Heat. [music] [music] Heat. [music] admission are not yet on the page like they were before, but I asked them to put it up here. So, we're all kind of grounded on what we're going to do and we'll see this again in a few minutes when we go through. Um, with that, we call roll. >> Yes. All right. Christie >> here. >> Hanley >> here. >> Lairman >> here. >> Schultz >> here. >> Samurski >> here. Ingraham >> here. And then we have a new port park board member. I'd like to introduce Eric Kowalsski. Hello. >> So I'm taking role so you have to acknowledge that you're here. Um he is a youth uh representative that was appointed by the council in November. And he uh is a senior at Mitankka High School. So he'll be joining us for about a year. And do you want to say a few quick words? >> Yeah. Well, I'm I'm pumped to be here. So it's nice to meet all [laughter] of you. Um and I know we had that uh wonderful food beforehand. So, I guess I I already spoke a little bit about this, but I've done some volunteering with parks, um some summer camps with with children. Um I also tutor and so I'm hoping to get more of a um an input on youth my age and then younger and then, you know, hopefully bringing that to the council and to the park board for you guys. So, >> looking forward to working. >> Thank you. >> Awesome. Um the next item on the agenda is the approval of of the agenda. Does anyone have any comments or changes? Otherwise, do I have a motion? >> And just a note, Chair Ingram, that we do have one addendum. >> Mhm. >> And so, just acknowledge that's part of the agenda. That was not originally in the uh original agenda. >> Uh I move that we accept the agenda with the agenda. >> Second. >> All right. Uh Christie, >> uh yes. >> Hanley, >> yes. >> Lman, >> yes. >> Schultz, >> yes. >> Samurski, >> yes. and Chair Ingraham. >> Yes. >> And just a note that this youth representative is not a voting member. So that's I'm not ignoring him. I'm just [laughter] >> following protocol. >> We have two sets of minutes for approval. We do them independ independently. Any comments or corrections for the October 22nd meeting? Otherwise, do I have a motion? >> I move that we accept the October 22nd, 2025 meeting minutes. I'll second. >> Uh Christie, >> yes. >> Hanley, >> yes. >> Larman, >> yes. >> Schultz, >> yes. >> Samurski, >> yes. >> And Chering Graham, >> yes. And then on the November 5th, uh 2025 mean minutes. Any uh comments or corrections? Otherwise, do I have a motion? >> I have a motion to approve the uh meeting minutes from November 5th meeting. >> I'll second. All right, Christie, >> yes. >> Hanley, >> yes. >> Lairman, >> yes. >> Schultz, >> yes. >> Samurski, >> yes. >> And Cherry Ingram, >> yes. >> Moving on to item five. Do we know if anyone is going to be calling in? I know. No one's here. So, we have no one no citizens wishing to discuss items not on the agenda. >> Nope. >> And I believe under number six, special matters, we have none. >> Amen. So tonight we can go straight to 7A, the park the post plan overview. >> Yes. And before I turn that over to Matt and Sarah, um just to kind of give some background, um as you recall at the last meeting, we talked about providing an overview of the parks open space and trail plan. Um so they're here to do that. Uh this is not uh this isformational only. Feel free to ask questions. There's nothing to vote on with this item. I'll first turn it over to Sarah Westy, our assistant recreation director, who hasn't been with us for a while. So, thanks for coming. Hi, >> everybody. Welcome. I think I introduced myself when the new members first started, then I went on medical leave and now I'm back. So, you'll typically get myself or Kelly from recreation at each of the meetings. So, one of us um will be here and I have a pretty thorough history with the post plan. So, I'll kick this off. Um and like Leslie said, I'm just going to do an overview. It's a big document, but since we have so many new faces on the board, um this is a good opportunity to review it. So, um what is the purpose of the plan? So, it's essentially it's a 15 to 20 year plan to guide the vision, goals, and implementation of our invest investments for our parks, open spaces, and trails. So, it was done back in 2001, and then we did it 20 years later. So, um, this document is here to guide you as you do large projects in the trail system or in the park system. And our goal really is to provide a comprehensive, balanced, and sustainable park system to serve the needs of the entire community. So, this gives you a little idea of the the project timeline. This was over a year project. It was about um 14 months. So, we went from February of 2021 all the way uh to April of 2022 before it was approved. And I'll touch again on all these touch points, but the park board did see this many times and so did the public. So, a little bit more on the public engagement and feedback. Um, it went on Minnotonka Matters. So, if you haven't been on Minnetonka Matters, please do visit it. It has citywide projects, not just park and recreation and trail projects. So, it's really the city's way of interacting with the public, getting feedback. There's different tools there. So, we used a survey tool, mapping tool, and then we put all the drafts on there for review and so we could take input that way. [clears throat] And on Minnotonka matters, we had over 2600 visits during that time period. Um, and then we had 689 people engaged. So, they interacted on with one of those tools during the process. Um, we also did in-person um engagement. We went to the farmers market. We went to Shady Oak Beach. We went to Park Adventures which is a youth program um the senior center and night to unite and those in-person um you can see some of the pictures some of the there was vision boards and people gave feedback on those vision boards and there were different ways to interact with the public so we wanted to hit a variety of age groups as you can see there uh different demographics and then the listening sessions um I should say that we worked with Damon and Farber on this project they came and did some listening s sessions or workshops at the alam lawn center and treehouse hope. So, one is a mosque and one is teen oriented. Um, and then you can see the park board saw this uh some form of the post plan and gave feedback seven times. So, it was very thoroughly vetted and we kind of brought it back in pieces because it was such a big project. So, you can see here, here's just another overview of when it came to the park board. And so, we instead of bringing the whole thing as a draft, we brought it section by section. Um, and then when it was, you know, good enough to go to the public, we would bring the draft to the public and bring it back to the park board, so on and so forth. And then it was finally approved by park board April 6 of 2022 and then on to the council for approval. And it was approved on April 25th, 2022. So, what's in the plan? Um, there's an executive summary, an introduction, trends, existing conditions of our current park system. Um it we established a vision including a mission statement and guiding principles, the system plans, our goals and initiatives for those guiding principles and then an implementation plan. So kind of talk through each of those sections. So again, what's the post plan? Um it's a highlevel planning document um for staff and park board to help guide you for the next 15 to 20 years. There's guiding principles, recommendations, priorities, and tools. Um, we want it to it's it's meant to align with future investments with community needs, and it also complements other city plans such as the NRMP, the 2040 comprehensive plan, the trail improvement plan. So staff, the and the consultants made sure that they complemented each other. So the consultants went through all of these other plans when they went into um plan for the post plan. So, it does help guide short and long-term decision-m and investments. So, what did the trends show us? Um, trends overview are kind of fun. What's happening in the in the field? Um, this was a couple years ago already, which is hard to believe. So, there's an an increasing demand for informal recreation. And remember, this is coming off of COVID. This is 2021, 2022. You'll see that kind of halfway down changes caused by the CO 19 pandemic. Lots of people were in the parks. Lots of people were using the trails. There was a lot of interest for expand the trail system. We want to be outside. We want to be in our parks. So, if you think of the timeline, as I was reviewing this again, I was like, "Oh, yeah. 2021, we're just coming off of COVID." So, people wanted to be out in the parks. And they were. Um the we should be resilient to climate change when we're planning for the future. We have changing demographics here in Minnetonka. Um there's a desire to be more connected to the land. Um, our planning should support economic or parks, open space, and trails support economic development. So, people want to live near parks. It's good for business. It's good for people moving to our city. Um, there's a focus on health and well-being. And there's an interest in specialized facilities and nontraditional sports. As we see, if you look in Lone Lake, we've got specialized pickleball courts and we've got mountain biking trails there. So, those are kind of trends. And then the next section talks about existing conditions. This is hard to see. On your left, it just lists like how many playgrounds and um how many water fountains and that kind of thing. What's in our current trail system or our current um park system. So in 20 years, when we look back at this, those lists will probably change quite a bit. The middle graphic shows that um 71% of Minnotonka residents live within a 10-minute walk or of a park, which is kind of a national statistics that cities follow. And you can see it's in smaller print that 55% is the national average. So, we're pretty well above that. And then the circles are showing a few of the areas where we could use more parks. They're kind of they're not as um there's some areas there that could use parks. Opus up in the northeast corner. So, or northwest corner and then on the right it just kind of shows system the system at a glance. Did you have a question? >> I did I did have a question. Um there's a circle with no white space in it um in the middle. So by by Junction Park, Excelsure Boulevard and 494. >> Yeah. And I was confused by that because it seemed like almost anywhere you were in there, you were 10 minutes away from something. >> That's a good question. I don't I don't remember exactly why that one was put there. If there was a specific reason or if they made a mistake on that one, the consultant >> or maybe there's just a very small spot of white. >> Yeah. Or maybe there's a walking challenge with the 494 in there. >> Oh, that can't remember exactly. >> Oh, that makes sense. And one one of these has a distinction of and maybe this is not accurate here, but one of these has a distinction between parks and parks and neighborhood parks. >> You know what I mean? Yeah. And I'm not sure >> that might be that. >> Yeah. I think the general national one is within a park and it doesn't say pocket park, mini park, community park. >> So it could be the one by the water tower on >> um >> tower park. >> Tower Park. Um the mini >> mini >> Oh, that one. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Well, but we also I mean it's broken down. You've got multiple of these charts. That's neighborhood. That's >> Yeah. >> So, it's not >> I I guess >> overlays. >> I guess we pause here too. I was c I was curious. Is this based on actual space or residences? Because I look at some of those spots and they're I view them as being also heavy wetland areas. >> Yeah, I do think it's geographic. It's more geographic. Okay. Because some of them >> One on the left has a lot of marsh. >> Yeah. The one on the left has got a lot of marsh and the one on the right, upper right, my recollection is it's got a fair amount of stuff, too. I don't know about the top, but >> Well, Dave, you should have brought this up three years ago. >> All right. So, and then on the right hand side, just again kind of a glance at what we currently have. Um, you know, we're pretty fortunate to have, you know, fif over 50 parks, over 100 miles of trails, um, 24 acres of parkland um, per a thousand residents, which far exceeds the national average of 14 acres. So, in general, we've got a lot of park space um, to work with. Um, then it talks a little bit about changing demographics. You know, we looked into that and looked at included it in the plan. These are just statistics that showing uh Minnetonka will grow. It will age and become more racially racially and ethnically diverse in the coming years. Our population will grow by about 8,000 in the next 20 years. So, we're seeing that in the Opus area. Lots of booming lots of multi-family housing. Um as we look ahead to plan parks, um over 90% of population growth in Minnetonka is affected to be people of color, which I find interesting. Um, and Minnitanka residents age 60 to 75 are expected to increase by 40% in the next 10 years. So, we do need to keep our seniors. We know that this is an aging community. So, um, and we've got a lot of senior a lot of senior participants in our programs and our parks. >> Right on. >> Um, a little bit. So, this is kind of what we heard when we went out and talked to people and heard from the community. So, what do you want to see? What new additional things do you want to things to do in the parks? Um, people like the idea of re a year-round swimming facility, rock climbing or bouldering in parks, more nature programming, nature-based play areas. You can see some kind of visuals that got people thinking of those. Flexible spaces for special event programming. Um, a skateboarding park. Uh, so we're looking at that now, upgrading that. Upgrade playgrounds to make them more accessible. a ninja warrior type playground, which is very popular. Golden Valley has one that's very popular. >> Um, more pickle ball courts. You guys will hear those over the coming years as we work on tennis courts. People want pickle ball, but they're challenging to put in. Um, bicycle playground or a pump pump track. Uh, programming for providing an off leash dog park. So, that was popular. Enhanced trail conditions um and and connections, excuse me, to parks and open spaces. We hear that citywide all the time. More trails, more trails. Um, more natural surface trails, boardwalks, and wetlands. So, kind of the highest priority issues. And these are just kind of bigger themes on the right hand side, not specific amenities. Um, new and improved recreational amenities, rediscovering the creek, uh, connecting to nature, people like iconic parks, uh, ga gathering in community building spaces, highquality natural areas, uh, environmental sustainability and resiliency, and then connections to our parks and trails. And >> can you give an example of iconic parks? Well, I think more like Ridgedale Commons and as we look at Opus, something that's different and something that's um community centered in the middle of a housing units, I think. >> Um and I think maybe more a lot of our parks look the same up until Rididge Commons. They're all very beautiful in nature and so I think people people like photo ops. This might have been from young people, you know, >> Instagram parks. >> What was that? >> Instagram parks. >> Yeah. I mean, right, the bean in Chicago. I mean, we're not Chicago, but things like that where people know what you're talking about when you say the park. >> I recall the ideas on the left were kind of written in order of the frequency we got the feedback. >> Is that what you remember, too? >> I think so. Yeah. I mean, I haven't It's probably all in here. >> Shocking that swimming facility was first, the one with the biggest dollar sign, but I kind of I can remember it was kind of in order. Yeah. And if you look at people were reacting to some visuals, too. So they like when they see a big swimming pool. The pricing maybe not. You know the reality sometimes doesn't match the want but >> rock climbing. >> Y >> very high. [clears throat] >> Does the idea that we people can swim at the marsh is does that >> Well, so the marsh came after this and so we as a city >> Yeah. Well, Williston has a pool and the marsh has a pool and prior to this we were very pool we were short on pools for um so >> that kind of changes things. you know, we we got the marsh after the post plan and we have more sufficient pool space now. So, keep that in mind. Yeah. >> Is the post plan used um for funding purposes as well like from the Met Council or not so much >> in terms of grant funding? We do lean into it quite a bit. When we apply for recreational or or park related grants, we say we went through this post planning process. They're often asking for us to be able to check that box. >> Not a requirement. It's just uh leverage. >> It's a big plus. It's a huge plus >> if we can show all the community engagement and the need and the desire that it's kind of a backup document to all that. Yeah. >> All right. So, we'll work into a little bit more of the meat. I'm not I'm probably not going to read every goal in here, but I'm just want you to see how it's laid out. So, like I said, there's a mission for the parks open space and trail plan to be leading in providing a welcoming, comprehensive, and balanced system of high-quality parks, natural areas, trails, and programs for all to enjoy. So, a highlevel document for you to guide you guys as you nail down into some of these smaller these decisions. So, there's five guiding principles. Um, and I'm just going to move on because they're easier to read here. First being environmental sustainability and resiliency. Again, you've got goals from um negative impacts to waterways to promoting sustainable maintenance practices. Um then connections to parks and trails. We want to have safe and convenient access. So really, how do you get people there? People want to socially gather. Um provide people an opportunity to connect with nature, which was very important. Um and then access neighboring communities. Uh community health and wellness. Um uh make sure that these the that our parks support public health and wellness for all park users. Um we have healthy experiences that are accessible, enjoyable, and relatable to all park users. Promote health and wellness through education and programming. Um and then also we're always looking for ways to strengthen relationships with partners and look at different ways to do things. improve improve overall health and wellness. Next is equity and inclusion. And here we're going to develop program park programs and facilities that fit the needs of the community through the lens of diversity, equity, and inclusion. Encourage recreation participation by all park users regardless of race, age, gender, and ability. Expand access to parks and build and repair parks in underserved communities or areas of the city. engage community members meaningfully in the design and planning of parks to ensure that parks and park programming reflect our community values and priorities. And then next is excellence and innovation. Um quite a few goals here. Uh a few of them support year-round recreation by improving access to outdoor winter programming, expand marketing and awareness. Um we're kind of doing that with with our new signage at um Purgatory. So, you know, ways that we can be better at signing and marketing. Um, model sustainable practices, create new park master plans. So, that's a big one. Um, so this is your highlevel guide. And then one of the big things that comes out of here, a goal is um creating new park master plans. And so that's kind of where you guys can come in and dig