starting from um calling this uh March 16th meeting of the Lake Elmo Parks Commission to order. Um, can let's do the pledge of allegiance first. >> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Can I get a motion to approve um the meeting minutes? The agenda. >> I move to approve the uh agenda for tonight's meeting. >> Is there a second? >> I'll second that. >> All in favor? >> Any oppose? All right. Thank you. Um, next I hope folks have had a chance to look at the minutes from the February meeting. Um, and are there I if anyone notices any changes, um, please let me know. Um, or else can I have a motion to accept the meetings the minutes from February? Have a motion to accept the February 18th, 2026 minutes. >> Is there a second? >> I'll second. >> All in favor? >> I. >> Any oppose? Great. Motion carried. Next, we have the uh sustainability update. >> All right. Hello, commissioners. Um before we get started uh I wanted to take a second to introduce myself uh as I haven't presented uh in front of you guys tonight or previously. Um I've worked with the planning department for the past two years. Uh my name is Ashley. Uh I mostly liazison between EDA and planning commission but um I see some of the sustainability stuff as overlapping with parks. So um I've recently have expanded my scope of work to include supporting and coordinating on sustain sustainability initiatives. Um and yeah like I said that touches on each commission. So which with that uh I'll get into the presentation starting with uh green steps. Well first of all the city participates in green steps program or green step green steps cities and gold leaf programming. Um, so first I'll outline those programs, just give a little refresh, and then after that I can go over some of the updates that that we've had over the last year. Um, so starting with green steps, this is a voluntary challenge assistance and recogni recognition program put out by the MPCA for city's reporting on sust sustainability and quality of life goals. Uh the pro the program lays out 29 best practices which each provide required and recommended actions high level at a continuous uh improvement program based on dozens of sustainability best practices. So 54% of Minnesota's population uh participates in green cities uh from cities that are large like St. Paul to cities that are really tiny with uh 250 or so residents like Huitt Minnesota. The city of Lake Elmo joined the program in 2012. We have completed at least three 13 practice best practice actions out of 29. Uh there are five steps to achieve uh to to achieve and maintain in this program. We are currently at step five. Uh it's in the planning commission's work plan to that staff continue to work on uh these programs to maintain steps four and five and 26. To maintain the step five status, the city needs to continue measuring and tracking sustainability metrics. So this slide has categories for best practices listed. There are 181 possible actions within 29 best practice action items. Uh the program is actually very detailed and there are many many areas to zoom in and out of. But uh to put it really simply, there are five steps to achieve and maintain. Uh the first is to pass a resolution. That's what we did in 2012 uh to join the the program. Uh steps two and three are related to reporting those best pra practice action items and four and five are about uh tracking and improving metrics. So that's that's where we are now. So I'll move on to the gold leaf program. At the beginning of the month, you might have seen that uh Kristen Morose presented with presented city the city with a gold leaf award uh for participating in the gold leaf uh program. The gold leaf challenge uses greenep program as a guide to providing resources. You can kind of view it as a sister program to greenep cities. So, Gold Leaf is focused on taking new actions that address climate change while Greenstep recognizes past and current actions more broadly across sustainability. Uh, Gold Leaf programs encourage cities to keep engaging in climate goals and GreenStep encourages cities to track metrics. So, there are 44 gold leaf actions across four categories. Um, as the gold leaf director stated at her presentation to council, this table is not intended to be a checklist. It's more of a menu of options uh that the city can use to identify actions that staff can prioritize. Each action includes considerations for different types of communities and instructions on how often it can be awarded. We have been using this as a framework for our green steps uh or our green team work plan. So the the city received the award because we completed two action two action items last last year. uh one was for collaborating with Washington Conservation District on their tree stewards program and the other was for creating a green team. So you can find out about both um programs more thoroughly on the city website or you can reach out with questions to me. So next I'll pivot to some of those sustainability updates starting with the Lake Elmo green team. Uh the green team is a group of city staff that meet quarterly to identify and document ongoing and new efforts. Um we coordinate across departments. So there's folks from planning, finance, public works, admin and fire. So by organizing tracking this work now, the team is building a better