I'd like to call to order the city of Dayton Parks Commission meeting 7 January. Let's stand for the pledge of allegiance. >> Right side mixing things up. I pledge algiance 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. >> Thank you, sir. >> All right. Uh, approval of agenda. Any addition, changes, deletions to the agenda? All right. Hearing none, entertain a motion to approve the proposed uh agenda items. >> All motion. >> I'll second. >> All in favor? >> I. >> All right. Close. Same sign. Under the consent agenda. Uh entertain a motion for the parks commission minutes from November 2025. entertain a motion any >> I wasn't here I wasn't here so I felt like I could >> um I'll move to >> pro okay just the three >> everything I read looked good so I'm assuming that the print is the same as the second it all in >> favor opposed all right on the open forum. Anybody online? We don't have online tonight. >> Sad. >> Is this being recorded then for >> It's being recorded, but we don't have the Zoom link set up tonight. >> Okay. >> Uh council update. Councilman, >> I don't really have much to add other than uh I'm sure you're all aware that we're still looking at I think we're going to try and get it done later this this month, I think, >> for the uh equip what we can get for the value for Stevens Park. There's a number there that council approved to spend and the list of items as far how far that'll take us. >> So, cool. >> That's really about all >> just a number. They weren't thinking of parking lot band stand. >> Yeah. How much we can get for that okay >> amount of money. >> So I do have MSA working up on the plans um to see what we can get for the the council number. They're looking at all the the different areas that we were identified with the parking lot and the cover for the band standard uh dance floor and uh splash pad and that kind of thing. >> And so they're going to pull some numbers together to see what we can actually do. And then the council, it'll be presented back to the council and they will pick what items they need to meet their budget. >> When will that go before the council? >> It will go at the second meeting in January. >> What was the number that the council agreed upon to spend? >> 1.75. >> 1.7 >> 1.5. But there's a little fudge factor there, too. >> Yeah. So, if they approve it by the end of January, would we be breaking ground on anything? >> It's probably not going to be until 2027, >> I would say. >> I don't I wouldn't say I wouldn't write that in stone. >> Not even the parking lot. >> I think parking lot was one of the last items. >> Yeah. I think let's see what we what we settle on and if we can get it done this year. I think we got >> Yeah, it depends on how long it takes to pull the plans and specs together. if we can get it out to bid, but there is an possibility that we'll get it this year, but I'm not going to guarantee that. But we'll push for that >> bid period 60 days or 90 days. >> Uh it can be anything from 30 days upwards. >> Okay. Just think >> we generally do 30 days. >> Y fantastic. Anything else? All right, Marty, you have anything? >> I only have one item. Um, Elizabeth is out. Um, she did have her baby on the 30th of Janu uh dece 30th of December. His name is Theodore. Huh? >> She got it in 25. >> Yeah. In 30th. And he weighed 9 lb 11 oz. >> Oh, nice. Good boy. Big one. >> Yeah. >> Awesome. >> A big guy. So yeah, she's going to be out for a while. So um I'll be running all of this together. >> We have faith in you. >> That's the only update I have. >> You're awesome. >> Thank you. >> Congratulations, >> Teddy Bear. That be knowing nickname. Is it Theo? Teddy. >> Is she gone? Did she say? >> No, she hasn't said. I mean, I haven't spoken to her. It's just texting. So >> yeah. >> Very cool. >> That's exciting. >> Glad she's Everyone's healthy and safe. >> Yeah. Fantastic. All right, on to regular meeting items. The council adopted capital improvement plan. Big spreadsheet. Uh I don't know if there's too much that we want to talk about here at this stage. I wanted to get this in front of you. You did say that you wanted to see it. Um, I waited till it was approved by the council so we had the actual document and there's a couple of I think we put the whole CIP in there and then the there's a one that's marked up which is basically my cheats sheet which is a summary for parks and that kind of thing. >> Um, so if you have questions now I can try and answer them. Um if you have comments that be we can take those as well. >> Just so you guys are aware also we're going to we're having a work session on the on this specifically to really look at 2028 because if you get back into that 2028 year it ugly. >> Okay. >> Do you know when that work session is going to be? >> I thought that was later this month also. I think it's at I think it's before that second meeting. I think >> Yeah, that's what I thought. I think it's later this month. >> Is there any larger projects that's not outlined in here as we go through it that were >> The only one that would come in play and and it's still a little bit down the road is what happens with Maple Maple Grove Water deal. >> Our contract with them expires in 30 2036. Sure. >> So depending on what happens with that, either we renew the contract at a new number and that new number could get very ugly or we look at trying to do a system of our of our own which also is not real pleasant but I mean it's better than going well I shouldn't say that it's probably possibly better than going with Maple Grove. They're contemplating and I don't know if they've changed their talk uh that that they would add add soft water to their system and that would increase water cost to everybody >> drastically. If that happened then we'd be better off going with our own system. >> Um >> and that would be for the grander picture when Dayton's fully built out. It would support that. It wouldn't just be a smaller one. >> Well, it wouldn't be in the It would be for the south end. Yeah, >> it would be just for the south end. Um, >> and I think there's some costs for them to add wells and stuff to right build to to supply us to uh our full capacity at build out in that area. So, they would be drilling the wells. We would be paying them to drill those wells and it would be on their system. >> Water is a big ticket here. >> It's a big ticket. It's 30 to 50 million bucks >> just for the south end. seems kind of narrowsighted, but it's just my opinion. We want to support it all. >> Okay. >> Oh, that is a big ticket. All right, Marty, walk us through. >> All right. Um, so on my cheat sheet, which is where I'm going to work from. Um, we'll start at the top at FM 404. There's some garbage cans that we've been uh putting in new garbage cans similar to the ones out the front here. We've got a program that's been going on for a couple of years here and we're just going to keep doing that until we got uh the good garbage cans in all of the the parks and