in and make, you know, some concise decisions about those plans. So, with that, I'm going to turn it over to Matt for the implement implementation part and then we can answer questions at the end. >> Thank you, [clears throat] Sarah. Thank you, Park Board, Chair Ingraham. Um, I came on to the city right at the tail end of this process. So, it was sort of interesting um for some of my first meetings here to be reviewing the earliest drafts of this document and be pouring over the results of the survey and and it was really interesting both as a resident of the city and then coming on as a staff member to really dive in. So, since my time here, I've been um taking the lead on a lot of the implementation of this particular post plan. Um, so really the implementation component of the post plan is really about identifying priorities and initiatives and moving our park system in the future where appropriate. It doesn't mean we're forcing change where we don't think we need it. Um, we we want to provide guidance for the park facilities themselves. Um, the implementation certainly involves identifying the costs of these potential improvements which can be significant at times but certainly worth it. Um, a lot of my job is identifying potential funding sources. So, we talked briefly about grants, but certainly working um with our available finances at the city in terms of our uh capital improvement plan program and uh other resources in terms of our internal budgets. Um, and then we want want to identify ways that we can measure progress. Are we doing what's right for the park system? our our ongoing parkm plans reaching out to the community in a way where we really get a sense of how people are using the park system. Are we providing the recreational opportunities that folks are looking for? So um in the post plan towards the end a document uh component that I certainly look at a lot this is the priority initiatives table. Um, so these are grouped into into the the several categories. Facilities, plans and studies, programming and events, communications and marketing, and operations and maintenance. And you'll see each one of these lines has a a priority, high, medium, low, or ongoing. There's some notes about um ways that they'll be tackled through other efforts. So, a lot of these will um you'll see in that notes column say identify through the park planning process. Um, and then high [snorts] level $2021 of overall costs. These are often uh consultancy fees if there's planning or studies involved. Whoops, wrong way. So, some of the past and ongoing efforts. So, [clears throat] I've taken on a variety of of master plans and studies so far at the city. Um, we're working to accomplish several priority initiatives that touch on a lot of the the priorities through this master planning process. So, things such as, this doesn't include them all, but incorporating new picnic features or gathering spaces including park shelters, uh, boardwalks through wetlands was identified in the post plan and we're trying to tackle that with some some of the park planning, a formal trail improvement. This is about um the longevity of our trails themselves, the surfacing, the accessibility of those. We're always evaluating park safety to make sure folks feel welcome in our in our park system. Um some of the specific plans and studies that we've undertaken the initial skate park feasibility study which identified Glen Lake Park as as the the best um location for a potential skate park in the city. The citywide off leash dog strategy which happened around this time last year. Glen Lake Park master planning is just about to kick off here. I know I've been teasing it for a while but it's about to get going. Uh skate park would um go in that particular park. Purgatory Park master plan has been completed for a few years now. Big Willow Park Plan, the draft is going to be coming to you folks on the park board relatively soon here. And then Cullen Nature Preserve, um the master plan has been presented. Um that's a very exciting document that we're looking to roll out in the next year or two years. So some of the next steps involve um budgeting to accomplish these priorities. So that can be tricky, but we have um a variety of purses to pull from. The capital improvement plan are are goals and projects that we present to the city council for specific budgeting. Um upcoming ones include the red barn site that's associated with the purgatory park master plan. We're going to look at that site, figure out how we can incorporate some of the post plan needs in terms of public gathering space or other opportunities that might be met on that particular site. the Cullen Nature Preserve. We realize we don't quite have enough funding budgeted at this point for all the improvements that the Cullen master plan laid out. So, we're looking at additional um capital improvement plan dollars proposed to to get that master plan underway and open that park to the public. Um a previous CIP page um referenced Shady Oak Beach improvements. We're constantly investing in the Burwell House and Minnotonka Mills Park. Um we have our ongoing park investment plan that's replacement of playgrounds and general park improvements. That's sort of an operational budget. So we use we use these existing operational division bud budgets. These pools of money that we have um we implement through service contracts and and we hire consultants as necessary to do that work. Um ongoing things include park and trail signage. So some new off leash dog signs just up in purgatory. So, we're using these operational budgets to do that work. Um, ongoing trail enhancements, as I mentioned, erosion, resurfacing as necessary, repairing erosion on our trails. Um, we've been ongoing, uh, tennis court, pickle ball assessment. So, a variety of parks have come to the park board over the last two years or so where we're looking at potential for pickle ball on the court. So, these are sort of day-to-day things that we're needing to make decisions on versus the larger plans and studies. So, a lot of a lot of things going on at this point. So, really, it's about turning these plans and studies into accomplishments in the park system. We've been doing my first phase of my career at the city has been a lot of plans and studies, and I'm really looking forward to implementing a lot of these things. It's it's time to really get rolling. But the post plan really represents uh overall vision of of what are our key goals. To be able to look back on that document and say, "Oh, we're checking a lot of the boxes um on these various efforts is really exciting." And to just have this this document on my shelf to be able to refer to and remind myself what we're doing these for is really just been wonderfully valuable um throughout my time at the city. So excited to continue the effort that Sarah and the team had kicked off with this post plan and the park board really, you know, provided all the insight necessary to what I think create a very modern, very uh innovative document. I've looked at a lot of post plans from other cities that aren't quite as uh modern or innovative or comprehensive as ours ours is. So I'm certainly very proud of our document and excited to um take any comments or questions that I'd have from you folks. Anybody? Yeah. >> Um, >> thank you. Um, is at some point does the post plan get updated? Is it a living document like the mass like some of the other park plans we've been working on or is it more of a point in time? >> It's more of a point in time. So, ideally, we would redo a version of this in 15 years or so. Now, it's supposed to be a 15 to 20 year living document. Um, and really the to-dos that come out of it end up being the living portion of this document. So, as we look at master planning for our individual parks or or go down that list of other priority initiatives, that's the life of this document living on >> Jennifer. >> Um, good that you picked up on that. um like for master planning as we started a year ago um with the dog parks or at least when when the three of us had started on the the committee are the master plans intended to also have a little bit of longevity between you know staff turnover council turnover board member turn just to kind of set that baseline for expectations. >> Yes, the the master plans certainly the the realistic nature of them is we can't do [snorts] all the improvements right away. So our master plan lays out phasing. So things we could potentially do right away, the high priority stuff, some new signage, some new erosion fixes verse longer term things like a bigger parking lot that we would need to individually budget for those particular efforts. So the master plans are really meant to roll out over several years. It's just unrealistic for us to be able to do all the park improvements. So we want to make those documents modern enough that we can get ahead of of [clears throat] park needs in the future as best as possible and then even 5, 7, 8 years, 10 years from now be able to say the big willow master plan was adopted or approved by the park board back in 2025 26 there's still a lot in there that we can refer to and say this is how we're justifying whatever park need okay >> is next on the list to do this. So intended to be for every 10 years or so. >> They just end up taking a lot of time and energy to create the documents. So we want to make sure that they're robust and and flexible enough to to guide us and justify some of these expenses we need to make. >> Thank you. >> Um just for the newer park board members, um the version that they shared with us for the meeting is basically like the executive summary of the document. There's a 150 page full document that my friend Caleb here has printed, attached. >> So like the parkour should be familiar with the 150 page version, not memorized, but familiar. Um, but we don't expect, you know, the whole community to to be motivated, but it's good bedtime reading and there's really great stuff. And I think this is a cool way to go through it a few years later. it just like sense check >> um how we've progressed and it was a bit affirming that we did some really good work. So, thank you for taking the time. >> Other questions, Caleb? >> So, I'm I I've read how the priorities were determined. it's written, but I'm curious um [clears throat] you know there was a ton of work on uh community input and and you know the [clears throat] there's a great bar graph I think it's on page 88 and it's it's tells you where all that input came from right by the colors. So it's it's awesome. Was it the senior center? Was it the survey? Was it at the farmers market that we got this input? the treehouse, Shady Oak night to unite. It's fantastic. So that's that was critical, right, to get that community input. But then of course it also says prioritization was made based on availability of resources alignment with natural resource master plan and trail improvement plan, the city council and park board priorities. So what can sometimes happen is community input can get relegated quite far at times down the list when you know money comes in right like the pool right uh or a bouldering project >> y >> right um so I'm just curious if there's any sense that you can give us how [clears throat] How to what degree did public interest from this extensive community outreach remain like top top level for prioritizing what we see in table five high priorities um no priority medium etc. Um, so is there any way to speak to that? Because I I know it may be difficult. There's a lot of factors and and so I don't know if you guys have any any thoughts on that. >> My day-to-day world here at the city is often responding to what the public thinks about our upcoming projects, the things that we're doing or not doing. A lot of the work we end up doing is referring directly to what the public's interested in doing. I think we're very earnestly interested in making sure that we're investing in the park system the way that the public is wanting. Um you know the how those priorities ultimately got sorted that was in the sausage making of the post plan itself. But every investment that we're making, we need to be able to say had significant interest or be able to clearly explain why we're unable to do things financial or impacts to natural resources or whatever that decision-m process needs to be. I just saw preliminary survey results to the Big Willow master plan and just today I got them. So pouring over these survey results and the comments that people give, 90% of them are really great and useful and insightful and some are, you know, a mixed bag or or pie in the sky type wishes. So, we need to be able to sort out and be respectful of people's opinions, but ultimately, um, the rubber has to hit the road at some point and we need to make some decisions and the to-do list needs to be crafted in a way that we can actually check some boxes. So, I think we take the results of the surveys very seriously. Can we do everything that folks are asking for? No, unfortunately not. Or for the better, sometimes not. >> Certainly not. Certainly not usually on a time frame people like to think about because things take a while to get >> things move slow. Yeah, things move unfortunately pretty slow. >> Well, and to Ann's point about a living document like this is a great example. Again, if you haven't studied page 88, >> do it. It's awesome. So, I'm just going to try to show you pictorially, right? So, back in 2021, here's where here's where off leak off leash dog park landed on on like the bar graph priority. Here, I'll want you to be able to see it. >> I have it pulled out. >> Yeah. Okay. But then within a year or year and a half, it was like a special team and it was being worked on and it was basically up to here, right? in terms of activity, of city leaders, of staff time, of um so so we clearly have evidence of things fluxing >> as the park board or the city council or the staff or the community say this is this is going crazy or this needs to be addressed, right? >> So that's that's good news because it allows us to say, well, what's new? What else can we do? What should we how should we re-evaluate um based on ongoing feedback from >> Yep. >> from the community or from staff or from new leaders that get elected, you know, to the city. >> On that one example, I would say that off leash dog park is remaining at as high as is on that graph. The issue we've had is Purgatory existed as an off leash area and the all of the angst and effort over the last year and a half isn't a new dog park area. It's addressing the issues around the current use of our purgatory park. I mean, I think would do you say that's fair because we're still not very far along on off leash dog park. >> Yes. I think the master planning of Purgatory Park, which is one our first park master plan we ended up tackling brought that off leash dog issue way to the top, right? >> Because of the use of Purgatory Park. >> So, but if you just went on like, "Yeah, nope. Look, look how low this is. >> Uh, we got to do other stuff, >> right?" But, but thankfully people were flexible. >> I think we continue to do community outreach. So I feel like you're getting every year you're continuing to get a pulse on what's new and >> and I think that's the nature of this process that I'm coming through and presenting these master plans and counting on everybody to say what aren't we doing that could be brought up or are we spending too much time and effort on this when it's losing popularity whatever next sport comes up >> right and that's kind of why I asked about the master plan having that continuity so it's not changing at the whims of of changing council members or or board, you know, it's trying to get a a concise and contiguous direction forward. Um, with also taking into consideration the changes with it being written in CO, we were in a very different mindset >> uh that we didn't think we'd ever be in and now we're out of it. And so, um, now we're in a different one than we probably were before CO as well. So it's the balance and being flexible to accommodate new without doing a totally 180 different degree direction is kind of how I see it. And there's always the balance between and tradeoffs of the priorities trying to categorize them and and move forward and not get stuck in limbo uh and talk a lot of talk. be nice to do some action and start spending money fiscally responsible way. >> I'm done with my little speech. >> No, that's good. >> And I think you need to keep in mind that these are these are for the entire system. So, they were saying, "Yeah, I want to see that in the city." And then when you get to a certain park and say, "Okay, make a decision about this specific amenity." Things change pretty quick, but this is a good saying, "Okay, we would like this in the city. Where does it fit?" You're going to do that when you master plan and then make the hard decisions with the neighbors and and get everybody's buy in. >> That's a that's good insight because for instance, people want more pickle ball, but when we ask, "Do you want it in your park by your house?" People are less nim >> or if you ask the tennis players. >> Yes, exactly. >> As well, we might have a different >> My favorite tennis court's going to get changed. No, thank you. >> Yes. >> They're adding that on. >> Finding the happy medium and the trade-off. Yep. >> Other comments or questions? Otherwise, I've got one. Um, going back to your implementation page or you know, you have this one. you have in the in the real deck there's multiple pages but kind of going to the comment earlier is clearly the post plan is robust and you wouldn't do that except very infrequently but how often do we go back and look at these priorities within the implementation plan and go because that seems like something you could do and kind of go well let's re-evaluate you know what's a high or medium or low based on what's changed >> just simply being tasked with getting this presentation together for you guys tonight has been really helpful for me to review this. I think we should bake into our master planning process what what of this are we accomplishing as we look at our various parks because there's a lot of things that we're accomplishing that I think don't neatly fit into one of these buckets that we can certainly be checking the box on and then that would easily indicate which ones are we not accomplishing or could do better on. >> Okay. >> And maybe and maybe put it into an addendum or some kind of document so that those of us who don't remember every detail that we talk about in the meetings, we can go back and look. >> Absolutely. >> Yep. >> And as long as we're talking about addendums and stuff, for me it's really helpful to see actually on the document footer or header when it was written. >> Sure. just because then I have some sense of is this from >> a long time ago >> a long time ago or or just a year ago. So >> like the Opus plan which I had never run into before. I had um it was interesting but I I don't know how old it is. >> So we could talk about that later. >> I think it ties well into the measurements. you know, here's where our vision was. Here's what we were thinking. Now, we're getting into the details. Um, are we following that or we straying from that and why? >> Yep. >> So, what's the process by which if if someone uh someone or someone on the park board wanted to push for a change in priority on an item, when would that when or how would that happen? Just I'm curious. Um, I would say there could be a couple of ways. If there's a particular item that comes that seems to be like it should be a priority, it can be brought up at a meeting and if there's consensus, we can certainly look at changing >> how it is listed in the post plan. But another option is we could bring back the