uh picture of existing progress and this will allow us to set more focused achievable goals in the future. So, as we just saw, the gold leaf uh on the similar slide, uh the gold leaf program has 44 action items. The the um items circled in green are the ones that we we completed last year, and the ones in red are on our work plan for 2026. So, in your packet, you can find the green team work plan. I won't get into the nitty-gritty details now, but uh broadly it's focused on gold leaf gold or green steps and then um participating in a water impact challenge. Um and that's kind of to be determined right now, but that's part of the green steps program. So now you have a better idea of the team and both programs and we can get into some of the the recent updates. Um starting with fuel cloud. This was uh a software that was implemented uh to track fuel inventory in city fleet. This is helping the city established baseline metrics for greenhouse gas emissions um and can help track fuel costs as well. Next is the lowinput grass testing. Um, I'm sure most of you or some of you have heard that the U of M have began uh researching low input grass species in Lake Elma with a goal that if the the grass is successful, it could be used for water conservation and use we could use less fertilizer in the future. Um, and we can learn more we'll learn more about that study in the fall. Um, next is the East Metro Water Resource Education Program, MREP. Um the city strengthened our partnership with them last year and that's when we coordinated on the tree stewards volunteer program and we plan to continue to do that work into 26. Um they also offer a water stewards program. I think they're doing their first sug now and then uh we aim to to join them in the fall of 26 as well. A couple of water related items. Um the city participates with uh in partnership with the MAC council and offers a rebate program for purchases of eligible uh water efficient products. Uh we also put out a water brochure and report for the first time in 2025 uh that has information about water restrictions and water conservation tips. The city plans to continue to to beef up those materials and send them out in 26. Um next highlighted is the Washington County recycling grant. The city has received funding for um improved communications uh website, newsletter, socials, and last year we also helped promote the North Environmental Center in Forest Lake. Uh we also did a pro uh project with reusable totes that were made out of recycling materials in each bag. Um we did a giveaway at National Night Out uh that had a going green guide, composting guide, and other green materials. Uh, and we plan to continue to use those at at other city events. Uh, we participated in pumpkin composting last year and we had the the most pumpkin compost by weight in Washington County. So, that was exciting. Um, sorry. Uh, we also applied for funding in 2026 and we um plan to use some of the funding this year if we're approved for uh new recycling bins at city parks. um continue to do that communication those communication efforts and then also um hopefully do some sort of recycling event to be determined maybe a fix it clinic or or something like that. Uh next we can talk about trees. Uh in 2025 the city is expected to receive the Tree City USA status. Again I think this is uh the 20th year that the city has received tree USA uh status. Um we distribute about 500 trees at Arbor Day giveaway. This year, Arbor Day is on 425. Uh in 2026, we're looking to to gain the tree city growth award. Um and that is the for for growing the tree canopy. Um some of that work is is related to the tree fund which we established last year. That's a dedicated established um fund for tree replacement throughout the city. Um with that fund, we created the Boulevard Tree Program. We just closed the window for um applications for trees on the boulevard or rightway. Um but that's a new pilot program that we're doing in 2026 and that's to provide uh street trees to residents who lack trees in the rightway. And finally, I just want to note that the city is updating the comp plan uh in the next couple of years. And with that, uh local governments are required to plan for climate change as part of their comp comprehensive plan. And the city of Lake uh will begin its work to meet the requirements of Met Council this year. into next year. And if you want want any more uh information on some of these sustainability efforts, uh Kathy, the communications coordinator, and I try to keep a a maintained uh sustainability page, but some of this stuff is um pretty detailed and I'm happy to talk about it with with whoever and um feel free to shoot me an email. But with that, you can I can leave room for any questions if you have them. >> Thanks. Great. Thank you. >> Just one question. Some of these goals um seem um like timebased and some seem to go on forever. >> So is there of the ones that are timebased? Are is there a time frame for that >> on the specifically to the work plan or just the goals >> plan items? >> Yeah, that's a good question. Um our goal since this is our first year, we're we're trying to take the ones that we think that we can achieve in the ne in the year or two, >> right? >> Um so on your on the work plan, >> those are ones that we're trying to achieve in 2026, I ideally I