they all match. Um so we got that uh 15,000 a year out to 2029. Um >> with the garbage cans, what about pest pet waste stations? >> Uh we do those through a se a different company. Um they uh we're doing those along with the bags and stuff. So, we would do that. It's a not as an expensive uh thing and we can do those as we go on. This we are replacing existing where we've got all the blue barrels that are just stuck out there. We want to put something in that's permanent in place and that is user friendly for my operators to go in and and take the bags out and not get, you know, full of water and wasps and all that good stuff. Um, so we got the the ones that are out here fulfill that need very well and makes it easier for my guys to do their job. >> Sure. >> Um, we do have um Do you want me to go all the way through this or do you just want to look at the next couple of years or what are you thinking? >> Well, let's go walk us through your cheat sheet here. Obviously, we have time this evening. So, >> okay. So, the park signage, we've been looking at this. We need to look at the branding. Um, we're going to there's been some discussion about the way the branding looks and if we want to change that. And I think that's something that we're going to be discussing in January with the council to see what they want to do if they want to change. The feeling is that I think that the swoosh looks a little bit like toothpaste. Um, >> so says it how it is >> and that was been there for you since we brought this branding out. It was one of the things that was mentioned and still we chose it anyway. So we need to figure out what we want to do with that. >> Um I'm going to be pulling a document together to presenter council to see what where we want to go because obviously if we change the branding then the signage has to represent the branding. Right. >> So and we've already invested quite a bit in some of the branding stuff. >> Anyway, so we have got some money in there for um uh park signage. Um that's just ear marking money. Once we get the new brand in I will get some hard cost for those you know particular signage. We do have a full uh signage inventory um laid out of all the different size signs what their uses are from wfairing sides to the bigger signs like we have at the city entrances and stuff like that. >> Sure. >> So um that would we would get pricing on the new branding against all those sign sizes and then we'll see where we go for you know what goes where. Um, so question on that. You just brought up the like the city entrance signs and stuff. Are you talking just like the city of Dayton with the population signs or are you talking the ones on the side of the road that say, you know, like the one by Quick Trip is a lot nicer than the one coming in from Maple Grove? >> Yeah, it's more like the one coming in off the interchange. That's the sty that's the style of the branding that we we are currently using. And all these will be scaled down versions of that. um some with um like landscaping around the bottom, some lit, some singlesided, some double-sided. We've got all kinds of different signage. And if you guys are interested, I can email you the uh signage uh uh information if you're interested. >> Why not? >> Okay. Give Marty something to do. >> Yeah. >> Get the most out of 365 license. manual. >> So, how long have we had this brand? >> That brand 2019. >> That's not that old. >> Almost 10 years old. >> Okay. >> What is for most cities to rebrand? Is it >> 15 20? >> We rebrand three times since I've been here. >> Yeah. >> We had the original one with the the the silo and then there was the one with the tree by the river and then there was this one. Um, realistically, I think a branding, personally, and >> in my experience, a branding should last 20, 25 years. >> Oh, yeah. That's what I was thinking. It seems like >> because it's a big investment what you get on your water tower and the big sign down by it's hundreds of thousands to regeuge cost. It can be Yeah. >> Yeah. >> So >> we're trying to pay for Elsie Stevens. It would be nice to >> Well, I mean, you know, we'll discuss that with the council and stuff and >> it's I think it's something that we need to settle on and move forward and with branding and stuff. It's always a personal choice. Um, and so >> without question, some of the city, you know, coming into the city, >> Mhm. >> those need to be changed, too, probably. >> It's just that how how much money are you going to spend? >> Yep. >> I like I like the old brown signs. >> What? >> Those things are classic. They are. >> The two brown signs are fantastic. >> I I've been wondering since we moved here if those would ever get changed, but it is. >> I think it's kind of awesome. >> They are awesome, but they've are way worn. A couple of them I've seen. Yeah. And >> what we would do, we would salvage those and keep them somewhere in a historic society place or something like that. Maybe somewhere at Stevens, we could re, you know, purpose them there or something like that. But >> basically, what you're telling us is our sweatshirts are limited edition right now. >> They could be potential potential to be a throwback. Yeah. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> All right. Moving on. >> Maybe not. Uh and then we have a few items here for um uh a tree nursery that we've been looking at for public works for a few years now. Um it's starting to become more of a need. Um our trees uh in the parks uh we need to replace them frequently and with uh emerald ashbora coming through town we got a lot of trees that we're going to be replacing with that. I've been researching a bunch of grants with Henipin County and the University of Minnesota and the DNR. There are grant programs out there that will help fund the majority of the cost for these. It will start with a tree survey which I'm hoping to get done this year um which is grant funded. That won't be every tree in the city. It will be on public land. That's what we'll look at for that. Um I don't know if it will encroach into the Three Rivers Park District yet. Um I would have to coordinate that and see where that >> right >> that goes. On that >> so there's that. Um then uh 2028 uh the the tree nursery is you know uh we got 60,000 in 2027 next year that be grant funded to set up the nursery. We will be put in a well. We've identified a site down by public works uh for that uh tree nursery to go in. Um we had uh Henipin County um forester out to take a look at the site and he thought it was a great site for it. Um we're probably going to have two things going on there. We'll have uh some gravel beds for bringing in new uh bare root stock. Um what we don't use that year we will put into uh our actual nursery and grow it out from there. So it would be just a an evolving thing. um we would like to maybe be planting 2in trees um wherever we can. Um and it's going to take us a while to work out what inventory we need to have on