implementation plan as its own thing as an action item which you'll be looking at your 2026 work plan for next year and just revisit it you know take a look at the implementation where are we at and is this the prior are these still the priorities we want to see >> and do we want or does the park board want to change anything so so it could be an action item for next year is to revisit >> okay >> um in the in the natural resources master plan. We actually have it built in that every 5 years we're looking at or revisiting the priorities >> and that's primarily priorities for parks where we're doing habitat restoration work. But there is sort of a time frame for when we look at and re-examine what the priorities are. So I don't know that we baked that in specifically to the post plan, but this is was adopted in 2022. So, you know, it's probably due just to have a look at the >> Yeah, I think that would be I think that would be prudent >> and it's just a guide. Those priorities are a guide. They're not that we have to do the high right now and then we'll >> you can certainly say in your work plan, let's work on this this year and if it's something we can do and there's budget for it. >> Yep. >> Work on that. >> Great. >> They don't really get serious until we budget them. So, we're writing those CIP pages and we're saying, "Hey, council, we need >> money." A lot of this is reviewed. I mean, when we go through the CIP process, it's what's in here. >> You'll see it. Yeah, >> you'll see it that way. >> Great. Any questions or comments at all? >> Always helpful to go through this. >> Yeah, this is this is >> I'll go back and read the whole thing. >> It is. It is. It is impressive. >> I think it just how much there. >> It's well written. It's interesting to pop in and out of. Yeah, it's a great document. >> Yeah. Thank you. Very comprehensive. >> Thanks. Thank you. >> Okay, now we're on to 7B, the park board strategic plan and work plan for 2026. >> It should be up there. Uh, thank you, Chair Ingramham and park board members. Um so as you recall from the last meeting um you first take took a look at the strategic plan and a proposed 2026 work plan and had some comments. We wor walked through the sections and you had some comments which um we tried to incorporate into uh a next version of the plan. And so the red that you see are uh proposed changes to what was initially brought to you in November. Um last time we went through each section. So I I don't feel a need to do that again. Um but you'll see just in the mission we added a word in uh added a couple words under the goal one uh for conserving natural resources. And then we did have a new strategy uh un related to engaging other city commissions. Um it was in goal three, but what I heard was we should move it to goal four, which I agree with. So that's what I did. Um so with that, I think I'll just turn it over to you to see if there's any comments or suggestions or recommendations. And this is something that hopefully we uh you are able to approve tonight. um along with the work plan that we'll go after I'll go over in a minute. Uh if not, we did talk about the ability to bring it in January if necessary. Um hopefully that's not the case, but that could happen if needed. >> Jennifer, >> um I just want to say nice job. I did get a chance to look at that before tonight and my comments were included and I thought you did a nice job capturing them and I appreciate having that the protect um components in. I don't think it hurts anything um by doing that and even if it could be considered redundant by some experts I I think it's very clear and plain language for the public. So, thank you. I have nothing further. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. Uh in in goal three, strategy four. Um I was confused by this because we at the last meeting we were reminded that our mission is parks, not recreation. And so I wondered if I I think it's important the city do does this, but I don't know that it's a park board thing. We did talk about uh programs in terms of programs that are happening in parks. >> I Okay. >> So, so we do programming in in parks. So, we've got some that are coming up. >> So, and you you guys see, you know, reports on athletic fields and beach. >> So, we consider that programming. Uh-huh. >> So, you know, we do the city does a lot of programs and and Sarah Herbert does >> and I think of programming as that comes in the booklet and you register for it and >> Oh, lessons, >> but some of those are in parts. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Okay. I withdraw my my comment. >> Thank you. >> Other qu other comments, questions, discussion? >> Overall, I think it looks great. I have one little nitpick question. I didn't want to bring it up, but it's the mission. So, like I want it to be right. The the place that equitable was put in doesn't make sense to me. That second bullet in the mission should be usually the word equitable and inclusive are together. Promote equitable and inclusive quality recreation opportunities. I It reads funny. >> So, it could be promote quality, equitable, and inclusive recreation. >> How about high quality Okay. Inclusion because well quality by itself is >> it's quality recreation opportunities. Is that what we're trying to say? >> I'd probably put equitable and inclusive >> together. >> Put those two words together instead of >> quality. Equitable and inclusive or just equitable and inclusive. >> Quality. What quality? >> Quality can be there maybe before the word recreation. So promote qual equitable and inclusive quality recreation. >> Yeah, I I like equity in there first and so I agree. I think the quality be high I like your high quality >> um before recreation. >> So equitable inclusive highquality recreation. >> Thank you. That would be great. >> So equitable, inclusive, highquality recreation opportunities. >> Do you get that? >> Got it. >> All right. >> It does. Yeah, thanks for making it better. >> Anything else at all? There was there was some I'll just throw out there was some stuff sent some input sent to the park board and anybody have any from Nate? Anybody have any thoughts on those or you're we're all good? I'm I'm >> pretty similar. >> I I think we kind of captured a lot of that. I think there, you know, there was some more nuances, but I felt it was um more detailed >> um and specific than um what a work plan Okay. >> be part of it. That was my take on when I read it after our meeting. >> So, I I felt like in a nutshell that we captured a lot of it. Yeah. >> Um but some of it was was very detailed. >> Um that would be more of an implementation than uh goals and strategies. And I also thought that the the intention of the the comments were met. >> Good. Okay. I I did too. I just want to be respectful of the input we got that that everyone's comfortable with that. >> Great. Well, um if everyone else feels good about all, do we have a motion to approve this separate from the work plan? Well, technically it's a one item which >> Okay. So, we'll keep going. >> Moving forward, we might want to split these out as two separate items. >> And one one other question. Um, when it goes to the council, will they see because it is they saw the last one. Will they see the red marks? So, they see the so they know what we've how we've made it stronger or do they just >> So, once you approve it, the red will go to not all black. >> Okay, that's fine. I just I was just curious. >> Yes. >> Okay. Yeah, I had a question actually before we move on, but um >> what was the in goal one of the um the strategic what is it the strategic plan? What was the context for the to protect and conserve but the addition of the word protect? What why did we specifically that question? >> Yeah, I'm I'm happy to answer that. Um, I think that it might be a little bit of my background, um, and in education from national parks to, um, you know, regional that, um, prior to my arrival, they they felt that the conserve was including uh, protection and and in the National Forest Service, it is. they have a multiple use, but in the national park it's a little bit different and you have wilderness areas that are protection. And >> my uh train of thought that seemed to be supportive by my fellow board members was to include the concept of protecting as well as conserving. So conserving um means, you know, we're going to conserve it. protect means we're going to save it and we're going to keep it this way for future generations. And so to me, there's a distinction between conserving something and protecting something that that I think one of the the the values of the citizens in Minnetonka is the protection for future generations, some of our assets. And so I just uh really appreciate the support that we brought the word protect. So it might be a little bit redundant with conserve, but it highlights it because I think it's so important and and is part of the character of >> Minnitanka. >> Yeah, I I agree. I think I was going to say, well, I I like the change because I feel like conserving is more of like saving something and then protecting is like actively shielding it from >> degradation and other, you know, other factors. So I agree. >> Agree. >> Thank you. >> Spot on. Thanks for giving me another soap box to get home. >> Of course, >> soapbox night. >> Okay, so I will go to the work plan. >> Yes. And so, um, the work plan uh was presented to you again last in November. And then the items in red are items that we're proposing to change. So, just a couple of additions. Uh for the first quarter, uh we added the Col Nature Preserve, Master Plan, and Glen Glenn Lake skate park as additional items that would be um presented to the DEI Commission for input from their perspectives. Um >> this just >> just the skate park or uh is I think of Glen Lake as being a little more than >> it should be park picking. >> Correct. >> Yeah, we the intent was Glenn Lake Park as a whole. Okay. So, I can take that word out. So, in quarter two, we're adding the Glen Lake Park plan review um to the work plan. Uh no changes in quarter three and then in quarter four, we accidentally had the 2025 um that shouldn't be there because in quarter 4, you'll be reviewing the 2026. Yeah. So, we actually took we don't need to refer to dates um in any of those um operational reviews. Um, one item and I'll I'll bring it up. I did speak to Chering Graham about this. Um, as far as there was a interest in having uh this reflect the dog park information that's being presented to the park or the council in June. There was an interest on the park board to have a review of that. I did speak to the city manager and at this point the council has not given direction for the park board to review that. So, unless that changes, um, we did I did take it off or actually didn't I did not put that in. Um, but just a reminder that Chair Graham and I will present this to the council. Uh, it is in early February now. Um, so, you know, they certainly could choose to have the park board re-engage on that and if they do, then we can certainly add that to the work plan. the the other item around around dogs was also uh an update on the work around additional off leash areas. >> Yes. And so, you know, we recognize again the idea that master planning will certainly be a time to address dog parks. >> Um it's still a little up in the air in terms of a citywide dog strategy. Um the council had indicated you know they want to review what happens in purgatory how that works do some evaluation before really moving forward wholesale throughout the city. So um at this point we are leaving it off at the direction of the city manager unless the council asks the park board to re-engage right now. >> Thanks for getting that clarity. >> That's very helpful. Um our week. >> Yep. Taking a step back. Um the work plan is, you know, heavy on park activities, really light on natural resource stuff. Is that okay? Is there anything else from a natural resource perspective that you want feedback on next year? >> Um well, we have habitat restoration and maintenance plans that will be coming um for So that's on quarter 4. There's Lone Lake T and Tower Hill. >> Oh, did I miss it? Quarter four. >> Quarter four. >> Yeah. Oh, okay. I missed that. Yep. So, I saw the one in Q1. I didn't see the thing in Q4. >> Yeah. We'll be providing the natural resource division um update and the outreach engagement plan. We talk about uh restoration as well there. So, that's you know, in terms of restoration work that we're doing, you know, we're we're sort of in a the point where we're just really implementing on the ground operational um based on the plans that have already happened. So there's not a whole lot other than these restoration plans for individual parks. There's not a whole lot to present on unless the park board would like to see or have, you know, have more information brought to you. >> I just wanted to make sure that Yeah, >> I wouldn't mind >> consider that. >> I'd love to hear little, you know, >> updates, >> elevator speeches about what's what got finished the last month or two. >> Yeah. >> Like in that informational section that we do. >> Yeah. And we we certainly I think we have done we've done that. Right now it's obviously the time of year to go a little slow. >> Um and we also like to recognize all of the work that the volunteers are doing the parks which we try to do during that natural resources update. >> Um but yeah, we can certainly bring more um you know updates as we're kicking off new projects, restoration projects. It's spending a bunch of time and a bunch of money on it and might as well toot our horns. >> Y >> uh so I um I appreciated going through the post because in our last meeting um my I I was ignorant of the post uh in detail. So that was really helpful. And in advance of this meeting because um I wanted to be able to talk more about previous um kind of needs assessments and identification of areas for betterment in our park and trail system to then have a chance to do my homework. And so, uh, Leslie and Matt met met with me and, um, and so I was able to start that work ahead of time and I wanted to share that with you so you could hear some of my ideas that go into the work plan and then we can mo I, you know, we can do the process where you guys shoot it down or say, "Yeah, sounds good." I will say um and I mentioned this during our my time with Leslie and Matt, but some ideas that I'm thinking of do not fall into like a quarter. They are something we would be thinking about working on throughout the year. So, we might have segments of each or every other meeting where we're coming back coming back to a a work a work plan item. Um, so I apologize that I don't have it like okay this quarter and this quarter because it it probably is an accomp some of these things may not be fit may not fit from like start to end start to finish within a quarter >> but uh um with regards to the post um uh figure 45 which is on page 105 I don't know if we have the ability to bring this stuff up um is is is an overlay of o is a great overlay of some of the things we already looked at and it's titled areas of need and so this is a overlay of uh you know where are city parks where's the walk greater than 10 minutes the blue dots the blue dotted outline is a high minority population then we have the same circles that indicate to us what our areas of need are the shading that we see uh on page 105 is um [clears throat] like the density the population density. And so my first my first uh uh recommendation is that we >> What page number was that? >> 105. >> 105. >> Yay. There it is. Sweet. So what I would like us to consider is uh I would say elevating the priority of these of the areas circled that are not already uh being worked on. Okay. So one of the areas circled is opus if if I if I'm looking at the map right. >> Y >> so we know that's happening. We're going to talk about it, right? Right. We're going to get an update in like a few minutes. So that's that's fantastic. But then we got one, two, three other areas. And so I would like for us to say, look, we we identified through the post through the post, excuse me, um, you know, three, four years ago areas of inequity in our city's uh, park plan and open spaces. And so let's let's kind of um yeah, let's let's get on it a bit. And so I would like to add that to our uh add that as like an elevated priority that is in that is part of our work plan. And so what that might look like is some of the same things we're already doing with Opus where we would say, "Okay, um can we get can can we start doing some planning with con with um you know, consultants or or uh uh micro, you know, neighborhood uh you know, like uh feedback uh in innovations like what what do we want? What do these specific community circles want? Or maybe we can even find that by um well, I don't know if there's a way with data that we got collected from the post to get more granular like by zip code or or something because you know people don't always want to give you all the info. They might just be anonymously answering or but just a thought there. So that was my first idea was let's let's let's really work on this hard for next year because we've known about it for three or four years and opus is coming along but we still have three other areas that we could say let's let's take care of this issue and um and and do it in a in a in a big way or a prioritized way. So, um I don't know if you want me to go through um like a few other ideas or if we want to talk about that first um and you know and then and then um what do you guys think or chair? What do you what would you like? >> Oh, well, Jennifer, go ahead. >> You know, I I hear what you're saying. Um, you know, I know Minneapolis was brought up and and I think Minnetonka is um probably polar opposite of of the Minneapolis where some areas were neglected for decades if not hundreds of years. Um, when I look at [clears throat] our map, um, I see a a big dispersion of parks throughout the city and I and I think that this plan in particular shows what a good job Minnetonka has done. It doesn't mean we can't do better. I think from a timing and a time frame, it it feels ambitious to go after I feel like we already have a lot on our plate. Let me start there that I think we can clip some of these things off but maybe not all in one year and and so you know looking at um you know opus is pro I would call opus in 2026 maybe we look at my eyesight's not as good to kind of reference the other areas but >> maybe in 2027 we look at another area that that appears to be unrepresent presented um than to have it be a whole item because that feels like a really big task to add to our existing work plan which is working towards the goals and the higher values. So I I I hear what you're saying. Um I know all the the cutting edge and and the micro parks and a lot of what Met Council has been pushing for the last five years um with diversity and inclusion items. I feel like we're going to capture a lot of that in the master planning process that we do and that we have to do it systematically than to focus on just one area because I I think we have to have a a realistic approach. So that's my two cents. >> I >> So So my question was do we want to talk about this issue by itself before I move on to other ideas? Well, we might as well talk right now, I guess, since before we get to >> I'd like to tack on. I think um I I kind of agree with Jennifer, but I'd also This is one of the charts I always puzzled over during the development. I guess my first thing was what what is the issue in these areas? Um because I'm, you know, uh I have a hard I I don't know what the issues would be. The example would be you mentioned Opus. I mean, clearly we know there's high density housing in the Opus area and we know that is a need and