would love to to incorporate larger goals that we can do over time, but since we're kind of getting our feet wet with this with this program, especially because Gold Leaf is uh it's a newer program itself too. >> Yeah. Eventually, I think those >> and coordinating with the budget and all that stuff. >> Yep. And I think those goals will will um they won't take a year to your point. They they'll take longer than a year to achieve. >> Thank you. >> Ashley, are you familiar with the adopted drain program? >> I am. Yes. >> Is that something that would fall under one of these categories? >> It may. Um they if you if you tap into gold leaf and green, I don't I don't know off the top of my head, but that's something I can certainly look at. there. There's a lot of like cross alignment for both programs and existing things like adopted drain. >> Yeah. So, I'll look into that. >> I think that would be really neat. A number of our neighbors do it on our street, but walking through the city this time of year, and you probably know, Adam, for sure. >> The sewers are full of leaves and sticks and granules and stuff and it's like I'll stop and remove some. And my husband said, "I can't do every drain I go by." But it's something that that neighbors can do. You know, they ask you to do it three times a year. It's really minimal. >> Yeah. You get a little a little uh sign that says that you adopted your dream. >> You can purchase the sign. Yes. And if you do enough, they give you a t-shirt if you do it for a couple years. I've got that, too. But yeah, I'll look into coordinating that with with >> I think it's it's a lowcost thing that you can get neighborhoods to do. >> Yeah, great suggestion. >> Thank you. >> I have a question. Um, Ashley, do you see any opportunities that uh you want the parks commission to be thinking about with you? >> Um, I think that Adam Adam is part of the the um green team. So, I think if there's any um interest from anyone on the parks commission that that wants to participate in this further, I think you could reach out to Adam or I and uh we could coordinate that. I don't think we have anything set or I don't have anything envisioned, but open to suggestions, especially since we're we're new at this. >> Okay. Um, as you were just flipping through your slides, one thing that in in particular that jumped out at me was the thinking about connectivity and uh like transportation options. And I know that's something that we're always thinking about and often comes before us is um trails. Yeah. So, >> yeah. a question. >> You can ask a question after. >> Are there any other questions? >> Okay. Well, thank you so much for your time, Ashley. >> Thank you. Next, Adam has a Ridge Park playground update. Yeah, thank you, commissioners. Uh, so tonight I'd like uh we're going to review two of our parks that we have coming up for um new playgrounds or potentially new playgrounds for 2026. Uh the first one we have is Ridge Park. We did we have discussed this uh uh multiple times over the last three or four months in regards to just the structure of that park and what it might look like in the future. um by viewing a couple concept plans. So, Ridge Park, the playground was originally installed in 2003. Um as we noted, we kind of been putting these parks into our CIP every 20 to 25 years as a lifespan. And that uh that lifespan comes from the National Park and Rex Association as um that um communities should look at for replacement or um u major upgrades on those of those um of those playets. So, that's kind of where we set that in our CIP uh for all of our playgrounds and that's what we're looking at uh going forward. So, uh so again, installed in 2023. We reviewed this uh um with those concept plans um and uh we're up to uh reviewing or just kind of going over those steps of those what we've analyzed over the last uh back in January as our establishing those criteria of whether or not it meets that. Um, again, um, history of that was that we were questioned by our city council to maybe potentially look at reducing or implementing different types of of park amenities. So, and maybe to eliminate some of those park playgrounds in some of our sites. Um, so, uh, as we go forward, let's look at those criteria that we set forth back out in January. Those criteria include park classification, uh redundancy or proximity, alternative amenities, uh demographics to the community. Um I did include that in your in the parks packet as well as some um additional information that we had in those um in that meeting in January just to u reclassify those um those comments on that. So um you know as we look forward we are looking for you know um recommendations from the from the commission. Um a lot of these things are just modernizing what we have there making accessibility. I think um it probably goes back to when I first started that's what the park commission big push was at that time is making many of our parks more accessible. uh this playground does sit out in the middle of that park and accessibility for people with um handic handicaps or might be um does make it very frustrating to get out to this playground and just into the playground itself might not be accessible. So, um, with that, I'll turn that probably over to the parks commission for discussion and review of those four criteria. And, um, looking