Additionally, I believe the meeting that we have in November is am I right? It's the day after the election. >> We Is that as wise as we might have previously thought?

Also November 5th is the day that generally [snorts] the caucuses meet and have their meetings for the new members who have just been elected. They'll have a full day of orientation. So, that week may be difficult um for new members and members of this committee.

We cannot move forward with this. and and I will be honest uh and apply a little bit of bluntness that only Representative Cleorne can appreciate having seen it on every day that ends in Y in our committee. We can't get ahead of the money part.

The optics of letting people go from the state of Minnesota while we're standing up a brand new, possibly expensive park, it it's it's a bad look.

I will say one of the nice things about what we're doing is we're making recommendations to the legislature. our our charge is come up with recommendations that will provide clarity is uh for if we for creating the park is what the responsibilities are making sure that they're clear across the board what the programming is and one of the things is recommendations about establishing maintaining uh and funding for anything that might be going future.

Our ina rent appropriation is scheduled to go down in fiscal year 28 and 29. So any potential state park would need a new appropriation to implement and maintain. Uh the funding cannot be one time. It would need to be ongoing funding to properly maintain the space.

As a state park is being discussed, we would ask that you consider keeping the jur jurisdiction management responsibility responsibilities as they are today rather than adding additional entities with jurisdiction on this space.

We would certainly be comfortable removing the parking lots and would be our preference from the um boundary on that the southern lower part of the lower mall. And for lot Q up in the C Gilbert Park in that top right hand corner of the paper here. We would certainly also prefer that to be excluded from the original boundaries uh just for the potential of future use and how that would be could be used in different ways um either development or a design of a different matter.

It was uh Mr. chair. It was kind of a blend, but the visitors center and bus parking were more in where the parking lot currently is in the G1 zone on this black and white map and the playground and other amenities like uh you know um were on the hillside and kind of up where it's flat where the alley of trees go out to the um overlook.

I just wanted to point out if if they're in or they're out, uh both all of those parking lots down there are zoned G2, which is public open space. And in our rules around that zoning, it all surface parking lots down there are supposed to be interim. So ultimately, again, long-term 20, 30, 40 years, they would be transitioned to green space.

The one thing that I just I want to put out there is the the map is depicting the tribal flag plaza to be included in the park boundary. And I don't know, maybe Eric or Jess or I'm not sure what the the conversations with our tribal partners have been and I'm wondering if we should reach out to Mak or somebody to see if they're comfortable including that into the state park boundaries or maybe somebody knows more than that. But I just wanted to bring that to the group's attention.