there's a plan that's being worked for that. If I go to the lower left corner, there's the blue doted area which surrounds Purgatory Park. It's heavy wet heavy marsh wetlands in the park and along uh highway 101 whatever they call the street that there is a couple uh lower income apartments that are right AC right back up to Purgatory and across from Covington. So, I'm not sure kind of what the need is or how many people are there because the only housing I can think of that would fit that quality qualification are two or three buildings on 101 adjacent to Scenic Heights, not Scenic Heights, um, Clear Springs School. And if I go to the top section right along Highway 394, that's Heavy Heavy Commercial and Apartments. and it it's adjacent to two park areas. So, it would be like what what what do we need to do there? Since it's adjacent to two park areas, it's got 394 running right through the middle of it and a lot of it used to be car dealers, now it's uh other stuff. But, so I mean to your point drilling down more, is there an actual issue or is it just the way the map gets drawn? The right hand big bubble has two blue spaces. One surrounds the high school, which looks like it's the high school, not housing. And the one right adjacent to it, south of Cedar Lake Road, is apartments. >> And I can understand that's probably got some income opportunities except it's apartments and wetlands. So, I'm not sure what they can do programming or building wise in the wetlands right behind the apartments. So it'd be better understanding is how real is this issue on this map? Um, that would be the first thing I'd want to start with. >> And >> yeah, and we wouldn't know until we actually said as part of our work plan, let's learn more drill >> in a little bit >> about what what we could actually do to fix an >> to fix these three areas of need that have been known about >> for three to four years. there is an area of need >> and it was identified as an area. >> It's it's identified as an area of need I think because there's lower income housing in those areas. I'm guessing I'm the only guessing because I'm looking at again the bottom left hand square is all wetlands purgatory park and then I think it's three buildings along 101. Does that sound about right Leslie? >> Yeah. >> I think and Sarah correct me if I'm wrong. I think this what this represents is where you have an intersection between >> high minority populations and a more than 10-minute walk to a park. >> And so the and I think that's all this shows is my understanding. It's not about >> and populationity two or three of the >> green. It's not about you know not having the right [snorts] amenities or a number of trails. It's just about walking to a nearby parkland to access. >> Is that correct? >> Four city parks. >> It's two out of the three. >> Yeah. >> Green city parks, one, >> orange, walk to park greater than 10 minutes, two or three, high minority population because we have high minority populations up in the north that have a city park, correct? Very close. So they're not they they're not an area of need. So it's two or three of those above. The difference between this figure and figures earlier in the in the document is that this one overlays high minority population uh to help us see even better like the implications of an area of need and why there's an equity focus. That's why it's in this section. Okay. Uh, and >> I think one of my concerns, and it's because I've been doing land acquisition, public land acquisitions for 20 years, is that it and and that's just primary because it's my perspective, is it seems like it's it's um when you look at what would we do to solve it, we're talking about land acquisitions perhaps and and that that becomes a large funding. Uh there's not going to be anyone in the state or very close to me who's going to be more of an advocate for acquisitions since that's what I did. Um but I think that that I I'm just wondering if that's in the scope of what we're looking at with our work plan. >> This is just understanding the problem, right? >> We don't even know if it was just a consultant circle. >> Absolutely. >> A couple of couple of factoids, right? It's two of them and when one is proximity and so the only way to reduce that proximity would be to acquire more land. >> Um yes, but like the high school might and all of its amenities might apply to the bottom left, right? There's so much there that is just like a park >> and they they talk about like a park. >> Yeah. >> Um I do I so I guess my perspective is I do love that one of the areas is prioritized. We haven't ignored it completely and an active one out of four. Great. Yes. >> I would love to learn about what the real problem is in the three. Oh, I'm on. >> Yeah, you are. >> Did it fall? >> Oh, it's like on my arm. >> I'd love to learn what the if it's a true problem in those three circles. Um, and not until you understand the problem, you know, can you come up with if there if we need to prioritize those areas for solutions. So, if we can make time in the next 12 months, great. If we need to focus on opus for the next 12 months, I'm okay with that, too. And then do it the year after. >> One thing that this map helps us do is the city gets approached a couple times a year of somebody either wanting to sell land, >> donate land, >> things like that. are having this. If somebody says, "Hey, I own this parcel here and I either want to sell it at a discount to the city or donate it, we can look at this and say, "Oh, yeah, that's in this spot of high need." So, it's nothing we can plan for, but it's something that if they do approach us, we have something to look at and say, "Yeah, oh yeah, this is in that area." And can be a driving factor to say, "Yeah, we should really look at this more closely." >> I agree. And and I would say the other category that happens is um more potential when we're in a recession. We'll probably get more people approaching us >> um with that interest. And so using this map >> for a closer look is uh it's it's sometimes a reactive approach than necessarily proactive. >> Yeah. if we don't know what we don't know and we just make assumptions that that these areas are real and I I don't know that they're not but I guess I trust this product. I mean we could look at any other figure and say well this isn't real or who do how do we even know this is real? So, I have to trust the work product and the publication and the approval by the park board and the approval by the city council that it is real and it's accurate and it reflects a real need. Uh but maybe maybe we'll find that we're wrong. But I do feel that for the people who live in these circled areas, they shouldn't be neglected anymore. So let's elevate some process, some aspect of investigation into how we could do a better job for the folks in the circled areas. Um, if we find the truness of figure 45 is in fact borne out. Um, would you be okay? I'm not disagreeing [clears throat] with you at all. I I I totally support it. Would you be okay if we looked at it more of a global perspective of one a year um rather than all of them this year? I I guess I would want I guess I would be open to that, but I do feel [sighs] I mean I just feel for this feel for the people in in this part of our city and uh >> I think the people more information before we prioritize which one's next, >> which which one to even do? And then also like nobody likes to hear weight >> especially people who >> uh are already underresourced uh in their own life in their own you know day-to-day life and so I just have a greater sense of uh like urgency I guess and so that's why I'm hesitant to to say let's just do one at a time per here. I think Opus is on the on the on the train. We're on the train. So, that one I'm not even going to count as needing like that's planned. So, it' be one of these three or all these three. And I guess I'm thinking too if if Matt or Leslie can help help me think like well is there is there some aspect of doing all three uh at the same time with a single consultant firm or something that is easier or is uh more fluid or or hearing presentations, you know, like if we're kind of hearing from people who've done this as part of are learning. Uh is it it would that be too much or would that be helpful because it's a a singular focus that's why we're doing it? I don't know. What do you guys think? >> I I have one thing to say. >> Go ahead. >> So, one one thing I'm thinking of is I've been hearing about, you know, we don't really know what the problem is and maybe getting a better understanding of these specific areas. I mean, we have a lot of existing information we could compile and bring to the park board to get a better handle on land use, green space, connectivity with trails, just to kind of take those little those circles and blow them up and really show you what the population looks like. We have a lot of existing data, >> just the nature of the land. That's where my I see these orange blobs and I think, what is that? And yes, there's wetlands, there's rail corridors. So just better understanding what is represented in those blobs. What's the land use in those areas? >> What opportunities may or may not exist. >> And if if a bunch of this is the apartments in what used to be a gravel pit, I think um >> which one? Over there by the high school. >> Yeah, over by the high school. Souththeast >> that I'm pointing at >> northeast. >> Um >> Oh, by the Hopkins High School. >> It's possible that some of there's maybe there's trails that the developer has put in. I mean, I don't know if there's if it's just I don't think it's just parking lots and apartments. I think that there's some >> Yeah. >> some green space. So it it would be helpful to >> we're whispering about a bus tour. >> We're all But I'm so glad to hear that you Leslie, you're thinking we don't even need to go like >> consult consultant route. We have a ton of data that we could just drill down and present and dish about. >> As you're talking, I'm clicking on parcels and seeing who owns what and >> what some obvious obstacles may be or or not or where opportunities lie. Yeah. >> And this is showing the city owned and managed land, not necessarily our interconnectedness with it. >> Easy for us to map those to overlay school >> schools and the park district and the other. So, this is just looking at at city owned, not necessarily parks, >> broader >> and a wership, apartment complex, >> tennis court, playground, >> right? that that would be overlaid in this more detailed look. So I guess that that would that's what I would love to see us do in an elevated fashion. I mean elevated in terms of our work plan to say yeah let's do this maybe we say one per quarter but maybe maybe again it's easier for you guys to do to do it like all together you know or something. But uh just teach us more so we can be better know what the real need is >> and then tackle it. And we may find that only one of them really needs >> like CIP money for a for a build out >> or only or two, you know, two of them or none of them. And but then at least we've we know about it. we can actually then go back as a park board or as staff to these communities and say, uh, I don't know if you guys were worried about this or heard about this, but we looked into it more and here's what we're going to do or here's what we found and so we're we're reassured or we we know we're going to, you know, we're going to elevate this to to to do better or to get try to get funding or >> Yeah. I don't know. Yeah, I would suggest um we'll have to kind of craft what we call that. It's a deep dive, but we don't we want to call it something better than that, but >> um I just looking at the work plan, I would suggest that happening um either probably in quarter two just because that's a little bit light and then you'll be the CIP will be coming the whole budgeting process is starting. just in case it had some uh influence on that. But uh that would be my proposal is to add something to quarter two. >> So that would be something like uh provide a evaluation of the areas identified in the post plan. >> Yeah. In figure 45 analysis. >> We only have two meetings because we don't meet in April. >> Well, we don't meet in April. Correct. >> And I don't I don't if if it's going to be Matt taking this on as on top of everything else, then we just need to be a little respectful that you don't >> I I >> this isn't the straw that breaks the camel's back. >> A lot of this is property and our community development and planning folks are already >> they can pull it for you. >> Signed them up for some of this. >> To Leslie's point, we have a lot of this information. It's a mapping inventory and analysis in my mind. >> It would it would be helpful to know more granular about >> like if I look at the bottom left corner the the blue area not the circle but the you know >> where are those properties that are uh high minority >> is that the blue right the blue thing because I I I do think they're just a few properties right along 101. So it's just a function of how the however their mapping works for segments and and you know some of them I notice pretty well and I can look at it I look at them and I go okay um like the one by the high school I'm not too sure how that area even has residence in a sense the bulk of that spot is high school grounds I mean it shows up on the map the high the high school shows up this football field and stuff so I I mean it just it'd be helpful to know >> Mhm. >> um what's actually there if it's just a frag a figment of how the stuff gets worked. >> And we know we know the upper leftand corner the orange at the very top is all commercial. >> No one lives there. >> There's some I used to live up there so there are some residential. >> Okay. But we we had access in my kids >> my kids uh found plenty of opportunities to mess around unstructured >> mess around. Yeah. >> Even if it might have been a a retaining pond, but I didn't say that out loud. >> Yeah. So I wonder too though if we shouldn't have some sort of like either asterisks or something that might be like okay if in Q2 we're kind of doing a a it's like learning investigating then it's more like a if needed Q3 we're doing a like you know strategizing implementing for space one or space two by learning about options for identified space and need capabilities because again that would be a new bit of learning for me depending on what we really are talking about in terms of these different types of open spaces indoor parks uh tiny big just grass you know whatever so I don't know how we frame that or if that would just be kind of like, well, we decide in real time as we're going through the year. Hey, let's add this to the next meeting because we did find circle 2 need needs has real needs. No, >> I don't know. What do you Is that sound good? >> I like the ladder. >> Okay. >> This work plan is not set in stone. We kind of add stuff as needed as energy provides throughout the year. So, I like option two if we want to add it after we review the deep dive. Great. >> Yeah. And I would to build on that too. I think is staffformational, you know, and further analysis of the land use or recreational opportunity in addition to >> um county amenities, county old >> city >> city. Sorry. Sorry. >> It's okay. >> So do we do I need to do anything like formal in terms of motions? Um, oh, no. I mean, did was there >> I think it sounds like people are okay with that. >> Okay. There's anything else that >> I'll put it to you if you have talk about anything more otherwise ultimately we need to get to a motion to approve and we can it can be a motion to approve with the changes that we discussed. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Do you need >> I have more ideas so I'm not >> No, I know that. On this one, [laughter] do you want to try do you need to draft a little comment for this? Somebody can approve it tonight or >> or you can approve it with the mo in the motion. You can approve and just state it adding in Q2. >> Okay. >> You don't have to have the exact wording and we will add it. >> Okay. So, think about how you want that word. >> Should we do it like >> now >> each each thing? No, I would do one motion for the item that includes the addition of a, you know, in Q2 this and I mean I did a lot of work talking about the work I did. Let's go to the next one. I apologize if it's going to be another half. >> No, that's fine. Go to the next one. I'm trying to be generative >> and iterative for the sake of this board. Um, >> and I was just trying to understand, you know, whether whether we do need to chunk it or whether we just >> lay it on us. >> Lay what's the next one? >> So, uh, the next one is uh if if you guys uh if if up there we're able to go to page um 122. Uh, I'm going to I'm going to uh direct or focus in on goal goal three in 122 on page 122. I'm sorry. Yeah. Okay. So, goal three. It's hard for me to read it, but maybe maybe my eyes are bad. Anyway, it says expand access to parks and build and repair parks in underserved communities. Oh, >> so >> that's what we just talked about. >> And um and then it also says right under that initiatives prioritize funding projects that increase park access for low-income communities and communities of color in terms of proximity and the quantity of park space available per person. >> So this is where I got most of my ideas that we just talked about right here on page 122. So, um, we have a a figure indicating issues. We have it as a goal and an initiative that follows right behind it. So, then the next thing I was looking at was page 131, table five. That's the >> before before you go. >> Okay. >> So, this would link to what you just did in number one, right? >> Correct. Okay. That's what I thought. >> It's like uh >> Yeah. This this is the action is the action >> post fodder. >> Yeah. This is the action that would come out of [laughter] here. >> Post what? >> Okay. >> Fod. >> Fodder. like it adds to the uh uh >> supporting yes >> supporting material. >> Okay. So then page 131 table 5 were in the priority initiatives uh in this this is like the detailed several pages of of them >> and so I just wanted to highlight two things and see what we think about elevating these in our strategic plan. The first is the third one down provide accessible features in play areas. It is a high priority and it is ongoing and so um we have notes provide ADA compatible play equipment excess access access to play features and surfacing where feasible everything's always of course where feasible uh cost to be determined per project. So, uh, I've been on the park board since February and I don't and I've came I've been at every meeting and I don't recall per I don't recall, not that this didn't happen, I just don't remember hearing about a specific playground overhaul that was at a like a e accessible uh an accessible playground overhaul is what I'm trying to say. Mhm. >> So, uh I would like to elevate this high priority previously previously designated high priority in the following way. The first or the main way would be that we receive as a park board uh you know like specific specific reports on the accessible features that are added in new or renovated play uh play areas. >> That's okay. Um, again, maybe I just am in a zone of time in my service where that's not occurred or maybe it's happening on in the background and I'm not aware of it. But I would like I would like to ask us to elevate this and we've we I already brought it up in the park in the master plan for um >> for Big Willow, >> but rather than me bringing it up every single time we have a playground or a master plan that already has a playground that it's like, well, look, it's a high priority, so it should be integrated into the new plan for the renovation of a smaller playground or the renovation