hand and stuff. So there may be a little while where we're still buying trees, >> but the production costs on a tree from our own nursery would be about 75 bucks, whereas we're buying trees at 400 bucks each at the moment. So it made sense to do this and we can get the tree stock um funded from grant money as well. Um, so, uh, okay. >> And that's pretty much >> Have you heard about the U of M research where they found a way to like a fungus that kills emerald ashbors? Is that >> I've heard a little bit about this >> treatment at all like something that would be viable for >> I don't know. I don't know enough about it. And it depends on when you catch the the tree. If it's the tree's too far gone, the fungus isn't going to catch up with it. So, it might be an early stage just like the tree injections that they have at the moment. You have to catch it really early, >> but I haven't >> done enough digging into I'm aware of it, but I don't know the >> I just read the brief, but yeah, it sounds cool. So, I didn't know if there was >> um >> the only other thing other than tree up for nursery and stuff in here is Dominic Diamonds u um improvements. This is the uh down by the old public workshop there. We're trying to we talked about this I believe CDA are going to help us with some funding for that um to renovate that to make it a use a usable field. >> Two ball fields or just one >> one ball field because that's for the age range that would we can only accommodate the one for the the size of the field require >> the size of the property is fairly limited for the field that can fit but I think it was was it two youth soccer fields and then one age 12 uh ball field. >> Okay, cool. Love it. Do you envision that actually starting in 2026? >> Yeah. Well, we're going to try and get a design, you know, some design work done on it. Um, and we'll see what we can get done for 2026. It might be some limited stuff down there. Um, but it's it's stretching across, you know, to 2029. So, it's going to be a phase thing. There might be some some stuff that we can get done this year. >> And you have a building and the admin side. Yep. I get it. Okay. >> Yeah. So it's um the final completion out there is what you know 28 29 is when that cold storage building will go away and we can extend the field down a little bit and extend the fence line out that way. So it will be phased approach. >> Thanks. >> Um that's all from the fund 404. Fund 405 um is pretty much similar stuff that's been on here for uh a significant amount of time. There's a purchase land for community park. That's at $150,000. We've been doing that for a number of years. Um phase two of the Sundance, which is basically the ball field and some big open space on that uh the area um on Sundance Greens and uh DCM farms. Um once we get that land turned over to us, we will put that in. There'll be a bit of irrigation and stuff in there to expand what we've already put in there. Um but that is scheduled for this year. Depends on when we get that land deeded over to us. Um and then uh we had the 1.75 million in there for uh LC Stevens. Um what it's marked down here is band shell and additional parking. It's probably going to be a little bit more than that. I'm looking at some of initial stuff. Um, then we got we got some numbers in here that I'm not sure are going to work there, but Steven's phase four is at 27 for 8 million. >> And phase five is, you know, we got the other phase five, phase six there at 1.75 and 1 million in 2029. And then there's some numbers in here for construction of phase one and phase two of community park, but they're just placeholders at this stage. We don't even know where where we're going to find the land, but you you know we want to be prepared for something if it does fall in our lap and we want to be able to react to it. So, we want to put some money in the budget if it's at all possible. >> Uh >> before we move on, Scott, if you don't mind me asking, how does the council feel about these placeholders for a large community park like that? Are we in favor of it or the dream starting to die? Yeah, I think when once a guy finds the the land, I mean, there are a couple parcels out there that ideally there's one that I think could work, but with the possible interchan getting turned into a major road, then it maybe doesn't work cuz it's kind of split up. >> Um, the $8 million building at Stevens Park is kind of a questionable deal. >> To me, that's a little steep now. You could you could build a building. A brick building is going to be more money than uh way more money than a uh the wood building. >> Like my building down there. Yeah, I'm sure you could build that building anywhere for 1.5 2 million bucks would certainly build it. >> Is there any sort >> is that adequate? I don't know if that's adequate. I don't I don't know. >> For me it would be, but >> yeah. Is there any sort of estimate on what ROI might look like for the use of the building and rentals and no numbers have been tossed around? >> Okay. >> I think >> I don't I don't know what kind of value we even get out of the community center we have now. >> I have no idea what >> Yeah. I mean, >> I've never talked about >> the community center that we use is is rented out quite a lot and stuff like that. So, it does um bring in some revenue. Um, I think it probably breaks even at this stage. Um, but we're not charging a premium price for that that place. So, >> but then again, as Dayton I mean continues to grow, we're going to continue to have more housing, more people, more everything. I mean, we do have to build up for the fact that we're not going to be the small town we are at this current state. So, you know, looking at the big numbers is important, I think, right now. And you know, like you said, yeah, it might be okay for you, but as we continue to grow, will it be okay for the next growth and the next growth and the next growth? And making sure that we're building for what is going to happen in >> 2035 is important to look at. So >> I think there in in what we're looking at for now, uh we're talking about running water bathroom. What what can we build? You know what does what does three 400,000 build for a bathroom? I have no idea. >> Number one, we don't have a we don't have uh running. >> Yeah, I think the majority of the cost there is actually getting the water and the sewer to the site. >> That's pretty expensive. >> Do you do that now or do you put in a tank? >> There's probably enough water there for a a sink, but not for a full-fledged building facility. >> Yeah. So I those things I think will come out in that. >> Yeah, I think some of that information will be in the end of January meeting. MSA will bring bring some of those ideas in um what what they think about water and you know the bathroom situation and some styles for that and stuff like that. >> Okay, cool. >> Uh >> so is that where do we move to now? Oh um fund 406. This is uh just um fund that was set