone who has their name on it and we say after 10 years, >> we would have that timeline pre-duct. Okay, makes sense. >> We don't have anyone claiming anything quite yet. Um another area uh we had discussed substantial donation of money typically not less than 50% of the value of the property or improvements. The request was to include typically to allow that buffer in case >> there's discretion necessary. The other thing I noticed is in the renaming process, we don't speak to ones that are named by for a commercial property because that's one of the options for naming it, but we don't speak to it as one of the considerations for renaming. And I think that would be an important one. We talk about if it's named after someone, what the stipulations are, but we don't speak to the commercial name. >> Yeah. Have something similar. So like the la second to last section of the whole document. Third bullet talks about features named after individuals. Fourth bullet's named after location ge geographic feature. And then I think there should be another bullet that talks about named after commercial. So >> or amorphous ideals like heritage >> I think so we have it before that you want it within the process I mean the stipulations are in the early >> the renaming so we speak to renaming about those other two groups but I don't we don't speak about renaming a commercial named park the stipulations >> would it meet the same criteria though as the commercial organization naming that's part the guidelines like the general because this >> I think what I'm getting is that once it's named that it is it is not up for reconsideration unless it fits into one of these categories listed in the renaming portion of >> the renaming of existing parks. >> Yeah. >> So like if you name something after commercial today it's been 50 years we don't have anything in here about >> oh like a a timeline like a contract for how long they can or just if it something happens to that company and we no longer want that name on our part, we should have a process for >> the same as bullet three. If the individual's personal character was such that it >> would be good for the city to continue to use that name, it should be a similar paragraph just with the institution. >> Exactly. >> And maybe it's not. Yeah. >> Or you want to scare people away from naming it, but we want to like say, hey, if there's like a significant change in status or you know whatever it needs to be. >> You could combine it. Parks, facilities, geographic features, named after individuals or >> what do we use? Corporations. >> Individuals, corporations, ideals. >> Yeah, just try to make that >> um because as it reads, it does seem like it is limited to um so we cannot rename unless it you know meets a a certain burden um if it's named after a geographic feature or individual. and then the next one down. >> Um, >> they may be considered for renaming if they meet, you know, th those that burden, right? But it doesn't necessarily have a carveout for parks that are named after other things. >> So, is everyone okay with it going on the third bullet under renaming of existing parks, recreation areas, and facilities? Um, similar to what Commissioner Walsh had mentioned, uh, after individuals that the individual's personal individual corporation uh ideal essentially just adding additional categories. >> Yeah, I think I was just trying to match. We lay out what they should be named after and one of the categories is that commercial and >> corporate and we don't answer a question. How do you what's the renaming criteria for that group? >> Is there any time that you would allow them to name an entire park? Like would you allow fictitious company A to come in and say this is company A park? >> Yes. If it follows the criteria. >> Yeah. They donated a whole park to us. >> Yep. And they have historically they've been in the the community for 50 years. >> Let's say just for instance, I mean, is it okay to drop names? >> I don't know. That's why I said >> just you know distributors. >> Yeah. Walsh Farms who's who was established in 1867 down county road 50. um you know if if they were to say provide 50% of the funds uh >> the land >> and the land say donate a large of swath of uh previous farmland you know that sort of thing >> like if farms came in and >> or pat node or whatever >> why we wouldn't even have to have person's name >> yeah because we're all getting old on that road >> so find a way to fit it in I just wanted to make sure because If if the idea was that we weren't having them name the park and it was just amenities, well then those those features have a timeline. So that expires anyways. But if it's the park as a whole, >> aren't we already allowing them to name it or is that not >> Yeah, it's in the organ. You can with the organization and >> Mhm. >> Okay. Yeah. But I want to make sure that's the intention of the commission because some people maybe wouldn't want like a >> I don't want to use you now because like >> go ahead. It's all right. >> Um but like maybe the commission wasn't interested in commissions naming an entire park, but you were in amenities. So I want to make sure that I'm understanding that correctly. >> I'm open to being part of this and obviously the process allows multiple checks for us to approve and then the council approved. So it's not like it's not >> they gave the money so they did whatever they >> Yes. Correct. Because we do have >> just