for a recommendation if we're going to move forward with one or if this is one of those playgrounds that we uh, look at different amenity at. >> Great. Thanks. Um, if it's all right with everyone, maybe we can take public comment before questions for you, Adam. >> Yeah. Um, so I'd like to invite Dave Drestle up to the stand. And if you could please state your name, address, and topic. Um, and then this of course does not have to be organized, but six minutes is kind of the the maximum. >> Well, the intro will be that long. So Dave Drestell, 1743 Ivory Avenue North, Lake Elmo. Um, I'm the vice president of the association in the area. So everything we're talking about directly impacts our group. Um you know we all moved out there I guess to kind of have our isolation dream and then with a lot of changes here we get concerned about it and all the influx of cars and such and the influx of cars and such should also concern you because the traffic flow on that road out in front is horrific. I mean there's times we have to spend many minutes we'll verify that even to get in and out. So, if we're adding traffic to that area, you really got to think it through. I mean, I saw the design with two and in and out on the parking lot. I think if you're going to do this, if you need to do this, if you want to move the park closer to get accessibility, then you really got to think about size of the parking lot. Where it stands today, there's one road in and one road out. It's just one road. There's not enough traffic to need two lanes, one in and out. I think a 10 to 20 or 10 to 15 size parking lot probably would do the job right where it exists today. We also need to think about the budget, the city's budget as well. Um, you know, if it was up to me and a lot of neighbors would just plant wild flowers out there and let it be a nature reser or preserve where folks could walk the trails that do that now. Um, a lot of the people that do enjoy that part do that exact thing. Just walk the trails, enjoy the natural setting that it's in. Um, baseball field doesn't get used much. If I was a coach here, I'd be using it a lot because it's a gem. But, um, you know, I I think we'd really have to think about traffic flow. Um, the only other way you could do it is to put entrances and exits out on um, Inwood, and that would be catastrophic as well. So, we're trying to keep it as downsized as possible. We get that you might have to do something or want to do something. Um, so it's enjoyed by others, but the ones that enjoy it for what it is would like to keep it as much like it is. But wild flowers would be pretty low cost uh ongoing. Um, unless it has to get burnt here and there to keep that fresh, but that's our feeling. We don't want to see it change dramatically. If you do do it, traffic's going to be a problem. And then safety. >> I just wanted to know about the trees later. >> All right, I'm good. Are there any questions for Dave Drestell? >> Any other comments I'm missing? >> All right. Thank you. >> Did I make it? >> Oh, yeah. You did make plenty under six month. Um I do have one question for you actually. Um so we've we've gone through a number of uh proposals for Ridge Park. um have you had a chance to see any of the other ones and did you have any thoughts on um elements that >> well >> you know you like to see that you >> for us I'm you know if you'd ask the group out there who sees it and use it the most and I know it's not our park I get it I get it but um I think for others I could see the enhancement of moving the park. Yeah, it's back there ways but usually you go to a park to get some exercise so that's kind of ironic. Um, and then really minimize the parking lot. >> I would really think that through. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Questions for Adam. So, the playground would need to be removed by when? >> So, that playground would likely be removed in 2026 regardless uh just because of the the situation that it sits. um where it sits is is contracted in the water a lot of times in the spring and so that thing does heave and move quite a bit um before it settles out late spring early summer. So um we do our inspector does see a lot of changes in that thing. The concrete forms are starting to be exposed there. Um, so just as a safety hazard, do we got to uh put in more mulch or, you know, again, we got to go out there and tip it back and likely uh burrow those things back to the ground. With the with the condition that it's in, it's likely more apt to just be removed. As you look past our our playgrounds in the past, if it's Deontraville, Pebble, um um if you remember, we actually took parts off those off those playgrounds and put up plywood and things like that and took off slides because they were broken and busted. This is getting to the point of of very similar to those situations. So, uh we're in that we're in that predicament right now that just being removed. Um, I have a question for you, Adam. So, there across from Ridge Park, um, can you remind me, have has the city seen, uh, proposals for development in those, uh, like open areas? >> So, uh, yes. So, High Point Crossing has been approved by the city council for concept. I think at this point it went through concept plan. >> Okay. >> And so, that's the one down by the booster station just south or