up a couple of years ago to you know start replacing um existing uh playgrounds and stuff as they become need to be replaced which a playground has generally got a 25 year uh life life cycle. Um just generally it becomes a safety issues generally with those type of things. Um, so we outlined, you know, based on when parks and playgrounds went in, where their replacement date is and put in again a placeholder number just so we have something in there and we're aware that that is coming up. >> And that might change if we go down there and do an inspection on them and say that, you know, they're in good shape. Maybe we can push it out four, five years, whatever. But I think it's good to have something in the CIP knowing that there there is going to be that cost somewhere. Um so that's what 406 is. Those are the playgrounds that we've identified. And then there's a trail development um fund 408. Um we have the water trails information on here for 2026. Um that's the one at a historic village. Um we still need to do the one at LC Stevens that's going to be happening this year. For some reason that's not on my cheat sheet here. It might be on the CIP sheet. >> Okay. Um, but the one at the historic village is the DNR landing that they're paying for totally their sales. Um, so it's we're working with them that's probably not going to look talking with them today. They're probably not looking at building till 2027 now. That's probably going to slide out a year the way it's looking. Um, and then uh we're looking at doing something with Three Rivers Park District at Gooden Park. they've got um a significant grant um of 550,000 uh $550,000 or something in that region and we'll have some matching funds and I think that will be generally funds left over from our national park service grant and from the federal funding that we got for the water trails. So we push that into help uh get something there at good in park. There's also another um uh opportunity from the National Park Service to get alternative funding. Um so we're going to apply for that which might help us get um a bridge across the cre uh the ravine uh down there. Um that will link Goodin Park into the the three rivers park district property there. Um so we're going to explore that. Um and then further out we're looking at uh the trails we've discussed in the past um and where they're fitting into the the um schedule. Now the territorial road uh from Territorial Trail to Rush Creek Parkway that's scheduled for 2028 uh trail along Fernbrook Lane um Rush Creek Parkway 2028. Um, and some of these are city de uh city uh funded. The one along Fernbrook Lane and Rush Creek Parkway uh is going to be a city funded project. Uh trail construction on Pine View um along Dayton River Road. Uh that's going to be City and Three Rivers Park District. Um Barkshire Lane to 140th Avenue. Um again is uh that's in 2029. That's 350,000. Um that might be uh part of uh the uh realignment of Dayton River Road. Uh the Henipin County project. We're going to try and work that. They're talking about putting a roundabout in there which will influence where we run that trail along um just to get a good safe access point. >> Is that the only one that's county dependent? >> Uh no, the one from 142nd all the way down to Stevens. >> Mhm. >> That's going to be county and uh Henipin County and Three Rivers Park District are going to be doing that one. And that again will be all the ones in 2029 are county three rivers park district apart from the one section from boke chain to 140. >> So if the county shifts their schedule that shifts our schedule. >> Yeah. But they're pretty firm about that 2028 2029 window for doing their project that it's in their CIP and generally once it's in the CIP that's where it sits and that's when it gets done. Okay. Cool. So that's all the stuff I have on my cheat sheet there. Um, basically related to park commission information. >> I will add the comment I made about 2028. You know what what we're going to look at for that. A lot of the park stuff it may not really adhere to because park money is not tied to the levy per se. Mhm. >> Now, what will change that number in this year it's it's drastically dropped is is our growth. There's been a huge decline in in building. I mean, I don't even I don't think we're going to get to 200 this year for 2025. >> Mhm. >> I don't think we did, did we? >> No. >> Yeah. So, that really is going to affect how much money goes into that park fund, too. Mhm. >> So, >> okay. On this next sheet, Marty, do you want to walk us through some of these park department equipment purchases? >> Is that the equipment sheet you're looking at? >> Yes. Capital equipment 401 >> 401. Yeah. Okay. Where we at? >> Just the park related stuff. >> All righty. What do we got here? It's been so long since >> visual audio visual equipment 10 grand >> that um is an upgrade for the activity center that may or may not happen. >> Nice. >> But might not happen. >> It may not happen because we looked at the stuff that we've got down there and the usage of the equipment down there. Um I don't think um we did a few upgrades on it last year and I think it will suffice as the way it operates at the moment so I'm not expecting that to actually happen. >> Did you do like hardware upgrades or more system upgrades? >> It was some system upgrades and some hardware upgrades. >> Yeah, if it keeps working. So I think that you know that will probably slide out a little bit and the renters that uh using it don't use uh the the the projector and the screen and that's so much it's more for HOAs or when we have presentations down there. Um and we're not getting those kind of rentals at the moment. People want to play music from their iPhone so we set it up that way. Um or they want to just run a slideshow from their laptop or something like that. So we we invested in some of that software and >> nice >> to to make that happen. >> Good. >> Um so uh 2025. Oh, what we got? >> The broom truck. >> That's all already done. >> Okay. >> So moving on to 26. Uh, we got a replacement mower and a a replacement of a utility trailer. And I think the utility trailer that's we're going to be replacing is older than, you know, it's been here since I've been here. So, it's old. >> Nice. >> Not as old as me, but it's old. >> Doesn't owe us anything then. >> Second. >> Doesn't owe us anything. >> No, it doesn't. No, >> we got a life out of that guy. So, can I just ask why some is in red and some is in black? Is it is there >> they were either been moved. There's a second sheet >> here. >> I was just >> It should have all the information on there. What? Generally, it's a new item or it's been moved along the schedule. So, it might have been further. It might have been in 2029. We need it now because the old MO is getting beat up so bad that we have to change it. So that's why it's in red. It's so the council know that it's either a new item or it's something that's moved