of a master planned playground segment play area se segment. So, uh curious what you guys think about actually giving that the priority it was designated at in the post. Uh, a question. Uh, and you're right. We haven't reviewed a playground yet because we haven't had one come up that's going through renovation. Is that correct? Probably. Are you still working on that now? >> Yeah, we're So, we had two scheduled for renovation this year. They just got kind of bogged down in the details, so they don't have any for for this year. So, we were going to do Sunrise and Groveland. So, that will get done in the spring. uh we can bring that to you. And then we also then each year we have two playgrounds that are scheduled for renovation each year in this capital improvement plan. So you know it's part of that in the work plan in quarter three. >> Yep. >> There's an item for trails and >> trail maintenance plan and park investment plan updates. So that's where you know the park investment plan we include you know the playground uh replacements so we could give a little more information on what's planned on those and the two that are upcoming they're being planned with ADA compatible equipment. >> Yes. Yeah. >> Yeah. I sort of understood it was stand the ADA compliant was standard and so that's why we don't talk about it here that you incorporate it every time you do a playground. We could do better than ADA compliant. You know, we never talk about that. But >> but I mean wood chips, how how is wood chips as a surface >> in a playground ADA compliant? >> Uh I I I >> But are are you using wood chips in the new redesigns? >> Yes, you are. >> Yeah. I mean, my park was done a year ago and it was like >> wood chips are by the uh >> accessible board. >> The play uh NRPA standards wood chips are an accessible surface. >> So, I mean, but there's different, you know, but then you're back to your levels, right? But, but wood chips are an accessible surface. Now we do have we do have poured rubber and different you know at places where there's handicap swings or different you know components but you know in we did a very large poured rubber area at Meadow Park when we did that renovation. So, I mean, it's it's it's just balancing funds. And if we need to increase that, you know, it's a it can be $40,000 to $80,000 to put in the a large amount of the port rubber surface, which your tradeoff is >> and that's about equipment renovated then, >> right? So, it's picking. Okay. And is it every park? Is it a mini park? Is it the community parks the N you know which what what is a fit for spending that that money? >> Do we have data on I suppose the people who would benefit from it most depending on where they live and you know what how to allocate resources to parks that way cuz I'm wondering if you know if we know people who have disabilities who benefit from a certain park over the other. I mean, for instance, we're about to be reporting the surveying results from Big Willow, and there's a lot of comments about the playgrounds and are they, you know, up to snuff in terms of accessibility or what the public's generally expecting. And if you look through the results of the post plan, you can see particular comments on that. >> But it's it's tough for each park. What's the appropriate amount? >> And then that population always changes, right? There could be a >> a handicapped child and by right by this park >> when they're 10. >> Well, in couple years they're not of that age to be at a playground. So then that there's zero or you know >> Yeah. >> or you know somebody might move into another one or so that that population is always changing. So it's trying to balance out the long term of where do you where do you put that money? >> Yeah. Well, I would just add though that accessible features it to me when I think of accessible features, I think of uh you know some sort of structure uh that uh an individual who who has uh mobility challenges can enjoy and and access. And so, um, so that can look a lot of different ways, but, um, but I I I I guess I want to I want to challenge us to say, should we make this uh rather than just meeting ADA requirements because that's not what this that's not what this priority says that that it it says provide accessible features in play areas. And that can mean that you have to get rid of the wood chips because if you have an accessible feature, you got to pour the rubber. You you know, you have to have a way to access it. And you can't access it on your motorized wheelchair or your uh uh manual powered wheelchair through o over a curb and over wood chips to get to the special to get to the unique swing or to get to the other other um fully accessible feature. So I think it's more than I or again because I've not been able to do this with you all. I have a I do I do have a bias or a perception. I'm just going to make it plain that we're we could do better >> going forward. And the only ways I can even talk about that is as a parent of young kids who goes to parks all the time. And I think to myself, my my children can go wherever in this park and do whatever, but I know there are a lot of children who who cannot. And so this park is effectively not their park. Um and so that's that's a bummer. So, uh, what do you guys think about trying to like, I guess, elevate our review and uh, elevate the review that we do, like not not necessarily the same extent of um, master plan, which is like three or four iterations, but instead of, you know, here's the plan, approve it or don't at this meeting. Maybe maybe we do have a bit more of a chance to kind of iterate, work together, or um even better that the default upgrade the the default upgrade plan or the default of a new play space is a fully accessible design. And then we maybe say, well, we have to move away from that because of cost. >> Yeah, I think >> but I'd rather have us say as a default, we want we want our work to be fully inclusive and accessible. >> What is it? >> And if we have to back away from that, then we >> What's your definition of that? >> Like a Glen Lake school Glen Lake elementary school playground or or rubber floor? I mean, I'm >> Yeah, we have I mean, we do have examples. The one you're describing, there's one I've been to again with my own children in uh Edina. Um those are like kind of um great lauded examples of fully accessible, fully inclusive um play play spaces with multiple features that uh are are um >> I'm just asking is that >> well first of all one thought would be because we haven't in my time I don't think we've reviewed kind of what is a what's your Darren? What's your a renovated not a new park but a renovated neighborhood park? >> What what what does it look like? What what is your what's your what not just process but what's the output? What's this? What's it got? So, cuz like if it's all got wood chips, do we have a point of view on that? Or if it's, you know, I would be useful to at least to me to understand what what that looks like because it is a high priority. I it sounds like we're operating it like it's a high priority within the dollars we have, but maybe there's a difference of opinion or understanding of what a accessible feature in an ADA compliant park is or playground is like, you know, I you know, you don't think wood chips work. He's going by a rule book that wood chips do work. So maybe it's worth just understanding as a starting point kind of what what does our what does a renovated park look like? for us especially from given what we currently have in the budget stream >> because you're working you're working with >> generally generally so looking at starting out at the park as a whole. So we're doing the parks that were renovated with the 2001 referendum, right? So they were completely rebuilt, you know, if there was maybe a parking lot put in or the the concrete perimeters around them, what we call them, the tanks were built. So, we're not looking at changing those. It's more or less replacing the equipment that's in each one that those are aging out. So, we're it's replacing the playground equipment that's in each of those tanks. So, we're not looking at not generally looking at changing trails, changing parking lots on a big scale. It's, you know, it's confined into that into those spaces. And then you know we generally always have um you know replacing the wood chips that are there. Uh most of of the equipment has transfer platforms so they're not somebody can get from a wheelchair onto the onto the play equipment have transfer platforms to get around on the equipment. Not necessarily that every equipment has a a wheelchair path on the equipment or you know when you say fully accessible like we don't have any wheelchair merry grows or wheelchair springs. So mean is that if you want fully accessible, does that mean we put those in all the parks or you know because then if you'd have that's beyond the scope of what we would kind of be planning on replacing or you would take away a merrygoround conventional one and replace it with a something that's wheelchair or whatever the and then there's always ground access play features that you can access from the ground and interact with whether it's music or just things that you can manually manipulate, you know, >> from a from a chair that you don't have to be on the equipment or >> Yeah. and and I'm thinking that this is a high priority, but it's something that we look at when we do the master planning and then when we do look at the structures. I don't know how much the park board has gotten into those details, but perhaps when we're getting quotes to include in the RFP various levels so that we can compare and contrast the tradeoffs for the cost value to do something like replacing the wood chips or making it fully accessible, modified, you know, 50% accessible, you know, the standards 25. So, just looking at some possible solutions. I'm not sure I'm I'm on board with making this a whole different category because I think there's so much work we need to do that I feel like it's more tangible and we can move forward with it if we look at it when we do the master plan and when we are spending the CIP money asking for various levels from in the RFP from the cons not the consultants but yeah the consultants right service delivery whatever so that that would be my my two cents Well, but don't we miss a lot of I mean, we would miss a lot of playgrounds if we only did this kind of more intense >> but but but the reality is we can only do two playgrounds a year anyways. >> Yeah. Well, well, so it doesn't seem that like that big of a deal to do exactly what you you were just mentioning about like we have three different RFPs. One is all-incclusive, one is 50% and one is what we're doing now. >> Aren't the dollars budgeted years in advance of the implementation of the project? >> And I would say the RFP would include those three options. It wouldn't be three separate RFPs, but but that could start as a basis for us to look at and understand the tradeoffs and the cost um benefit analysis for the various levels. >> That's Yeah. you know, and maybe maybe we look at when we and I I I know you don't want it to be reactive, but maybe it's when we get to those points that we include >> those components um to take those decisions into consideration. So, I don't know. I I guess I'm not a big proponent of it being an action item um to our work plan that we're discussing today, but I I am fully supportive of um maybe doing more of an enhance than what was done in in the past. Perhaps not even knowing if they they looked at and got cost estimates for various plans and various um costs to each of the different layouts of the play structure and subsurface. Karen. >> So, when we're when I when I do these replacements, since there's we're working in a confined space, we're generally just looking to replace the equipment with what is pretty similar to the amount of features that we had before. So, in order to put as much money into the equipment, we don't do a >> get a consultant. We don't hire a consultant to do a playground design and then we send it all out because then we're spending $20,000 on design that we're taking away from the equipment. So, generally we work with a playground vendor. >> You know, we work with generally three um that we've had uh based on price and maintenance. You know, there's some clear playground equipment we've had in the past that have been uh lower cost on the front end but much higher cost on the back end. So we, you know, try to get pickup supplier that we use that we know we're going to get good equipment that's not going to break and have a lot of maintenance. So the vendor will give I usually ask for two different concepts for what they propose for equipment that will fit in the space, something that's new, uh, but we're not taking away a lot of features. Keep like if it had two slides before, we try to keep two slides. have had a this climbing apparatus or x number of climbing or x number of ground features is kind of keep it same but we just change what we can in that space to have a new experience for the kids. So >> um but that's certain we can you know with each vendor can give us some you know a couple different concepts for things we can accomplish from the equipment. >> Yeah. I was wondering if the vendors if if you think if if maybe this is such a common thing that every vendor every company that this is their jam >> if they're like yeah we got we got a fully accessible version we can send you we've got you know and we've got variations or do we need a different vendor right do we need vendors who are specific whose specific focus is fully accessible They all have they all have that ability. Okay. They all have the equipment. You know, it's >> ramps and space. So, generally our limit our limiting factor is the size of the existing area that we have to fit something in. So, so just a question from a >> you're probably going to ask what I'm ask. So, you you ask. >> Go ahead. >> Okay. Um, I'm just trying to think of the logistics of how this all works because you're working already we just did is through this year or next year funded this year or next year. >> Say that again. >> CIP dollars funded 2026 already or >> both. >> Okay. So, so anything if we wanted to spend big bucks, it would be in the next year's CIP for start in 2027. That's what I'm trying to understand. If you want to change any dollar amounts, uh depending on how much the the is >> uh the finance, we have our five-year plan and they've got the the money allocated already. So, we would give them pretty big heartburn if we say in 2028 we had uh $100,000 planned because we already have our five years out. I don't know the numbers off the top of my head. >> Okay, five years out. If we also we say okay in 2028 we want to do 200,000 >> and that's only three years they that would >> so here's where I was where I was headed is where I was >> a matter of what the fund can accommodate for what we've already have planned. So if there's something bigger, a big change that we might have to say, okay, this playground we was really high priority, we might have to move it back a few years just so the funding can catch up to that one and we'll fit a different playground that maybe doesn't need a dramatic increase in funding that can fit in that spot. So let [clears throat] me just finish my thought. What I was trying to get at is let's suppose right now, no real numbers. Let's suppose right now when you do redo a playground, it's 50 grand. And that's kind of what's baked into all of our financials is 50 grand pri per however many parks each year. Two parks I guess. And we go out and we get a uh from a a vendor or provider that we really trust and like we go, "Hey, we want to expand our scope here. You've been giving us the 50 grand option. We want to see the 100 whatever. We we want to see the superenhanced options and see what they look like, whether how are they better and what do they cost. So then we could decide, you know, going forward, we should really try to put together plans that support a higher level investment in the remodeling because we kind of have an idea what that looks like and then we can try to build it into the future flow of finances. You follow me? I this isn't something that's going to happen now, >> right? Um >> but but at least we get we get we get an understanding of how that would work and what it might cost >> possibly >> or or to your point earlier, we'd have to do fewer parks each year to fund each park the way we want to, >> right? >> Uh yeah, that's a hard question to answer. It maybe it's worth bringing to you uh you know the two parks that are planned for next year. I don't know which ones they are, but we say here's what's there. >> Yeah. So, Orchard Park and Wilson Park are scheduled for 2026. >> Wilson is my part. [laughter] >> You better do a good job on that park. Our park. >> So, we have $200,000 scheduled for those two parks. >> Okay. So it might be, you know, we could look at each of the next five years and say, okay, these are the Wilson and Orchard next year and Covington and Woodgate in 27, Boulder Creek and Norway in 28, uh, Spring Hill and Westwood in 29, and Elwood Strand and Civic Center in 2030. So maybe it's we look at get your feedback on those what they look like now and we say okay here's a location here's a neighborhood it's a mini park it's a neighborhood park maybe we get your wish list of what are the things we should prioritize for this particular park and we that that steers us to what we get back from vendors or um >> are the designs done already for the No, six ones. Oh, okay. I assumed they were. Okay. >> No, it's done. I mean, just because we're It's >> We don't have a big blank slate to play from, right? So, >> you know, but the funding's in place. >> The funding is in place and the the space is already decided. So, there's there's not a whole lot that we can uh really do on a grand scale is is about the only thing that changes a whole lot is maybe the surfacing. um and maybe a couple smaller things that you would fit into the space that's already there. >> So Darren, if I could um ask, so what basically what you're referring to is the park investment plan, >> correct? >> And we has that we have that as an act one of the action items is just is to get an update on the park investment plan. We had it scheduled for quarter three, quarter three, which is July through September. >> I'm wondering if that's something we could do earlier because that's a good way to help them understand here's the park investment plan. this is how we um schedule uh these reinvestment opportunities and have that discussion about what is the level of service that we're accomplishing here. Are there potential changes for level of service that we want to be looking at? And that's the kind of thing that I think the park board is really well suited to have that discussion. Um, the reason why you don't necessarily see, you know, individual playground equipment and what's being chosen at the park board is because those are really operational decisions that we make at a staff level. Whereas the board, you really the intent is that you're working at more of that high level policy level. So, I'm just thinking that might be an an opportunity to help them understand like a what's the plan, what's coming up, how do you, you know, decide which pro which park you're focusing on? And then that gives them an opportunity to kind of have some of that discussion as well and maybe move it up earlier in the uh work plan. >> Which if you're okay with we can certainly do that. Makes sense. >> Yeah. And my my idea is is high level. It's to say that as a default or you know we we should we should know what it costs. We should have that as the default. We should be able to investigate what it means to back away from