because it's >> meeting all criteria does not ensure renaming. >> Good job. >> So I'm just trying to protect if there's a relation we do build something even it's an amenity and something happens where we really don't want it or it shouldn't be named after that commercial entity anymore. >> So kind of like an outlaws >> almost. >> Yeah. Just like you have the individual one similar to >> bullet three. >> Yes. and just use the language you use here, commercial, organization, and ideals. >> It's hard to define a corporation's character and personal character, but I think something along the lines of >> Yeah, there's been plenty of organizations that have been defamed, so that would be good to have that >> like with oil spills or something. >> Yes. >> All right. Um, other thoughts? I will update uh instead of should use the fewest words possible should be concise. Uh consider an appropriate designator of the type of park and then I think just the commercial naming adding that to the third bullet point >> or its own bullet point whatever is easier for you to make work. >> And then oh go ahead. Well, this this is maybe it's off topic, but to get back to my my point that that I think I think the parks should have a statement of purpose or a statement of intent, which each one individually, which might include a little description of the history, a description of why it's named, what it's named, and a description really stating in in really unambiguous terms that it is a it is a park for all. It's a public park for all all residents of Corkran and well it's even public for it's I mean it's really public just just to be really clear that that even though we call it Heritage Park you new people who don't have a heritage here are really welcome just just to just to make that really clear and that could go you know uh something that would could go be half a half a page it could go somewhere on a park building or or it could be even just in the in the uh description of the park >> unlike the website. >> Unlike the website, yeah. Something that really lays out some of that our thinking back now in 2025 about why we chose that name. >> Off the cuff. Yep. >> What are the thoughts? I mean, at some point we're going to have to discuss park signs and that's not necessarily a tonight meeting, but as we move into that, maybe it looks like here's the name of the park and then underneath Corkran Parks welcomes all. Absolutely. >> Something to put it right on that main sign. It is very apparent. >> It could be standard on all of the signs. >> I think that's a good idea. >> Yeah. >> Would you go as far as including a call out that we should have a brief description as part of the approved name >> that we would agree upon as far as like just a paragraph just defining why we named it this. >> I think so. Yeah. You know, >> I like that idea. >> That could be part of the >> policy staff. >> Yeah. If we put it in the policy that's going to hold our feet to the fire and we don't always have time to like make that a top priority. >> What if we use the word should >> that but I like that but I think it's so >> I'm just worried that if we don't meet it in a reasonable time frame like >> someone's going to go well it says in the policy that you need to have this up there. >> Yeah. I think it it's important to note because we don't want to forget why we name these parks what we do which >> because we have wildflower park with very few wild flowersowers. >> Yeah. >> Depends on the time of year >> last week. There was >> was it a bunch? Good. I'm glad to hear that they have not been there for a while. >> There's there's >> And there some of them are not thistles. >> Some of them. >> Okay, that's good. I will add that probably under this uh >> general. >> Yeah, >> as a new bullet. >> Yeah, I like that. >> In the early days, we had some, you know, that there are public parks and private parks in Corkran. And I think we need to make sure that everybody knows the public parks really are public even though they might be right next to the amenity center. >> Something like that. >> Yep. >> Yep. Agreed. >> Um a point that was brought up by Katie. Do we want to include anything about developments and naming developments not being able to name >> after a park that's already there? >> I like it. I I agree. >> So like if something came in and developed to her point next to her Heritage Park, >> could they be Heritage Meadows >> or Heritage Landing or Right. I I agree as well. I think, you know, if if someone were to come in and then subsequently name a a development after the park, you know, years from now, no one really knows which one came first, right? So then that you get to a point where they're sort of synonymous and connected. >> Like you said, it kind of >> shows ownership of that. So people would might not think it's a community park. >> We make that one more. >> No, I agree. >> Yeah. I'm trying to figure out how to word it in there, but I'll add something. And like I said, we're going to have the attorney look it over. So >> should any red flags pop up, he should >> we'll get an email. >> Unfortunately, that's like a property naming, not a park. >> Well, that's where I'm wondering how it could even because that's putting a stipulation on the developer, not our stipulations. So, it might just be a conversation with our attorney to see where could we go with this. Mhm. >> Um, but we could include something about not avoiding names