around. >> Okay. Thanks. I was just curious if I needed to. >> No, >> good question. Um Okay. And then uh 20 27 we have a new utility tractor with a Vplow and blower. Um we already have one of those um that we're using on a lot of the trails. um with the more trails that we get in um we're going to need a second one to help us with that. That goes all across town all the way down to the um interchange and desert trails down there as well. So that thing covers a lot of ground. Um and the more trails we're putting in the more usage we're going to get out of that thing >> for sure. >> And it's not just used for um you know snow blowing and that. It's used through the summer for mowing. We do have a mower for the back of that. Um, and also fertilizing and all that good stuff. So, it's got multiple purposes. >> Um, one of the ones I see is the replace 1999 mower. We used to have a mower from 1999. >> We sure do. >> Wow. >> It's a good mower. It's probably the best running one you have in the >> Yeah, it's not People don't like to ride it anymore. >> Yeah. It's probably not the most. It's uh it's very it's a zero turn as well and it's not very tight and so it's >> basically at the moment it's kind of a backup machine but you know we need to have something that's reliable even as a backup machine. >> That's awesome. >> And when I saw this on the Excel I'm like is that a typo? 1999 sounds like a really old piece of machinery. So >> yeah. Yeah. >> Classic. And yeah, it's just things that we're playing catchup where we've been putting off buying stuff over the years. So, we're trying to across the fleet we've been doing that um with all the public works vehicles and pickups and stuff. Um we do actually have I think a 19 90 um Chevy utility truck still in service. So, that's going to be replaced here. Um, and so where were we? And then there's basically it's a lot of uh replacement equipment. Um, replacement mower. The 2012 6-in mower will be getting replaced there for 25 grand in 27. Uh, field marking equipment. Um, we have one of the paint strip. We got currently have two paint stripers. Um, one in the old village for marking down there and one up here for this uh complex down here for the soccer fields and the ball fields up here. Um, the one in the old village is again been here since I've been here and so it's uh needs to be replaced. We will take the one from up here, move that down to the old village and then bring a new one up here. >> Okay. Um, and then uh >> you wouldn't have to go much into 2028 in my eyes unless you guys want to hear more about 28 and the use. >> I'm more interested in 26 27 same. >> Okay. And I think we got a a one time uh pickup with a plow package which is a replacement vehicle. And oh, we're looking at getting a garbage box um for when we pick up the garbage. Um rather than having to pick it up, put it into uh another container, put that one back, then bring it here, and then dump it into the the big dump here, uh the big rolloff box here. We can just dump it into the back of a pickup and that compact it. And then we can just unload that straight into the the dumpster. >> Sure. >> So, it's just cleaner for my guys and more efficient. >> Makes sense. Uh the next sheet you want to go through our current cash balance. >> Uh it's not really my area of forte there, but this is this is you're moving into Zack Zach area or Scott probably help on this one. >> Well, it's just important for the team to know where our monies are all at. >> Yeah. Are you referencing the page 15, the 404? How are you referencing? >> No, there was one in our handout labeled cash balance. >> Had the blue highlights in it. I don't know if that's included in your printouts. >> What was this? >> I don't see that. >> I don't see either. I think currently that park fund has one about 1.8 in it. >> Yeah, it's got that 1.8 currently. Yeah. >> In the print out. Yeah. 404 development you had 167,000. The dedication in 405 you had 2,68,000. CIP was blank. And then the trail fund had 1.6 633. But again, it wasn't in your big page handout. >> Let's check it to find out. What page is that on David? >> Well, that's not >> it was on page eight of the packet that was emailed to us. Uh 78, I guess. It's mark nine. And I don't think anybody got printed. I did just didn't get printed. Tax rate was nine. Cash fund balance is labeled cash. Uh, we printed out the bigger version so it was easier to read and I guess we probably missed that. >> Yeah. >> Thanks. >> You can share with Brad. >> Yeah. >> So, what was your question, David? >> I just wanted to walk through the numbers. Unfortunately, everybody doesn't have it here in front of them, but just to verify that our dedication had the 2,68,000. >> Is that correct? And that's where the majority of a lease is going to come from the 1.5 or 1.7. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Other than the trails that then are 1.6 million. >> The trails is a totally totally separate. >> Yep. I get that. Okay. And then 167 for development. What is our plan with our development fund? That's 404. at the big picture. I just wanted everybody to understand what our funds were going into it. >> 67. >> Did we have any plans for things coming out of the 404? It looks like it's just 167 323. >> Yep. >> Is that where the trash and recycling stuff is? >> 404 is a trash recycling park signage. >> The construction of the trees >> show uh and tree nursery stuff. >> Fantastic. >> From fund 404, >> right? Only 25 this year. So then um 2026 is 25,000 that we're spending 27 is 85 28 is 65,000 from that fund 404 got it. >> So Marty does it essentially as those dollars are allocated do we just push them on to the next year like we're >> Yeah. Okay. >> Does everyone get that? So, like >> in the fund for in the 404 for 2026, we've got about 167,000, but the actual plan for this year is probably going to be 15 to 40,000. So, we'll spend some of it, but the rest will carry over and go to 27 cuz in 27 we've got 100,000 and potential spend >> 28 105,000. So, it just stays in that spot. >> It stays in that fund. Any money that comes in through development will just stay there and get pushed into the pushed over. >> And the development funding comes from our developers. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Yep. >> Got it. >> And that's uh that's not just uh for residential. It's for commercial as well. They they have to pay park fees and stuff in in there as well. >> Nice. I like it. I always ad hoc, but does anybody have questions on our budget where we're at for monies as we go into 26 looking at projects in 27? >> Fantastic. >> Thank you. >> So, that's off the spot for now. We'll come up with something for sure. Thank you for going over that. >> Thank you. No problem. >> All right. Item C, the park studies, Mr. John. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, so this idea is kind of came up with a few different challenges. So one of the challenges that that the park commission is aware of that we face with uh finding u park facilities and I think more sports facilities is uh there's a a fast increase in land cost that makes it difficult to um buy or or build anything. So essentially we are saving money for purchasing land and building out parks uh but we're not saving enough fast enough or I should say that the land values are increasing faster than what we can save. Um, we've had uh conversations with some other cities as far as different ideas go. Um, I know Champlain is in the process of of doing a a park facilities study, a much larger park facilities study than than what we're looking at. Um, and it kind of brought to the question of when we're we're trying to figure out, okay, how much land do we need and what facilities do we need? kind of starts with um what what facilities do we have now that are currently being used? Um as it relates to sports facilities um we have three different kind of umbrella uh sports youth sports facilities associations that are a I should say that are available for Dayton residents. So both the Champl Dayton athletic associations um and then also in the Maple Grove and Rogers area has uh multiple youth athletic association specific to the sport. So generally you know like in the case of CDAA it is open for um any resident within Champlain or Dayton or the Champlain Park attendance area which also includes portions of Brooklyn Park. um assuming that if you're in the Maple Grove area, the rules are probably the same. Same thing same thing with Rogers. And so you start coming into this very big umbrella. Um Marty, I don't know if we have a picture on >> which one. >> Um >> is that one you sent me? >> That one. >> Uh nope. >> That one. >> Yes. So well, if you go back to the first one, I guess. So this is a map of the three park district or I should say the three school districts um on the Hempen County side uh for noa hempio and Rogers I should say Rogers Elk River which includes Rogers. Then Marty, if you go to the next map. Um, these little red blips are kind of my attempt to identify where there are sports facilities within the three high school attendance areas of Champlne Park, Maple Grove, and Rogers. Um, you know, so there's kind of a hole in Dayton and north of Maple Grove. Um the question that I have that we don't nobody has an answer to is uh wanting to do a facility of what wanting to do an inventory of what facilities are the different associations using. Um, so for instance, you know, we can look at certain national metrics and say, okay, for a city the size of Dayton, theoretically we should have so many ball fields and so many soccer fields and all that, >> but when you look at what's actually being used, it might be that maybe Maple Grove has more soccer fields than what they actually need, meaning Dayton doesn't need to build as many and and the same might be reverse for baseball or softball fields. Uh so the idea here is in considering how much uh you know the land values are increasing we don't want to build facilities that are not going to get used. We want to build facilities that are going to be used should I'm going to say heavily but essentially efficiently. Uh so that begins by doing a uh inventory study um in conversations with some of the the uh park and recck directors and the other surrounding cities. No one's done this before. Um so this is new. Um, I want to be clear, this is going outside of just the Dayton boundary. This is, you know, uh, the surrounding cities that are open that have facilities that may be used by Dayton residents even though it's outside the Dayton city limits. >> Will they be helping pay for this? >> Um, no. Now, granted, we we've not asked either. Um the uh the pro it it's a fairly laborintensive process of essentially just calling up or emailing the different athletic associations and getting their schedule and then you start creating a map of what is being used and when and where are they short on fields. Um so that that kind of paints a picture of kind of where we're at in the within the um RFP that or the draft RFP. We're looking for data for the last 3 years, preferably the last 10 years, but my guess is um that's probably going to be much harder to to find of the older data. Um so that's kind of the first step is to figure out do an inventory, figure out what we have to work with and the second part is what do we need for the future and what are certain thresholds where we should be building certain facilities at at what point. So um you know for instance if if we hit you know right now we're around 11,000 people. So you know theoretically we should have I think eight ball fields and we don't have eight. Um you know once we hit 15 how many do we need? Once we hit 20,000 what do we need? Um but then looking back at the inventory of okay well here's sort of the checks and balances of um you know maybe the metrics is we need 10 of something but we can make do with eight or we actually need 14. How do you justify those? >> Can I ask where you've got your resources on that? >> Um, >> those numbers specifically for ball fields versus heads. >> Uh, that's from the uh National Recreation Park Association. >> So, I did look in on my own, you know, um, and they were saying one ball field for 4,64 people, >> which is a little bit different than the eight that we currently have, soon to be nine. Mhm. >> So I would question the numbers and the math there. >> Sure. And and that's just one example. So within the the NRPA there there's kind of a low and high and a median. I can't remember what I stuck out with that, but >> um that's just one example. So >> Sure. Okay. So, you're looking for us to then approve moving forward with an RFP for a study not only in Dayton, but also Maple Grove, Champlain, and Rogers, the fields we use. >> It you would cover essentially the athletic association that athletic associations that serve Dayton residents. I guess my concern there would be spending Dayton funding on areas outside of the city of Dayton, but that's not for me to clarify. That's legal and the council to approve at some point, I'm sure, as well. Okay. Anybody have any questions or thoughts you'd like to share? Um, I personally like the idea of looking outside of just our city boundaries because why build, you know, an ice rink if Rogers has one 10 ft away from us. >> Um, so finding out where people are needing the things if we don't need, you know, to build another baseball field, but we need 20 more soccer fields and that might bring in more pop more people to visit our community. I think that's a good thing. Um, I personally agree that, you know, looking forward and I think what you're doing here is a great piece to find that puzzle. I agree. Looking outside of the city makes sense. I don't necessarily see it as like an issue that it's other communities, especially since it's you're considering it to be like the athletic associations that serve Dayton. So, That that to me makes sense. >> I guess my concern is just cost. Do you have any clue what a study like this I mean what kind of cost are we talking about? I just would hate to spend the money on a huge study that then we don't ever have the means to do anything with it because then we've just wasted that money. >> True. Um, I I don't know what the cost is. I guess I'm going to say, is there a certain cost that the park commission is comfortable with? >> I mean, my general thought is it's going to be somewhere between 10 and 30,000. You probably closer to 30. >> And where would the funding come from? >> It would come out of park. >> The general fund, the general part 404, I think would happen. >> Yeah. >> I haven't thought about that yet. >> Sure. >> I didn't I didn't know what the going to be. >> It would be trail. No, it won't be. It won't be part of dedication either. It have to be the 404 then. Yeah. >> And otherwise that money is being saved up for things was kind of what we were discussing before, right? >> Yeah. Kind of just kick the can. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. But then >> I guess my with you know this has been what two to three years now of the conversation of where are we going to go with fields and >> my opinion is that you know we've thrown out is it a 10 million is it a 20 is it a 50 right what is it actually and my opinion would be that if the goal of this is to get us that information you or can get us you know what do we need what are the actual cost, etc. It'd be worth it just from that standpoint of 10 or 10 to 30,000 could tell us, you know what, we're not going for the the big deal. Like, it's just not going to happen here. >> I I think I'd rather have that than, you know, try to go push spend years and years trying to push for the $50 million field and we don't actually have what it takes to to do the 50. So I guess my opinion is like yes it is 10 to 30,000 that we don't necessarily have but it's saving us in the could potentially save us a lot in the long term and it gives us more focus of the long term of what we should do otherwise I feel like we'll just keep having the same conversation with CDA like what do you have what do you have where do you want no one has you know and again like I I told Rick I'm like I'd love to find out like a way to make this all work but we need more information and in my opinion after reading this and like I think that this might get us where we want to go and even if it's spending money now to save money later that to me is worth it. Have we talked to other cities about like if they've done any assessments similar to this? >> They have. Okay. So, >> and I think that's why it's worth it in my opinion just because it's giving us a better understanding of not just us but the whole community and you know you look at like what Rogers just built, right? >> Mhm. >> Okay. Well, how much of our Daytonians will be using the Rogers Fieldhouse? Well, that'd be good information to to figure out because then we maybe there maybe something that we don't need. So, we spend the money now on the research side of it to not have to spend in the potential build in the future. Is there a number we want to tie to this for the study say don't exceed 25,000 20,000 15,000? I guess well first of all is everyone on board with it because that's what from John what you had asked is you know the role of the park commission is recommended approval of the RFP request. So where do the five of us stand with moving forward with this RFP? Like do we want to do this or do we think that it's not a good use of our funds? That's kind of where you're at, right? Like >> yes. I mean if you know kind of a simple yes or no. you know knowing you don't want to you know this is a waste of time just quit working on this >> um one question I do have is with the study are we going to link how many of our Daytonians are going to these other places then so we will have a better number of you know Rogers hockey has 25 kids in it let's say >> um I would like so that that's a question that I want to answer the the challenge with that is I don't know if the organizations keep track of that they'll have addresses. Uh, but as you're aware, not everyone in Dayton has a Dayton address. >> Um, so it I'm thinking it pro the it will probably be pretty skewed. >> Regardless, I think it is a good thing that we're looking at. I would rather have us spend $30,000, $50,000, even if it were to be that expensive. Don't make it that expensive, obviously. Um, but I would rather have us spend that now. and find out that we don't need to build another baseball field for a 5-year-old, but we need to build a soccer field for something else. I'd rather have us have a good picture of where that road map is going to be, so that way we can look more in the future and figure out where we need to be, not just as a community, but for the kids that we have in our community as well. And to bring people in >> as the demographics will change. >> Yes. John, with this, are you thinking of kind of then forming a 2030 needs, 2040 needs, 2050 needs? Is that kind of where your mindset is? >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> I mean, I think that this is what we've been looking for. When we've had our conversation with Rick, I just wanted to have more information for him, you know? It's like, we say we're at 11,000 right now. We think by 2050, we're going to get to what was the number? Was it 40 to 60 somewhere in there? We we should have a built out population somewhere between 45 and 55,000. Um I have no idea how many years it's going to take to get there. It might be 100 years, >> right? And that is the question, right? Is like when do we achieve those because if we want to make this investment at least if we do this front work, my opinion is I'm for this. And the reason why is we do this and we keep this around and pass it on to future commissions. This is the 2030, 2040, 2050, 2060 plan. >> And it's also based on population X, population Y, population Z. >> It just gives us a a better foundation for where we go forward so that we don't continually have the same conversations over and over again. You know what I mean? Cuz it's like, hey, we did the groundwork on this and here's what we've done. This is everything we've, you know, John and his team did all the research here. So that'd be my opinion. I guess, you know, we could talk in circles here, but like my opinion would be I'm for this. I don't know where everyone else feels, but >> we could take a vote. >> I do have one other question. Um, obviously things are going to be changing throughout the years. What would be the expectation for you to get this updated in the future? Like how often are you going to be wanting to revisit it? Because once again, that will add another cost in the future. Um, I mean, you know, realistically maybe it's every five years, but I mean that's just throwing a number out. >> Okay, cool. >> And Marty, you have grant money for that tree nursery stuff lying down for it. So, even though it's in the 404 fund, it's really not being taken off our overhead. >> Okay. Um, let's take a vote. All in favor? >> Do we? going down the line or no, we're just all of us. >> No, just all of us. It's fine. It's kind of informal vote. All in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> All right. >> Cool. >> Everybody. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Yep. Thank you. >> And are uh with that, are we setting a budget of 20K, 30K? Are we we want to check in on or what do you how do you guys want to handle it? Not yet. >> So, we usually do like an RFP for these. >> It is. So, the way it's written right now is we're we're pushing it out to consultants and it's up, you know, they're going to provide a response and a budget based on what they what we're asking for. Um, you know, from some conversations with consultants, it'd be helpful for them if we had a budget. So, if we said 30,000 is our budget, but we're actually asking for $50,000 worth of work. Um, then the question becomes, what do we cut back on? And I guess what I'm probably going to be looking at is we're not cutting back on anything. We're bringing in volunteers to do some of the work. So the like work of contacting associations. >> Sure. >> I would like to set it not to exceed amount. >> Not to exceed 30,000. >> I was going to say 25 to be honest with you, but >> if you give them an amount, they're going to spend the amount. >> Mhm. >> Yep. >> But I'd rather have >> for 50,000 worth of work. But I would rather have a accurate good data point than you know we could find some college kid to do it for free. Doesn't mean that it's going to be as good of a study and I'd rather have the good data behind especially when we're looking at spending millions of dollars in the future and the 30,000 could be >> I'd be looking at the park commission for volunteers. >> Yeah. Okay. Marty, John, Scott, what would you guys say roughly? Do you think 20 to 30 sounds reasonable? I'm the wrong guy to ask about studies. I am I would rather make a decision myself and do it. That's all my life. That's how I've done it. >> But then again, we would have 50,000 baseball fields then. So, >> well, do we really need to,000 around building them? >> I'll go with between 20 and 30,000. >> I >> Yeah, I would. You could even >> I would throw it out there and just see what you get. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I I agree with that. >> I I agree with that approach because you can always trim it back down from what what they bring into you. I mean, you don't accept, you know, what they bring back to you. It's their their proposal and if you want to negotiate with them, then you can bring it down to a price point that you're coming for. >> I promise you, if you put a $25,000 number on it, you might get a $18,000 study for $25,000. >> Yeah. John, is it possible to >> put it out there? >> Go ahead. Go >> ahead. Go ahead. >> Is it possible to loop in with this um a study or additional information on the grants that are available for this? Because I know that was one of the questions that we've had when we've talked with Rick is like, "What does this look like?" Like, >> so if we were going to go after a grant, it would probably take a year to go through and it it's not worth the waiting that long to do it. This is a fairly simple study. >> Yep. I guess my question though is like is there a way to find out what grants are actually available because I feel like every time we've had this conversation it's nobody really knows like realistically if it is a $50 million part complex that we need and we do have the land available some point is that >> 20 million in a levy 20 million from CD where is it all coming from right where is it all coming from the the grants >> so that that could be part of I'm going to say kind of a a part two I I I I'd like to get that out of the study. I I don't think we will for 30,000 of >> kind of the answer of what is it going to cost to build certain types of facilities in 2026. So, you know, is a ball field a million dollars or is it $100,000? >> Yeah. >> And I think I think that as we go through this, there's going to be a lot of other opportunities that present theirelves. Yeah. as we start building this thing out as we have different businesses come to town and you know our population grows that opens up different grant opportunities for us as well. So I think it's difficult to do that all get all those numbers at this time but I think that's an ongoing part of the process is finding those grant funds and that's what we're we're doing that this all the time you know trying to find new funds that come through. Um um my only caveat on setting a amount that is not to exceed is we don't fall into the same trap as the >> I did surgery last month. >> Okay, we've had a slight technical hitch here, but we're back online now. Um so Luke, do you want to carry on with your comments? Yeah, I guess my whole aspect of it is I would like us to set an amount so that way we don't exceed. Um, and my recommendation would be 30,000 from what you're stating. Um, and that's where I would stand, I guess. Just so that way it's clear for whoever is wanting to make a bid. >> Do we have a motion for that? >> I move. >> That's your motion? >> Yeah. I move to make a uh limit of 30,000 for this project. >> I'll second. >> I think it's better just to stick it out there and have them come back to us. I get the budgets when we're actually wanting something more specific. But I agree with the whole fact when you get a bid, everybody should just come with what they feel and what it's worth. I am in favor of the 30,000 max. >> You got your three. >> All right, let's take a vote then on the 30,000 max. >> All in favor say I. >> I. >> All oppose. I >> I >> All right. Three have it for a max of 30,000. >> First time we didn't vote all the same. >> I know. >> We don't have that much money in the All right. >> Um, is there anything else you need from us? Okay. Uh any other business, Marty? >> Just uh the next park commission meeting. Um it was scheduled for Tuesday the 3rd, but that apparently is a uh a night for a precinct caucus on the February 3rd. I wasn't aware of that. So, we need to change that. Um what the works that you guys >> does can we do a Monday? >> We can do the Monday. The first. >> Oh, nice. Groundhog guy. We can't do that. >> The second. I can't do the second. Does the second or fourth work for anybody? The second is no. >> Fourth works for me. >> Fourth works for me. >> Fourth would work for me. >> Fourth Wednesday. All right. >> We all agree again. >> Nice. >> Yay. Things are back to normal. >> It's okay. Not >> I know. I'm joking. It is funny though how often we Yeah, >> we all agree. >> All right, with that I would call for a motion to adjourn the meeting. >> I moved the motion to adjourn. >> I'll second. >> All in favor? >> I >> opposed. All right, meeting.