that. But then in the future as we're budgeting we say no let's budget for a fory inclusive play space >> and then we're not we're not uh well there are ramifications of course but um we're trying to build a 21st century park system and place play spaces and that has to include like our vision statement an inclusive system. Um, so I think we've got it on the on the plan. So I'll just uh like leave it there, I guess. Uh, the next thing is further down on table five, conduct an ADA accessibility audit to identify and address compliance issues. It was given a medium priority in the post plan and I would like us to consider elevating it >> to high priority and for have to have that uh audit occur as part of our work plan in in 2026. >> It's kind of linked to what we were just saying, right? >> Well, not necessarily because it's not just play. >> It's not just play areas. >> It's everything. >> Yeah. I don't know what one looks like. It cost $30 to $60,000. Is that in the budget? >> Not yet. >> Not yet. >> No. >> So that is that's one thing to take into consideration. That would be hiring a consultant to do that audit. That's not something we can do in house necessarily. >> So that would be something. This is actually why I was asking earlier about when do we look at revising or re addressing priorities. >> Yep. >> Because this seems like one that we could, you know, if there's a process for that, we could to Kayla's point kick that up to a high priority. It still it still needs to go through ne next year's CIP funding. Is that how that works? >> Yep. So, we do a CIP request. >> Yep. >> In 6 months or 8 months when we get to 2027 CIP >> and then the city council would >> approve or dis or disapprove. >> Yeah. >> And then we it could be a 2027 audit. >> Yes. >> The funded audit. >> Yes. >> All right. That sounds that sounds fine. So, we can defer I can defer that till till our CIP discussion. Well, no. What I want to know is how do we move the can we approve the priority sitting here now to say it was a high or how do we do that? >> Well, we we would so we would first have to see so 2027 is already set. >> Okay. >> Right. We already have money set. So it's a fiveyear plan. So we have dollars set for the next five years. So, we would have to we we could we'd have to work with finance to see if the fund can absorb putting in a $60,000 >> addition that they don't already have planned for. So, that would be in something else in 2027. So, if if we find out from finance that yes, we can we can absorb that into we can add that into the cap, you know, looking at future fund balances and everything else. said, "Yeah, we can do it. >> If it can it can if it can fit with with the dollar amounts that's already been set aside, then >> we put it in." >> So, today we could as a park board agree uh to to see if we agreed to move it to a high priority and then you guys can see if you can get funding. We can't have it in the work plan because we don't know if there's funds to do it yet, but we could at least get it queued up as a high priority and and indicate we really want to pursue it. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. And they and Dave, that might also mean that if it's if it's elevated to a high priority that there's more like >> grant hunting or, you know, like alternative fund hunting that that might be going on. I don't know if that happens with staff if if something is a high priority. So, I I like the idea of us moving deciding that we're going to move this to recommending that we move this to a high priority. >> So, procedure Oh, Brad. >> Caleb, I love your advocacy. I mean, you are amazing in your thoroughess and I admire all of the comprehensive homework you've done, but I don't necessarily align to the process in which we rebalance, maybe not even balance, but don't necessarily align to all the other priorities that we're working on. And so I I wouldn't agree to raising the priority on the ADA study unless I did a contextual study of what else is in the medium range here that I would like to increase. Maybe putting park flowers in the um in the parks is something that I'd be very interested in. That's a medium-range priority. Well, maybe that's something that I'd be interested in. I don't think we should cherrypick the ADA issue without literally contextualizing the other ones that are in a different range because we've already discussed the equity issues that you're very passionate about, but I think that's taking it too far. >> Well, I I would like to second that. Also on there is park safety and climate action. And so they're just different schools of thought. What is a higher priority than the other? That's anyone's opinion, right? You have to be able to quantify that with numbers and then also what people tend to believe because how many people are necessarily needing ADA accessibility issues versus and you know is there even an alternative to that? Do we have to pay 30 to 60,000? Can we conduct a survey or any other alternative form of information gathering something a little more conservative that doesn't necessarily require so much of taxpayer money? >> And context is really important because context in the budget. Let me give you an example, Caleb. Um, I come from a family of five. One of my sisters is Down syndrome. Um, I was her guardian for 45 years. Uh, my siblings and I together went in and bought a a van that was an accessible van, but we didn't each buy a van that was an accessible van to carry my sister around to different places. That wasn't practical. It wasn't smart, and it wasn't cost-effective. It's the same thing with all of these parks, too. Not everyone is going to need to be at the level that's the highest level for the one handicapped child down the block versus the demographics of the area. So again, your advocacy is right on, but we h we have to stay in alignment with our goals and our and our and our budget. >> Well, our vision is inclusive parks. >> It's the it's the it's the second word >> of our mission and our vision statement. >> And so and that's vision. That's vision. And that's strategy that's different than tactics. There's a highly different system of looking at the tactics of saying to Darren, I want all the wood chips pulled up and let's put down soft rubber. That's tactics versus the vision of an equitable and inclusive park >> park system >> and park system. So we have we have to we have to differentiate between strategy and tactics. And I don't and I think you're conflating the two. And I think you're conflating them a lot. Well, how do you achieve your goals and strategies and your vision actual >> it's a balancing that's our job. We have to balance priorities. It's not going to be cart launch all in one broad suite. It just can't. It's just not practical. We don't have the money for it. So, it's a balancing act and that's the role of this body is to be sensible in its balance. >> I would also add I appreciate your your comments. I would also add that in my view, this is simply a piece, it's garnering a piece of information. It's helping inform us. Just like the previous item, we can't say how well we're doing without this audit. Um, >> and I'd like to know I'd like to know how well we're doing. So, that's why I was recommending that we elevate it. >> But Brad Brad's right and I appreciate him bringing that up. I mean, you could if you make the argument here, you could just as easily make it on any item on here. Um, >> but it has to go with our mission and vision. >> Flowers are not >> example, Eric's point, Eric's point about >> park resilient strategies and the CL that that that's part of our our mission and vision, too. So, >> um, >> but nobody nobody's coming forth tonight and saying, "Let's elevate that." Well, >> I'm having a discussion about what I'm interested in elevating and it can be shot down. That's fine. And if somebody else wants to have a studied discussion about their issues, let's do it. I I feel like we're including the various components of our multi-interested citizens from the different areas that are underneath our umbrella. And I feel like that the ADA components are I I think we can ask for more information from proposals from the vendors. We can find out more layers about our stuff. So, I think we can help address your concerns, but I'm comfortable with the action plan and that it covers those pieces. As far as a special project, um, you know, I I my thought before Brad spoke and and I appreciate your your voice is if we open up the ADA, are all of them up for negotiations? And I think that's just a different way of what you were kind of saying. And so that's what what my concern is uh because there are so many different special interest groups. We learned our second or I learned my second trip or my second not trip but uh >> meeting um dog owners are another large special interest group that balancing protection conservation and use is is um common. So that's where I think it's great that we represent it, but I I really feel like our our action plan will encompass that. And I believe that you're going to represent it. Um the ADA and the handicap. And I think that not only you, but again, I think I've said it before, NRPA, um, uh, you know, MRPA, Minnesota Park and Recreation, TRS, there's people who have gets degree. They're all supportive and behind you on this. It's finding the balance of the cost and the tradeoffs. So, I I'm I'm supportive for approving the work plan and our goals and strategy. You would add, you're okay with adding the evaluation of the areas of need. >> Yes. >> Yeah. It came up that one. >> So, I don't want that. >> No, I don't want to cut you off. No, I don't want to cut you off. I'm just saying I I hear what you're saying and I feel comfortable that our our action plan with that amendment um is something I would uh support moving forward because I I think we're going to adequately address your needs. And I am a big fan of being innovative. um and and cutting edge and I think our citizens like that and so we have to look at where and how it's done. I'm not sure I'm supportive of every single time um because I don't think we can afford it and our and our citizens don't typically want to pay for that on everything, but that's that's what I'm representing. >> Other board members have comments, questions. Yeah. and >> um I I'm going to speak in fa in favor of or in support of Jennifer's comment. I'm thinking about the fact that we have a limited footprint for play equipment and if you put in if everything is handicapped accessible then I think you have fewer >> things >> things >> components different components for everybody to play with and that may not be the greatest. So I think another way as a devil's advocate, another way to look at this is rather than make all the playgrounds as accessible as they can be from the kids perspective, maybe it's better to have a couple playgrounds um in different parts of the community so that they're access handy to whoever needs them. I'm I'm anticipating that a person in a wheelchair is going to be driven to the park. They're not going to be wheeling themselves to the park in most cases. Um so if it's a little bit further away, that may not be a huge thing. And that if we then pick a park that's got a bigger footprint then we can or a footprint that's easier to expand. Um we can make it very interesting with multiple play areas that are accessible rather than being able to put in only one or two in a smaller park. I would also like to add on I took a short um a short seminar on this years ago, but there was a point in American history and park development history when uh things were going the other way and things were going to become too accessible. Um and then all of a sudden you had parks with, you know, very, you know, absurd ramps that went up, you know, 10 ft high for, you know, students in wheelchairs. Uh and all it all they had at the top was maybe a slide or something. And so the whole park was dedicated towards accessibility. and it kind of impeded the enjoyment of other kids. And so I think that the goal here is finding inclusivity for everyone. Um, of course, students who have disabilities and those who do not. Um, and so I'm I'm advocating for that, but also, you know, doing it really on a needs on a case- by case basis based on the needs of the people who go to parks. um evaluating the traffic at parks because obviously bigger parks are going to have more traffic and maybe those are the ones that require um you know more thorough analysis on account of people with disabilities. But you know applying this such like a a vast um these vast goals for every park is it sustainable? um you know, it's obviously going to cause, you know, the need for more budget and for more time to develop these changes to the parks. And then is it going to impede the enjoyment of students or kids who want to, you know, have more resources at the parks um that, you know, maybe are a little more playful or a little more creative and not necessarily tailored to, uh, you know, full accessibility. So, it's again, it's a balancing act, I think. Okay. Um, >> so should >> go ahead. >> Should we clarify? You spoke in favor of including an analysis and I I thought you meant the analysis of the one of the circles. >> It was the needs >> the needs. >> Um, >> yeah. Page four. just so that everybody's page 105. >> Yeah, I think I was moving us towards um a motion um to approve um subject to or in addition to the the needs cuz I I really felt like we we had the other concerns covered >> um and we could ask for further updates um and further information from the staff to um address some of Caleb's concerns brought up today. Yeah, because Darren can Darren can give us an update >> about the parks and that's not necessarily work. Actually, it's on the work plan. >> Um, so do I hear there's a desire to have a motion around the work plan for approval with an amendment? And if so, what's that language? >> And just to be clear, it would be a motion to approve the strategic plan >> and the work plan >> and the work plan. And the changes to the work plan were >> uh in quarter three the park investment plan would move to quarter two. >> You okay with that? >> So quarter two and then in quarter two and we can look at maybe moving it up even sooner than that. What we're calling a deeper dive into the areas of need. >> Y better understanding what >> that's actually not a bad way to put it. >> Yeah. No. Okay. >> Um those words can I just ask something real quick before we tie everything up or vote? Um, I sent everybody this uh toolkit and um >> and I I um am [clears throat] just curious what you guys thought of it because last meeting I was h I was uh having a hard time articulating what I was kind of envisioning as a potential work idea for us which which is what this you know this toolkit that I sent kind of illustrates what I was trying to get at. Okay. So, it's a resource that we could craft for Minnetonka's unique parks and trail system and with the goal that that our own unique toolkit or process map would support staff and and us or future staff, future uses, uh by establishing, you know, a default inclusivity, accessibility focused approach to park planning and restoration. And so it doesn't necessarily mean that any of our final decisions are uh the default or are at that level, but it would mean that we get at least as a default that uh inclusivity and accessibility focused approach. So, I'm curious what you thought of it, including like I I was thinking page 16 and on there's like the actual numbered recommendations. And I'll just let you know and I and then I'm curious what you guys thought that I was thinking more about like number one uh which was listed as um from page 16. I'll just read it real quick because you may not have it in front of you. I'll just read the bold that number one we would consider requiring accessibility analysis of every upgrade or um you know new development at the start of the project. Um number three was another one you know engage disability communities and disability consultants with lived experience. Um, I have lived experience in this realm, but I don't want to be, as we go further down, the token, >> the token person. >> I feel sometimes that I am inclusive of this meeting, of this group. Um, and then another cool one I thought of was number five. They talked about like Google Street View or a whole bunch of photos that people uh make photos and detailed information easy to access on a variety of platforms where uh people people with different mobility uh have like they can kind of see it. They can kind of see a little bit like what does this look like? What does this trail look like? And and >> you need on an existing trail before they get there. >> Yeah. like well Street View they me you know Google Street View but also then they say well you could you if you had like a a good photo library that people would see online and >> so that was that was kind of a cool one and so these would just be kind of if we wanted to create such a toolkit in our own for our own unique you know situation that would those are some of the ones that I thought might be kind of um that we don't already have is what I'm trying to say like we we have a lot of these uh which is phenomenal. Um this the number eight use signage to educate non-disabled like >> oh yeah okay uh people don't know we want to know we want to be uh you know sensitive and so we we we say oh you can't have motor vehicles on this trail. Oh, but then there's signage that's helping me understand there's a reason that some some of the folks using these trails or whatever are on a, you know, so it's kind of like the tweak to or creating a a toolkit that might integrate some of these things that again is serves as a reference process map. >> So I don't know if any of you think that would be worthwhile this next year or what you thought of the toolkit that I gave as an example. comments. Anyone? >> Do you mind sending me that? >> Um, >> yeah, I I didn't get a good chance to look at it with it and I feel a little rushed to um commit to that. Um, and again, I'm trying to think about how we balance it. I I think we can use various resources. I'm just sure not sure I'm ready to commit. Um, my background again in parks and recreation is NRPA and um, so I I guess I don't know enough about this organization and I I don't want to add it as another requirement. Um, but I think it's information to take into consideration is where where I'm coming from. I >> I thought it was interesting to I thought it was interesting and helpful [clears throat] to read. Um, it seems to me that a lot of this was oriented towards people who are um, young and pretty strong and able to be outside as opposed to a person who's 65 and in a wheelchair because they have MS. And so I >> hand hand cycling and stuff. Yeah. Yeah. >> So it's >> well there's I mean there's this picture right that could be that 60 maybe a 50y old. >> Yeah. >> That could be [laughter] >> going to go 60 on >> that. I go ahead. Are you finished? So, I >> I if we were going to have a consultant write this for us, um that would need to be budgeted for and that would cost apparently $30 to $60,000, which is what all of the consultant things seem to be costing. Um, and maybe we'd just read this and absorb it ourselves for now. >> Um, rather than than try to make a city of Minnetonka parks version of this. I I appreciate you sending it out and I think the the the particularly helped me the the front end on some of the terminology. Um I thought that a lot of the elements where you are now and um my computer died but I I did go through and had had it open here. Um actually are are incorporated in our post plan uh process. I mean, our our terminology is a little different in places, but I think an awful lot of these points are things