sorry, northwest of the of um the park >> on the on the west side of Inwood. Um I think that consisted of about 30 lots in there, give or take five or six, right? Maybe 26 lots or something. So, um probably some larger homes in that area. Um um biggest issue with that might be accessibility as you've already heard like in what is a busy road right um just accessibility uh coming in from that as far as the north section or sorry going south to the open land down there uh nothing has been proposed in that area right now it is outside the Musa so uh city sewer is not available in that area um city is looking at constructing uh a well at this time in that area so uh that's all that's being proposed in that area right Can you get from this park to Tablin >> by going through Lake Elmo Park? >> You can, but it's not very direct. >> Yeah, it's not. It's weird. Yeah, >> it is close though. >> It is close. Why the question? >> It's not intuitive. >> It's a little tricky. >> I think I measured it before. I think it's like 1.2 miles from Tablin to Bridge. >> Thank you. >> Remind me, did we do any just demographic work about what's neighborhood wise, what the demographics are around kind of the this area? >> I did not. No. in terms of >> families like >> families, kids aging out, >> you know, under six, over, you know, six to 12. We don't have any of that information really. Okay. >> Seems like the people the neighbors who have come to speak to us are all may not have young kids at home. >> Right. That's why that's why I kind of asked. >> I drove around today looking for playsets in backgrounds in backyards and I saw them. It was a very unscientific survey and I did not tally them but there were some. >> Yeah. Um I also did a little analysis and I counted that you can walk to from the playet not the entrance to the park. So it would be a little different if we go through this proposal, but within walking distance there's about well I counted 97 um residential uh lots that you could access. Um which is not the fewest number of homes within a mile walking distance of a park, but it's also lower on the lower end. And what's the classification of this park? >> It's a neighborhood park. Um well, why don't we open it up for discussion to the commission to talk about these different these four considerations in a little bit more detail and we can think about what our recommendation might uh be to move forward or not and if so what parameters Okay. So, we've we've talked about the park classification of being a neighborhood park. Um, >> which generally has can have a playground, right? >> Say again. >> Neighborhood parks have amenities. That's a question. >> Oh, I Okay. Just you know. >> Yeah. >> Parks I know most of them have amenities. >> Yeah. Right. Based on the >> master plan that we did that's was identif I'm I'm I'm catching up. Technically, the purpose, at least in the master plan, is it provides a neighborhood park provides active recreation and information gathering spaces and addresses day-to-day neighborhood needs and offers field size for practice and youth games. >> Which it does all that. >> Yep. Um any thoughts on redundancy and proximity? We Hank mentioned that um for us the question about if Tablin Park was accessible um via off-road connections and the answer is minimally. I guess >> the other one is Lake Elmo Park. Is that accessible? >> The county park. >> Yeah. Right. >> Yeah. I mean, there's an entrance right off Inwood for that, but there are no easily easily accessible playgrounds on that side of the park reserve. There's lots of trails for wild flowers. They've taken a lot of the buckthorn out, put a lot of wild flowers on. >> Um, Stonegate is, as the crow flies, not too far away, um, to the south. Well, if you look at our the master plan that we have the overlay, not the overlays, but the we have the bubbles that to show the distance. Um, it's certainly not there's no overlap between Tablin or I think the next closest would be Goose, but that's not a there's no play. Is there a playground there? No. playground there, >> fishing dock, fishing pier. >> Um, >> so you know, it's what a quarter mile walking distance to a h half mile >> for the neighborhood parks >> the neighborhood parks. So I mean >> certainly not overlapping anything as far as redundancy. Um, I guess the question is whether it's close enough, and I think that's what a couple of you have been getting at. It's close enough that there's >> not obvious maybe, >> right? >> And close enough by vehicle more than probably walking. I mean, you can, but >> it'd be hard to buy. >> It'd be hard. It'd be hard to block. Yeah. So, from that perspective, >> so then you get down to the last two, the alternative amenities, better serve the park surrounding if the playground was not replaced. I mean, we have this concept of course has Disc Golf being added in there, which is a new amenity, an alternative amenity that it seems like we've heard pretty good reception to. Um, and of course is not anywhere else. But the way I He's gone. >> Oh, okay. I was just going to say the way I heard what and from this time and before from the neighborhood is they really want their privacy. They really want their walking trails. They really want their uh wild flowers. It's okay if you do the playground and move it forward and put in a parking lot, but