of avoiding naming parks after nearby developments. >> And I can double check that that's not already called out, but >> I mean the other the inverse I mean is that something that we can refer to like the planning commission to potentially adopt um or at least look into? >> I'll talk to Natalie um the community development Yeah. director. She's my boss. So, I'll ask her. She would she runs the planning commission. She's the liazison for them. So, we can kind of come together and see what we can come up with. And then subsequently council range. >> Oh, the private one over there. >> They have a couple. Oh, great. >> Um, anything else? >> Otherwise, I would take a motion if you guys >> I guess one more quick note. >> Right. So, >> we start calling it Chad. >> Oh, yeah. Chad Chad. >> So, obviously, you noted that just because it might meet the guidelines, you know, it might it still might not be chosen. Um, but what if it doesn't meet the guidelines? You know, if there's a specific, say, u, you know, it doesn't call out a designator like community park or open space park or something like that. I guess what I'm getting at is does Heritage Park meet the guidelines fully? >> At this point, that doesn't matter because the policy would be adopted after that. >> Sure. Yeah. >> And I think it would still because isn't it basically city council gets the final say? They noted that multiple times. >> They picked it, don't they? >> These are just >> guidelines. I think >> I appreciate your passion though. >> Okay. Uh I'll move. >> Yeah. >> Move with the amendment. >> Absolutely. Yes. >> And uh I will second it. All those in favor? >> I I >> Okay, great. >> Jessica, thank you for putting that together. That's pretty >> great. >> We're getting there, guys. >> Yes, we are. >> All right, no new business. So, let's move on to reports and information planning project update. >> And it does not appear that we have anyone from council on. However, we would be happy to try to answer any questions you have. Is there anything you should be aware of here? >> That pertains to parks mostly. >> The city park remaster. If you look at number four, uh that is the heritage park. Uh they I'll go through that a little bit more in my parks, recreation, and trails update, but basically the planning commission recommended approval of the draft resolution speeding up making the western p parcel of city park a phase one versus a phase three on the comp plan because we're moving on it and now it's going to have utilities. >> Excellent. >> Who's Dwight Clingbell? Yeah, >> Dwight Clingbell. He is our planner. He's been with the city for four years, I think. >> He does. He go to planning commission meetings. >> Yes. >> And council quite frequently. >> Okay. It's hard keeping up. >> We like Dwight. He's in our department. >> Nice. Good. >> And some of these newer uh projects and developments. I know vice chair wants to get updates when there's things related to the Diamond Lake Trail or um uh park funding, things of that nature. Some of them are so new that that hasn't um been addressed yet, but when those updates do come, we will make sure to call those out for the commission. Okay, this number six road subdivision or whatever. >> Doesn't that property come almost out all the way up to 50 in the park? Did you remember? Is it kind of a big long narrow? >> If that's the same one that used to be a business park proposal. Yes. So, with that, the naming of the park and stuff, but that thing's coming right up to the park. >> They can't. >> Um, >> I'm not saying you can't name it heritage, >> villas, or whatever is a good thing. >> So, you're just saying you're noting like make sure we have >> Well, it's just a comment that, you know, what we just did falls right into. >> That's the one that's closest to Yeah. >> potentially that being a an issue with >> Mhm. And their name of Maplewood might be Maples and what's in there, but >> I don't know. >> Maplewood's the other side of town. >> Yeah, I know that too. >> Totally with you. >> Hope it doesn't confuse me. >> Yeah, I was just comment. >> Oh, it's the name of the developer. >> Okay. Uh, parks, recreation, trails up. >> Oh boy, look at all that. I swear it's not that bad. Um, >> no, you do a lot. >> We're busy. We're busy. Uh, so June 23rd at the council meeting, council approved the site work, building contract or the site work and building contracts. Feain is doing the site work and Veilent Construction Services is doing the building. That is how you spell Veilent. Uh, it throws me off every time though. And then also at the council meeting, city council approved resolution 2025-64 to rename city park to Heritage Park. During the July 8th planning commission meeting, the as I mentioned previously, Heritage Park went from phase three to phase one or the recommendation was to go from phase three to phase one um in the comp plan. Beyond that, some report updates. I'm working with the garden club. I picked up their mulch fork today. So, that means everything has been given to them. It's in the shed. Uh, park planning. I don't know if you've driven by the park, you can see that there have been trees removed. Uh, I've gotten some. >> Actually, I've really only gotten one email. Um, I know that other staff have received some contacts while I've been out of the office because I was on vacation. Um, but I haven't had anyone reach out to me directly other than one person. So, I'd be happy to