we've done under different terms. So, I I'm less concerned about having to need this as a new toolkit. Um, you know, there are some things like your example of if we had on the web city website, you know, more better pictorials of what they could expect when they get to the park. I I'm a big personal fan of always kind of knowing what I'm going to see when I get there. Um, but that's not a a planning tool. That's just a as Jennifer kind of said, "Hey, let's" or Ann said, "Let's think about this and incorporate our thinking." So, I think it's helpful to absorb and see how it would in influence us, but I personally don't think it it's a I think a lot of the substantive tools are things already did in the post plan. I don't know if you guys would agree from a perspective or not, >> at a high level. Yeah, >> I I agree with you, Dave. And again, this is a great I I thought it was actually quite good, Caleb. So, thank you for sending it. And I do think that, you know, it was written from a perspective and through the lens of the Oregon advocacy and disability community, which is, you know, very was very well designed. Um, but I think overall what it does is again it shows your commitment and this committee's commitment to inclusion and I don't see the need also to sort of recreate the template because I know you're going to keep us on the straight and narrow all the time and and that's something I respect, but I I don't think we need to recreate what's already been done. But it's but I liked it. I thought it was a good document. Yeah, I thought it was really informative and helped me visualize some of the things that you've been communicating. Um, I do think um some of these recommend or some recommendations should come out of an ADA audit, right? So, after you do your audit, you figure out where the problems are, then the recommendations come out and some of them some of these sound like recommendations that would come out of an ADA audit. So, hopefully if we get Yeah. something teed up in the future. Um, I would hope to seeations like this that are city specific for us. >> If we have a citywide ADA audit and there are things that are found to be not compliant, then those things that are found to be not compliant have to be fixed right away. And so we may have to spend money we weren't planning on. Um certainly we want to be compliant. Um but we might be forced to spend things on that were less of a priority that we perceive we and our friends who are disabled might, you know, might not put as a high priority. I often think about I can't help but think about the the other plans that we're working on. For instance, Big Willow Park master planning and I grab on to the elements of a document like this which is well put together. The the detailing, the slopes on trails, the surfacing on trails, those are all particulars that we can bake into the Big Willow master plan and the next master plans. we can pull elements out of this document and making sure that they're incorporated in documents that are just about to be adopted by the city. So, there are elements in here that are easy to apply and a lot of this is currently in our documents, but making sure it rises right to the surface and it's called out more appropriately. Um, I feel like we're doing a lot of this already and, you know, tooting our own horn where appropriate and realizing where we could go further. um could could be happening in the current documents we're working on >> and I would be supportive of of being innovative when we have an opportunity to do so. I think that is things that um the citizens would appreciate and um we can we can tout and attract people because of our philosophy and our approach. >> There was an element in this document trail mapping. So, we're looking at an interactive trail map and being more clear about where ADA accessibility issues lie in our park system. We certainly have a lot of funky slopes and areas of our trails that aren't ADA accessible. So, to get to that point and then have to turn back must be a really negative experience for folks. So, can we accommodate a better trail mapping system that allows our park system to be a destination for folks? Great. So, do we want to venture a motion on approving the strategic plan and the work plan with I think there were two changes. The timing of the park investment plan moving up a quarter and then um do you want to try your language, Lesie? >> Well, I called it a deeper dive into the areas of need from the post plan. >> Okay. And that would be in Q2 or sooner. >> Correct. Correct. >> Great. >> Do you want to specify the areas of need on page >> 105? >> Figure 45. >> Figure >> just >> Yeah. >> In case that language is in more more than one place. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> So I can move I'll I'll just say so moved to what you just said. >> I second. >> All right. So we can call >> um let me see. >> Okay. Uh Christie, >> uh yes. >> Hanley, >> yes. >> Lairman, >> yes. >> Schultz, >> yes. >> Samurski, >> yes. >> Uh Chair Ingraham, >> yes. >> Motion pass. >> I was I was waiting for Eric, but I remember not good ination over here. certainly are um eligible for it. >> So now we're on to 7C Opus Area improvements. >> Thank you. >> Matt, >> so the Opus area is a has an interesting history in the city of Minnetonka. So back in the 70s, there was a vision for a mixeduse development. So a spot with higher density housing and commercial uh sort of a business park. It was um a bit of modern futurism if you will. Um since that time, that area, the city has changed quite a bit. Some big companies have moved out of that area, but there are a lot of new housing opportunities in that area and with the light rail really changing the characteristic of that part of the city. Um we are looking to do some improvements. Um it was ahead of its time in terms of its trail layout and development. The planners of this original um area of the city laid out a multimodal trail system amongst the houses. Um nobody's allowed to complain about the one-way road system. >> Terrible road system. >> There's lots of biking opportunities. Those go both directions. >> Um so back in 2019 before I got to the city, we created an Opus area placemaking and urban design implementation guide. Um this looked to emphasize what makes o opus unique in terms of its placemaking and we identified some um lowerhanging fruit in terms of um enhancing that multimodal trail network through that area that includes uh wayfinding and lighting which I'll I'll discuss briefly here. Um and then I'll get into an overall um status of the park planning in the in the open space plan adjacent to the light rail. So, Opus Wayfinding, we are looking at um a wayfinding signage suite with a variety of signs. Um there will be a sign hierarchy at key intersections throughout that trail network. Um this will allow for folks walking or biking to make quick decisions on on major um intersections of where they're trying to get to. Are you trying to get to light rail? Are you trying to get towards 169 and Nina? You trying to get to the business district on Shady Oak? So modern, clean, easy to read, accessible QR codes to online uh mapping um available and then modern materials selected for longevity. So we're working with a company called Whitney Vegas. They're a wayfinding company. It's a special consultancy. They do a lot of uh things like airport wayfinding, how you get around in terminals. So they they've been helping us figure out how many signs, what types of signs, and how do you visually um coordinate that. So we did some branding for the Opus area, sort of a uh you know, a placemaking style. What what what is distinct about Opus? It's really clear when you're in there that there's a sort of distinct nature to it. So have some um city brand manual consistency while having the sort of unique logo of the Opus area so you sort of know when you're in that area at a glance. Matt, just a quick question. This is the story. Wasn't it originally designed to be the rings of the Olympic? >> Yeah. So, that was inspirational. There were trail loops and the street loops. So, the names are Red Circle Drive, Green Circle Drive, but in the mapping. So, this is that area. You really can't see that anymore. There were big loops that came through this area. It didn't really work out based on the >> But I like your look. >> Yeah, it look right there. The second one is an Olympic ring. >> Yeah. So, I look forward to the the Olympic the Olympic Committee issuing a cease and desist. >> I was going to say there, right? >> I love it. >> We're doing that the black one. So, it's sort of evocative without being too on the nose. >> Um, so we are currently detailing where the signs will go, how many we need of each type sign. Um, we're looking to bid and fabricate these signs over the winter and early next spring and they'll start to be rolled out next year. Yes. An >> Are you is this at a point where I can talk about signs specifically? >> Yes. >> Okay. Sure. So, if if a person is are these um where are these some of these on the bike trail on the paved trails? >> They're all on along the trails. So, it's trail specific. They're not all roads. >> If you're in a wheelchair >> and you're on the trail, the ones that are 9 ft tall might not be very convenient. >> The arrows. >> Yeah. And the the one that's at eye level to the six foot tall guy. >> Yep. The larger sign one. >> Yeah. So I I just I don't know whether there are people in who use wheelchairs who live there, but they might. And it taking the light rail >> in a wheelchair is pretty convenient. >> Yep. Yep. Yep. >> So >> yeah, >> let's just make sure everybody can see them. >> Absolutely. I will bring that up to the consultant. Yes, those the larger map sign is tall. And >> where would those go? They're so tall. >> Some key areas. So, generally they're block the trail a little bit. Yeah. And they're up on the platform near the light rail station and and sort of at those key intersections, >> but they all need to be cited. And what type of sign goes where is still being determined. >> The taller signs are anticipating like there's people in front of you. So, it has to be high so that people can see them. >> You need to step off the trail to see it. You're taking a close look like as if you're walking the trail system at a park or something like that. >> Okay. Well, while we're on this one, just to help us all because we I think the light rail station is anticipated right right there. Yeah, that's what I thought. Okay. Yeah. >> And then there will there be I think I heard you say that there would be signs that would direct you to if you're trying to get to >> the restaurants on Shady Oak Road that you can see which direction to go. >> Correct. >> Okay. >> So, it is very labyrinth like when you're there. you lose track of what when you're on the trail, am I still heading east or north cuz they they swerve. So having this sort of color coding, so orange would always point you out towards Shady Oak or blue would point you towards the blue circle, that complex street >> and also signs that would point you towards the other regional trail. >> Yes. So that's So we've decided on some destinations. So the 9mm Creek Regional Trail in the northwest corner here would be a destination. We know it's always going to be there. We we didn't point to United Health for obvious reasons, you know, >> um things like that. So there are some major commercial hubs. So we'll say Shady Oak restaurants or something to that effect >> and major intersections to just >> and >> Hopkins downtown that sort of you know decision- making about regional destinations. Some people will be using their phones and that's I mean when I first ventured into Opus these weren't a thing. >> Yep. >> And so you couldn't follow Google Maps or >> Apple or what? >> I was driving. >> Oh, that's worse. >> It is lost in there. >> My mom worked in there as a 16-year-old. That was >> it was quite frightening. >> I made I've still made it. Yeah. Many circles. >> Great place to test tires though. But it >> early Saturday mornings. >> I love the idea that you can that there's so much that's off road because there are people who don't are afraid to ride on the road. So it's great. >> Yep. >> Yeah. >> So making it easy at a glance and we expect people, you know, over time to move there for the trail system knowing that it's an exercise multimodal um transportation opportunity. So that visual language following through and being somewhat timeless. The next thing we're planning is trail lighting. So from a safety and access standpoint, we have a lot of cold um dark nights in Minnesota. So lighting um we're doing a feasibility report. We're working with an engineer now to design um the actual light standard itself to cost those out to figure out how far they need to be from one another based on um a phototric analysis where what lights how they function, how much of the trail they end up um lighting up, how far apart do they need to be spaced to accomplish that sense of safety without causing light pollution and some of those other concerns. Um, we're also considering just material longevity of the lighting and it ends up being a fairly expensive project obviously. Um, so we're in preliminary engineering at this point. >> The um I heard a lecture about uh insect decline and that lights at night are one of the factors and recommending using yellow lights. I have no idea whether yellow lights are acceptable in a from a public safety standpoint, but that would be cool as assuming they can be LED lights. I don't know. The initial report from the engineering consultant will look at a variety of options and we're we're asking for the everything available in terms of um you know reducing light pollution, reducing impacts to wildlife would be on their list too. >> Could they pop on when somebody's approaching and then turn off? We'll get some costs on solar for sure, but um we haven't discussed that at this point. There's the concern is more equipment out there, more things that can fail and um balancing the lack of maintenance at times and and making sure it lasts. >> Yeah. >> So, most of our trails are not lit. I'm thinking about our whole trail system. Sidewalks are, but not trails. So, how are you prioritizing what you're going to light? Well, we know for instance at Opus there's a lot of tunnels, right? And we know areas around the light rail where there's more traffic and more concerns from a safety standpoint at times. Um so we're that that's weighing into the decision making. >> And these are almost more like sidewalks than trails. >> Yeah. >> There and there is an existing lighting system there now. It's just very old wood poles are went from this. They're kind of doing this and the fixtures are old. It's an old It's a very old bindot lighting system. Does the 480 volt two-wire thing that apparently don't doesn't get used anymore. So, it's already lit. So, that's what we're looking at. We're not picking one that we've never had lights before. It's replacing an existing lighting system probably. >> So, so the the utilities exist already. They or does that need to be redone? >> Yeah, that's all it's all wire. It's direct vary. So they back in the day they just plowed the wire in the ground. So if there anything happened to it, you have to dig up the wire. Now everything is put in conduit. So if you have bad wire, you can pull that old wire away, slide the new wire in, not have to dig it all up, all that. Or even, you know, like Matt mentioned, considering, you know, looking at the feasibility of solar, we don't need any wiring. So we'll see what all that all plays out. >> Tough in our winners. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> That be sustainable. >> Technology has come a long way. So, we'll we'll see all those costs and we'll assess based on the feasibility report. >> Matt, will there be any safety sort of buttons anywhere considering you said there's tunnels and questioning the safety of that because it's a big looping area. Um, >> good point. We haven't talked about this in this in this particular lighting analysis, but we do work closely with our public safety folks and um >> I don't know where that button goes to when I look at the other maybe it goes to a 911. I but but I think it does provide some semblance of you know of of people feeling a little more safe. >> Yeah, we've heard that >> right >> like the blue >> the blue or red whatever >> the button if there's an emergency. >> We've just got some comments on the big willow survey. I just saw that today that folks um asking about those requesting them. So um we generally defer to our public safety and police folks on those but um it's worth considering. Sure. >> If you have to put in electricity anyway, maybe at least allow for it to be added. >> Yep. Absolutely. >> I think for the next generation, safety um is a really key component. Looking at our our representative, [clears throat] >> what this is tied in uh to one of my questions is it it's looked like it was a Henipin County joint project. Are they contributing any funding? >> No, I mean they're involved with the features, right? Well, not Hannah County, but that council around the light rail, but no Hannah County involved at all. >> Okay. There was just their logo was on one of the earlier slides on the plan >> because the Shady Oak is a county road. >> Oh, >> so they'd be they'd be involved in the path path bike trails along there. They were considered a partner during that opus area planning document >> installation, but we have the cost. >> This may sound too cynical, but uh is it ever done where signage is sponsored by some companies? >> Um you know this this you're going to head this way to the to go to have where the restaurants are uh sponsored by Yum. >> Yeah. Yeah. [laughter] >> We all love Yum. I mean, >> it hasn't come up before, but I mean, I see commercial partnerships in Minneapolis. >> I do, too. Yeah. >> I did ask about Yeah. Especially for some of those locations. [cough and clears throat] >> For for the signage, it's going that direction. I think someone would maybe want to pay for that >> scoreboard, >> right? >> The signage is designed so that the elements are swappable relatively easily. new directions that we'd want to point or replacing signs that got vandalized. >> Maybe a cost offset. >> Yeah. >> So, a bunch of a bunch of lights everywhere. We're figuring out where they need to go, how far they need to go apart. Um so, we're looking to bid again um late winter, spring, and start to install these lights late late next year. And finally, the Opus Public Space. So, in 2023, we got a grant from the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development, DED, for $725,000 for land acquisition, pre-esign and design of a public space adjacent to the light rail stop. Um, we've described it in that grant document as a linear plaza with a variety of public park amenities, traditional um sort of public plaza type features. um in late last year, September 23rd, the council approved that resolation resolution authorizing the execution of that money. So, we're starting to plan for using that money to design this parcel. So, this is where a site the the building on that location now is called the Minneapolis Mart. >> So, here's that site. Here's the light rail station right here. So, a developer owns this whole parcel. Now, we are going to be performing pre-esign to get ahead of what they're planning for this site. They don't really know what they're planning yet. They we do know that they're going to owe us some land based on their redevelopment of this site. If they were to redevelop this site, they have to provide open space to the public. >> Um, so we would get a portion of this land. We've seen previous >> uh we would have to buy some we would get