keep that all minimal. That's what I've heard. So that's the answer to this. >> Yeah, I think the question right now it's specific to the to the playground whether whether we're putting that in in the larger plan is obviously part of it but that's we're we're addressing that plan >> and that's down the road too, >> right? Um, I guess you know my overall thought with this, I know we've got some sort of direction or input from city council about reducing the number of playgrounds. Our master plan calls for either a playground or a play amenity. Uh, so there should be an equivalent with it, you know, the uh skate park or something like that. But in my mind, on this south south on this west side, I'll get it. The west west side is is pretty spread out. The place we're going to find some redundancy for playgrounds is going to be on the east side, I think. And overall, I'm I'm okay with playgrounds. I would maybe push back a little bit with that idea that we need to eliminate. I've heard somebody say that it should be down to seven. And to me, that doesn't doesn't make any sense. So, I'm going to be a proponent of saying we put put a playground in a park. There is not overlap here. I don't think there's, you know, from feedback from neighbors that there's anybody saying, "Yeah, we'd really we'd really like a skate park here or something like that." So, um, the the playground to me seems appropriate looking at these criteria >> and it doesn't seem because of the other nature amenities around aka Lake Park Reserve, >> right? >> Eliminating the playground to go back to nature. Well, okay, that's a marginal increase. >> And they can both exist as well. >> And I think they can both exist. I agree. In fact, if we're the plan, moving it closer to the parking lot makes more sense than having it now in the middle of an area that's kind of a nature potentially a nature area or a trail. Then you've got this structure sitting out. Um I presume it was to get it closer to houses in the neighborhood, but I'm not quite sure why it ended up where it ended. >> I don't either. >> To me, it >> there must have been a period of time because we've got a number of these parks where the playground equipment in the middle of the park. Yeah. It's in no man's land. >> Tab one's going to be in that and then >> right. >> So, in the past, people were able to drive back to that park or that play structure. You know, that burm wasn't in there. And I and misqued in there that it did I said 2000. It was around 2020 when they kind of made that etch in there, that burm in there to get that water out of there. Um, so people before were able to drive a little bit closer to it. Um, >> was it great? Probably not. You know, I don't recall any any situations from it, but um, the parking lot wasn't structured like it what it is now. >> But Cly is that way. It's in the middle of >> the table's no different. Yeah, I think it's a good spot to to uh keep the playground structure there. With new houses coming across the street, I I I think a lot of if they're younger kids, they're they're not going to be going to the park anyways by themselves. So, they're going to have adults either walk them or drive them across 13. >> I I I think it's a nice amenity and it's it's right on 13. If you're driving your kids and you they need to get out, it's right there. spends a few minutes, you know, and >> and there's a good probability that they'll build to the south and that park extends all the way to that >> to property. So you can >> connect you could eventually connect >> could connect in there >> and I don't think the playground if we approve that as long as we're comfortable with location >> right >> determines the rest of the >> no >> park amenities and we may that may take some while to flesh out and see how the park gets used and none of this may not fit the rest of what's kind of proposed whether it's open space or disc golf or a court or whatever or it may but I I don't think the choice of a not doing a playground how I think it I think it's needed in that area needed in that area. I think the the only other thing would be then just what do we do with the parking lot and if there's a way to redo it but get frame it for future use. I I I get what it's you know you're going to have two two entrances and exits. I don't know. And that one ex, you know, that one entrance is so close to the inwood, you know, I don't know if you could either cut it or I don't know if making it one way would help. >> I I I've been strong proponent they need some paved parking if that's going to be >> I agree. Yes. >> Pave parking. I'm okay with the 10 to 15. I agree with you. It should be I don't remember the whole design, but can be moved a little bit from the entrance and I think it can be achieved. >> Yeah, I think and we discussed this last meeting too, how the the just right sizing it and I think that we've seen really successful parking lot expansions at Sunfish, >> Reed Park, Tablet. Um, so I think uh expanding for future use is certainly something that is well within something we're comfortable doing if there's demonstrated need there. >> So, Adam, are you looking for a motion for the playground, for the concept, for the parking lot, number of stalls, uh for the disc off? What are you looking >> I'm looking for a motion today for the for moving forward