answer any questions that anyone has. Just funnel them my way. Um, we are taking out ash trees and a lot of grub and buckthornne and it's a lot of things that just need to come out because they're not healthy for the park. So, I'm hoping that if anyone is listening or listens back, please know we are not trying to take out trees that are healthy and great and wonderful. We're trying to clean up the space so that it can live for future years. >> Uh beyond that, Diamond Lake Regional Trail, we're working with them to with Three Rivers to try and get a reimbursement uh for a variety of things actually, a few segments within the city park, a few segments without or outside of City Park, and then also the design of the segments within City Park. So, working closely with them and then prepping special events. So we have night to unite coming up on August 5th. We have the biob blitz coming up which or not bioits bio >> diversity >> diversity dash. >> Uh Parker will talk about that a little bit more. That's also taking place in August. Uh country days is coming up. We have a bean bag tournament as part of that. So if you're interested in participating participating, please sign up. Uh, and then we also have Bark in the Park coming up which will be taking place at City Park. My final thing for the evening, just a reminder, August 21st, I sent out an email. >> You guys are all getting iPads. So, we need some training and it's not necessarily for the iPad itself, but more so for the it's called Granicus, and that's what we use to do the agendas and stuff. not currently for the commissions, but we will be transitioning into that. So, helping make sure that people know how to use it instead of just throwing you to the wolf. >> That's all I got. >> Okay, great. Uh, program coordinator update. What do we got there? >> All right, so I started planning the biodiversity dash. Um, and so I created the flyer and the bingo cards for the event. Um, I have five different cards for it. So, if we have to get moved inside, we have things to do. I also have a puzzle for people to do. That's 250 pieces. And then we have like trivia that we can do as well. Um, and then we posted that on the Corkran website. Uh, night toite. Uh, began collecting donations from local businesses and worked with our cso Josh to put themes to our giveaways and prize packs. So, one example is like a kids type event where there's like Grand Slam tickets for arcade, uh, St. Paul Saints tickets, and I think a Renaissance festival tickets. And then other project, uh, continue continue planning for the upcoming Bark in the Park event. Um, just got different materials that we might need. And then also research. There's this cool website where you can see different uh, from what I can see like permanent things that people can rent at the park. So, for example, they make like bag toss boards out of concrete. You can rent the bags. Um, there's kayaks is what they mainly do, but since we don't really have a lake or huge body of water, that's kind of uh not for our park, but different different things of that nature. >> Awesome. >> Good. All right. Subcommittee garden club reporting the report. You know, Susan Nelson continues to to work that garden club pretty well. So, she just sent out a note saying we need help trimming some shrubbery in the garden. And uh and uh people responded that it's so so you know, it's it's not very many of us and we're some of us are kind of old, >> but marching. Susan's been doing a really good job of keeping everyone in the loop and in the know and >> getting events planned for people. She's doing a really good job and I'd like to help her by getting some of their events onto our See my legacy page so that people can kind of sign up there if they want to go provide more of a hub. >> So that's great. >> Seth and I will be working on that >> hopefully in the foreseeable future. >> Great. >> Before the season is over. >> Yeah. >> Great. Uh park dedication fund. Any questions? Looks good. >> Does this work? >> This looks good. >> Yes. >> Mhm. >> Yes, it does. >> We skipped over, but we didn't get the grant for the >> or the large grant. >> Yeah, >> we didn't get either of them. We didn't get the T-Mobile 50,000 one or the DNR one. >> Sorry. >> We'll try next year. Did they come back with reasoning for the for for not >> I mean the generic we had so many applications thanks for playing true. >> Do you know who got it? >> No. >> No they haven't tell you that either. >> Um I don't know that it's public is what I can say. I have heard other >> friends in the field tell me that they received it but I don't know that it's public yet. So I don't want to >> No make it public. Oh, I I think we're more worried about the DNR one. >> How much is that one? >> Uh 300 or 350? >> I think 350. >> No, >> that one hurt. But it was very It started off a much bigger scope and then it got more particular with their guidelines that it became just focused on the playground. And so it was a lot easier to tell a story when it's this big, but then when you're focused on just this piece and you can't really focus on the other pieces because they want you to focus on only what you're looking for. >> It was it was a hard one to do, >> but I think we still have good odds for future grants. >> Good. All right. No other business. So I will make a motion to adjourn the meeting. Do we have a second? >> Second. >> All those in favor? Hi >> I meeting a journ.