some of it, but They would, but we it would be worth more than they would owe us. So, we would have to buy. >> You're not talking about developing the whole area. >> So, we wouldn't get the whole area as a park. So, for instance, [clears throat] here's these are renderings that we received from the developer last year. So, here's the light rail station. >> They would develop on north and south. Here's the light rail station here. We would get sort some sort of linear park space >> in the middle of this parcel and then they would redevelop the rest of it >> so everybody gets access to the lake. >> That's the idea. Yeah, there are a lot of aspects of this park design to be figured out. So we're in the high level what we call pre-esign or conceptual phase. So >> how big is that space? >> It's about four to five acres. >> Okay. >> The whole parcel >> our component. No, the whole parcel is 19.85 acres. >> Our bit would be about a third of that along that map just to >> uh way down over here across 62. >> Okay. >> Shady Oak Yum is right over there on the left. >> I'm going [laughter] to have a meeting there. >> It's amazing how much development's gone in there. >> Yes. And that this site in such a premium location is still sitting in this state. Yeah, >> the building is still used. It's a wholesale merchandise facility, so it's not open to the public. >> Um, >> the developers sort of waiting to see what happens with the light rail opening. Yes. >> Yep. And we've gotten versions of their concepts. Our goal now is to create our version of the concept to bring them back to the table to start talking through this land transfer and what our acquisition could look like. and our our public or what do we call our development group? What what are we called? >> Community development. >> Community development. They would have to approve anything they do. Correct. >> Yes. We're working very closely with them. >> Good. >> So, how much of this is affordable housing? How much is um you know the how many units the the typical planning? Yeah. How tall? all those things that we need them to go through our process with that'll they'll have to come to the table when we're talking park as well. >> Would their plan typically include a park as part of the their portion and are they looking to do a portion donated to >> the city? I I just I park so yes. Yeah, but I've just heard some feedbacks about people not really crazy about the Ridgel Commons acquisition. And so I'm being sensitive to the feedback of people that I've heard finding out if there's some compensating factors the land dedication to the >> Yeah. So there's, and I'm not in the weeds too deeply on this, but this we would get park dedication fees if the developer was to build out the site in a certain way that wasn't available for the public. How much money that is is dependent on their their development, what they're spending on it. And then the value of that land, what we would have to pay to buy our chunk versus what they would contribute in terms of park dedication fees. It's sort of all up in the air. It depends a lot on what they plan on developing. >> Mhm. >> So Ridgedale Commons got a bunch of park dedication fees because of that. the >> two apartment buildings nearby >> the redstone >> and it was a tough spot to to use that park dedication fee nearby. The point of it is folks end up living there have a public amenity nearby, right? >> And it's often tough >> and isn't I think one of the issues that t public tends to react to is they think they paid for that property taxes, >> right? >> And it's not. >> It's park dedication fees for the most part. >> Yeah. And that that's good because that's good information we can share and educate others with. That's kind of where I'm >> kind of um want to make sure that we can be communicate that out. >> Mhm. >> And 725,000 from deed state monies, >> but that's for the design and >> that's for a design and land acquisition, but it won't cover every it won't cover. >> That would be nice if it happens. >> Yes. >> When it happens, if it happens, whatever. So do >> it's kind of like light. >> What is land going for an acre in there? [snorts] >> We don't want to know. >> It's tough to say. >> Okay. >> It's a lot. >> You get highest and best use which really um commercial it's the most expensive per acre. >> There's some factors related to Boston Scientific and United Health leaving. There's big vacancies there. What does that mean for the potential development? I think that's why the developer is sort of waiting a little bit to see how that plays out. If they were to build a big new mixeduse office housing, what are the demands there without the light rail open yet? There's some question marks and we're sort of in this holding pattern as well. >> And are there any covenants on how the land is used um as far as the redevelopment goes? just that if they were, for instance, if they were to build housing, there's a certain percentage of affordable housing that would be required. Other planning requirements. >> Okay. Developers don't usually like any incumbrances or covenants on the land, so they can do what they want. >> I've just heard secondhand that there were when it was first developed, the person who sold the land had some requirements. I don't know whether that was a covenant or that was just a deal with that first developer. >> Yeah, not sure. I haven't heard. >> Um so we are going to um go out for an RFQ to consultants to do planning for this space um over the winter here. I have a lot of interest from the the consultants in the area about this parcel and how exciting of an opportunity it is from a design standpoint. Um, so we'll be hosting consultants and having them present their best ideas to us um, later this winter and then use that to negotiate with the land owner about what they plan on doing with the site and how we can play a part in that and improving this area of the city for the folks that live there now and the folks that will be moving into the area and using the light rail to commute and for their quality of life in the future. So, a lot happening. Um, the idea is final public space master plan. So sort of that high level would be available um late next year. So around this time next year, we'd have a highle vision of um a public space master plan and hopefully at that point a general sense of what the developer is planning. >> This whole um public space big linear park is that um parking lot now >> it's mixed of half building half parking lot. >> Okay. So it's all impervious pretty much. >> Yeah. Oh yeah. Okay, >> it's all impervious. >> Um, I noticed that the looked like there was lots of concrete involved in that plan and I I would love it if there could be some permeable sections. >> Absolutely. So, we've I've talked to the watershed district about opportunities here for demonstration. All our park design mission goals could be, you know, focused in on at this park. you know, how are we creating pollinator habitat? How are we getting people in a big urban plaza for food trucks? >> Um, >> and I I know that grass isn't good for wheelchairs, so I'm not saying it should be all grass, but um yeah, >> that's the fun part. That's the park design process. here. >> These images are from the original um 2019 Opus planning document verse um what the developer had sent more recently. So couple iterations floating out there, but that's that's part of our process. >> Hey Matt, will the consultant presentations um be to us or to staff? >> Staff. So that's us selecting the consultant essentially. Mhm. Can Can we Can we peek in? Can we be invited >> or is it is it not allowed? >> I don't know. I don't know. I'd >> promise to be quiet. >> That's a staff That's a staff item. >> Yeah. >> I don't know. I've never heard of any city leaders sitting in any meeting like that before. >> Okay. >> I'm happy to report back. I mean I I think it'd be fun to hear a pit hear these pitches. >> The coolest part of my job. >> I think it'd be very fun. Yeah. So I if it's on option >> uh there are proposals >> so they do have to send in >> Yeah. >> formal proposals which technically are public documents. >> That's true. >> Um and I know we've released them in the past usually after we secure a consultant and then we'll release people ask because it's then finalized. But they are considered public documents. So the actual proposals could be shared as well. >> Can you go back one slide just for? Yeah. So is the light rail going through the park? >> No, it's on the west side. >> Okay. What's that going through the park? That No, no. The other way that thing. Yeah. What's that? >> So we know we have circulation pickup and drop off around the light rail. We don't have it figured out, but we know we need some sort of additional road there. Yeah. >> Okay, that's what I was looking for. >> And that's from our engineers in community development. This is very high level. We'll have to study that further, but we know there are significant issues around pickup and drop off around the light rail and the road network that you would force people to >> one way still. >> Yeah. >> Oh, great. What about and so is the park uh does that go through the park or is the park just to the right of it? >> It would be on both sides. >> It is on both sides. Okay. >> In this concept. So this concept actually has a feature where there's like a land form that rises up and when you're standing over here the road's like underneath you. So you'd look out across. >> Oh, okay. >> So there are ways to sort of obscure that and not have a road straight through the middle. If you think about the park adjacent to the Vikings stadium and the way the light rail comes through there and how much space it takes up, >> I'd want to avoid that. There are challenges of course, but >> so going to iconic, >> we could put we could put our bean here. >> We could put the bean >> the Minnotonka bean. Yeah, >> I like that idea. >> Mini bean >> or like a snow >> or cattail. That's called the cloud gate, by the way. The actual sculpture. >> Oh, is that right? >> Why is it called the beam? >> Because Because it looks like a beam. >> Of course. Why is it called cloud gate? >> I don't know. >> Artist signed up. >> Yeah. Okay. Moving right along. >> I >> Oh, anyway, >> a couple more. Okay. So, if I don't know if I would put it would request that you put it in right away, but to assess how many people are bicycling to and from the light rail and maybe offer some more secure park bike parking. >> Absolutely. >> Um, Metro Transit used to have and they've taken them all out. I don't know why. They had these little bike garages. rent them for $75 a year and it was had a nice lock and you just push your bike in there and close the door and nobody can see it and it's feels pretty safe. I I'm not sure they're needed, but one of my concerns about biking someplace and leaving my bike all day, my kind of expensive bike. >> Yeah, you have a nice bike. >> I you know I it's creepy. Mhm. >> So >> through even this initial pre-esign concept phase, we are going to be doing outreach to all the especially the new folks that moved into this area, know the light rails coming down the line. We're promising them a public space in the near future. What do they want in that space and get a better sense of how many people are actually going to be bike commuting to the light rail, right? >> Okay. Uh yeah, I think I had something else but I can't remember now. So I'll hit you later. >> Sure. You know where to find me. >> Is that it on the opus? Any other questions, comments? >> That's it. Questions? Comments? >> Great. >> Thank you. >> Be interesting. >> What's the timing? What's the latest thinking again on the thing actually running with people on it? >> Late 27. I heard >> late 27. They're testing it now. >> Yeah, >> everybody laughs. >> Thank you, Matt. Now, we're on to number eight. Um, reports from staff. >> Yes. Thank you, Chair Ingraham. Um, we have one information item from staff. So, I will turn it over to Darren to talk about Glen Lake hockey lights. Yeah, what's in the report is pretty much what it is I have to say. But yeah, we have uh money in the CIP to replace the hockey lights at Glen Lake Elementary School. There's two rinks at that >> location and the old wood poles are I call them spaghetti nules are now gone. The the new concrete bases are in. We're finishing up the fabrication of the poles right now. The lights are in, so they'll be up and operational by the time kids are ready to skate. Great. Which is like tomorrow. >> It's looking like a really good skating season this year. >> Potentially. >> Potentially. >> My grandsons will be happy. Thank you. >> Okay. Uh upcoming meeting schedule. >> Uh is there a report from park board members? >> That's after upcoming meeting schedule. >> Okay, never mind. Um so I will if you can bring up the schedule. So, we had two items that were uh sk originally scheduled for December. We're moving to January. So, the Graves Bay Marina operations update and the 2025 athletic field summary will be um in January. Uh in February, um there will be chair and vice chair appointments need to be made. So, start thinking about that. Uh and then also the Big Willow master plan and Culla Nature Preserve master plans. Um we're scheduled to bring those back to you for additional well for Big Willow it would be would it be a full plan? >> Yeah. >> Full full draft pile that you guys get to see. >> Um and then the Cullen Nature Preserve is the final plan and those we would be looking for for Cullen. That would be a recommendation to the go to the council for final adoption. >> Quick. >> Go ahead. I was just going to ask how much in advance of our meeting do we get those plans? Um so that we could have some time like 3 4 days maybe a week before that we could look at them so we can come prepared. >> Yeah. I mean they go out in the packet typically we send the packet out obviously Friday morning. Okay. We could try to do it earlier if that would be helpful. >> Well for instance the big willow draft master plan will go out to the public for open comment and feedback and that I like to have these meetings in the middle of that period. So it'll be out to the public two two weeks before your meeting. >> Yes, that reminds me. So it will be on Minnotonka man. It is actually on Minnitanka manage. There's a project page. >> So if you go there, you'll get you'll see the updates and that final draft plan. So that's a good point. >> Would it be possible for us to get an email with a link? It's sometimes a little hard to find things. Although I'm getting better, but >> yeah, I know what you mean. There's you get in there and you have to really dig around sometimes. Minnotonka Matters is really great for just adding your email and you could add your parkboard email to just get a quick update. So whenever I update Minnotonka Matters, it blasts out to everybody that submitted their emails. >> Oh, no matter what project, you don't have to do it project by project. >> You do need to do it project by project. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Uh okay. And then in March, we are scheduled to hear from the Three Rivers Park District and the Bryant Lake Trail. Uh and then also having an update on natural resources um our division or activities and education and outreach work that we do. Uh and then in May, so in April, we don't meet and in May we're scheduled for the Glen Lake Park Plan. So those are upcoming business items subject to change. And then I'll turn it over to Sarah about upcoming activities. >> Yeah. So, the this coming weekend, we actually have light up the Commons on Saturday at Ridgdale Commons. Um, sauna in the park is ongoing. If you're interested in that, they they fill up quick. So, I I would encourage you to try it. I've done it once. I'm going to do it in a couple weeks again. It's quite the experience to get in the lake when it's this cold. So, give it a try. Um, and then we've got our winter market, like our winter farmers market, which will be in inside the community center on December 13th. And then the Yeti hunt, which we've had the last several winters, is kind of on your own time, um starts December 20th to January 4th. And that will be I think um you start at the community center and take the boardwalk over to Jadana and do your hunting there. >> I live in that neighborhood and the kids in the neighborhood love that by the way. Yeah, >> it's really fun. >> People love the Yeti hunt. >> Yeah, we get really positive feedback. >> It's great. Uh just a qu curiosity again. Uh Three Rivers Bryant, what's their W timing? They're thinking how far out is that? >> 27. >> 27. Okay, thanks. >> Um >> 28. Yeah, there's multiple phases. It's it's a ways out. >> Okay. >> What time is the light? >> Everything's 27. So now we can go to park board member reports number nine. Any anyone have any reports? >> Caleb. >> Um I had the pleasure yesterday to go to the Cullen Nature Preserve with the friends of Cullen Nature Preserve and they were very friendly if you can believe it. >> They're [clears throat] very friendly friends and uh we had a nice walkabout and uh it was just awesome. It was lovely to see. It was lovely to see like, you know, the degree of restoration that they've undertaken because you have direct comparisons uh in like the the owned segments uh the homeowner segments that demonstrate what it looked like before they did all this work. And it's just like the amount of like sweat equity that they that this crew um and their friends have put into it was just uh awesome. And so I really appreciated that. Um we were able to walk a fair amount, you know, I mean it was a little treacherous with the snow and and all that, but um I did [clears throat] my best. And um we uh we also were able to kind of like vi vision out some things like vision out a more expansive uh accessibility trail than was originally designed and we already talked about that in our first review. We we also kind of had this vision of there's two marsh segments >> that the city owns >> uh but they're not it's not technically part of the Colon Smith group or you know land. And so we thought, well, well, we have to make sure or why not make sure they're integrated together in this full full plan as opposed to a master plan. And then oh, and then we got these two marsh segments just exactly adjacent. Uh we talked about West uh Westwood Westwood Hills. >> Um so so that park and how >> St. Louis Park >> in St. Louis Park. Yeah. And so for people who've been there, it's a there's a lot of similarities that we were I was kind of commenting on because uh that runs along 394 and this will run along or you know you have 494, but then they do some nice like boardwalking to a a kind of a cross area where then you're back on land. So we were talking about that vision and is there additional land space either the mindot space or uh others that expand our loop expand a loop potential for people and get them even further into the marsh. Um so so anyway those were some of the like highlights that we we discussed. Um, and it just remains a remarkable opportunity that uh I'm excited to see our our final plan in a few months. Anyone else? Uh, [sighs] well, I just would say I want to just uh uh again welcome Eric on board. He made some nice contributions tonight, too. So, you know, you raised the bar of expectation, so just keep it up. Um, and I want to thank I thought we've had uh it was I thought we had some really good discussion and dialogue tonight by all the board members. And I want to appreciate everyone's uh contributions. And with that, does anyone have another motion? >> A motion to adjourn. >> I'll second. >> Okay. >> Who was it? Which one? I >> Katie. Okay. >> Katie. Katie together first. >> All right. >> Great. We're all >> in favor say >> I miss you guys. >> [music] [music]