with the playground >> only? Um, if we do plan to uh pursue this further as far as the parking lot, things like that, that that'll definitely be another CIP item that'll exceed our 20,000 that'll likely put in for 2027. So, I'm looking for u direction today to seek out uh a framework for some examples of of a playground if that's what we go towards. If we don't, then we'll scratch that. >> Great. Thanks. Um, let's talk about the the preferred age group and kind of size, amenities, features. >> Tammy, did you have any thoughts? Haven't heard >> on age group. >> Just in general, >> kind of where this conversation's going. >> I I mean, I agree with everything that's been said. I think it makes sense to to move forward with the playground. Um, plus it'll just get, I'm sure, used more if it's more accessible. So, I mean, I think those are all positives. >> We can work it out, but I think this might be the time that we go more to the physical, fitness, athletic, older kid type place. Just throwing out an idea that that might this might be the time that then you wouldn't have 27 kids there. You'd have two or three or four older kids. But, I don't know. thought >> I guess that concept or that idea is directly in contrast to this idea that maybe this isn't a park that people venture to independently. Um like youth kids. >> Yeah, I know. >> But that's maybe both is the answer. I think we heard at one of our uh previous concept plans is like yeah and it goes back to the demograph what do we right and so I think this neighborhood is still u right in the middle of original owners maybe a couple you know I'm not going to say 50% 70% or anything that of changeover but we're our our demographics there might be on the older side as far as like we might be looking at now grandkids uh you know taking them to the park and things like that versus maybe what Hank was saying is maybe those teenage kids there. So, um we did hear from the I think the president of the HOA uh at one of those meetings too saying like we are seeing a change though as well. You do have younger families coming in um down into the park um parview area. So, um you know, you know, you look at like what do we have? We have one tot lot in the city uh that's at Pebble Park, right? Um, outside of that, we don't have another T lot. Um, so that something to consider, too, but like you said, um, we don't have any physical, um, equipment either. I know that was brought up by, I think, Pat before about maybe putting that along trails in the south end of town, uh, versus having one specific thing, but just something to think about as well. Just some um, some things that have been discussed in the last few years. >> Great. Thanks. I mean, I personally would love to see a swing element. Um, I feel like that is like a lot of age groups. Older kids, adults even like swings. Um, and then something in that 5 to 12 age range I feel like wouldn't maybe would just afford more options. >> Yeah. I mean, I agree too. It's like a little bit of a that wider range because if you go too old to me, it seems like that would be more a community park versus a neighborhood park. I mean, it to me it a neighborhood, especially this size, it just we'd want to for sure understand the demographics, I think, versus, you know, it's probably more risky. >> I could also imagine like parents might want to go play disc golf if they have kids that are somewhat independent and then they can play there um a a family type thing. Well, I think I mean traditionally the vendors can do like at the 3 to five and the six to 12 and combine it into one container. You don't have two separate areas. So that kind of covers the gamut if we want to >> go that route. We kind of talked last time about the at least the drawing that we were Bolton and Mink proposed had the the disc golf crossing the paths often. >> So maybe something with the age range of the playground like you mentioned Tracy and then do like the exercise thing. go >> along the >> parents could go and do the exercise route or whatever >> while the kids are there >> because of the size of the park. Those are both easily added in the future if not. >> Right. Yeah. >> Yeah. Um I think it's 125,000 that's in the CIP for this. Is that right? >> And that's play feature and container because they'll need a new container. >> Yep. Yep. So our practice now is a concrete border. Yeah. >> Uh with plate chips. >> I mean into Ashley's presentation if we want to start building in I don't know what the our overall global plan is for trash and recycling but you know we should always plan to build that kind of stuff in moving forward. It's not a lot. It's not a you know whether it's through grants or whatever but it's just something to build in if we want to have that kind of be a standard. Well, I I personally feel like we're coalesing around a motion or recommendation here for Adam. Um, are there other thoughts right now? Things that people didn't get a chance to say before we start to Well, let's talk for a minute about if we're looking at something for teenagers. Is this is this a park that we would want teenagers to hang out at? You know, would you want to have something at or do we want them more in town or um you know on a busy street there? Is it >> Yeah. >> Is there potential for for issues? >> Yeah, I think there are better options for parks for um youth to hang out a little bit more independently. Mhm. >> Like I think Tablin Park might be a good one, but >> yeah, I don't I don't I I just don't with the busy road and Inwood, I don't think this is a safe option to do that because if you want kids and teens to be getting exercise and biking, this isn't the right I mean, there's already problems with vehicles, let alone we don't need to add I wouldn't want to add walkers and bikers, >> junker, We got to find the right spot. But I still think we should keep It's a good point. I think we should keep it on our radar. >> It's just where? >> I guess my only comment is we're going to talk about Tablin next. They're right. They're not right. They're in line with one another. Do we consider do we does it make sense to consider both of these at the same time? Uh as far as making a motion now on on Ridge and then saying, "Okay, what are we going to do with Tablin? Should we look at them in totality? That kind of muddles things for us a little bit as far as making decisions, but it seems sort of appropriate to I I you know, >> it does, but I just heard they're not they're independent. So, >> yeah, I when I look at I feel like they're separately enough that we can consider them separately. >> Fair enough. >> Other than the mental Everything should be considered with everything. >> Okay. Well, I might make a motion then uh to move forward with a playground replacement concept at Ridge Park for combined ages 3 to 5 and 5 to 12 with options to expand amenities in the future. >> Second. Second. Any discussion? >> What does that mean with the options to expand in the future? I mean, do you want >> any disc golf? Thinking about exercise equipment. >> You wouldn't do anything now to mess it up. >> Yeah. But I guess I guess thinking about this $125,000 budget in the CIP and kind of sticking within that. Um, but not necessarily wanting to say that that is What is the only thing that's going to be there for the next 25 to 30 years? Yeah, I guess I was anticipating and maybe I am wrong that when we were talking about a a ridge park concept plan that we were kind of still discussing that within the year here to potentially make plans, but we're just talking about playground today to kind of kick things off because >> yeah, playground is going to be today. So, like as we go forward to like that June era, that's where we're going to start talking CIP because we have nothing else planned for Ridge Park, right? If we're going to if the if the future of that does include uh disc golf, there's definitely planning that goes involved with that. It's it's getting on a contractor that actually designs it, right? You have concrete pads, you or if they're going to be gravel pure, they are. No, I just I guess what I So, chair or Adam, >> do we anticipate that we're going to in the very near future continue to discuss concept plans for Ridge Park or are we kind of just >> That's a great question. Um because yeah, that would be contingent on where is this playground going to be situated? >> How are people going to get access to it? Like, right, it's all together. Um, but yeah, I guess Adam, I feel like you're in a position to answer that. If if if the overall consensus is to move forward to get that playground concept and start designing that playground, when do you want to sequence these other elements of this proposal? >> Yeah, there'll be like probably um I would I would I would phase it out as a a parking lot improvements to the parking lot in in 2027. Um, and then future amenities would follow in 20 late 27, 28 or 29. >> Okay. In keeping with the budget, >> so I have an issue because as long as I've been on the commission, we've always talked about the need to address some amenities for teens and we keep pushing it out. >> Well, disc golf would be a teen activity, >> right? >> Yeah, it certainly Yeah, it certainly could be. >> And uh Yeah, I did. I hear you. Um, and maybe that comes with tablin possibly. >> And that's not a super it's that's not a I mean disc golf isn't it's not a you know we're not I think you could do it for a decent amount. >> You know you just need the budget budget wise. Yeah. You just need the you know the pads the baskets. >> Yes. >> I mean you might need some but yeah engineer. Yeah, maybe that is tablin. So, Adam, do you think the life of the play structure would be done this summer? >> Yeah. Well, I'm thinking that if we did something for teenagers and the U play structure is removed this summer, there could be a summer or two without a play structure there before a new one is put in. Would the budget work that way >> to do all at the same time? Is that what you're referring to? Well, no. If we don't have money for both a teen option and a new playground structure, could we start the teen structure this year and then there might be a year or two when there's no playground structure there and it could go to Taplin for a year or two until the money is there and we come and put a new structure in in 27 28. >> Okay. is what is the question that you're asking Pat is it essentially what if what if the CIP item this year was reallocated for the disc golf immediately as a teen amenity and then let's do the playground later. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> I feel that we need to do something for teens. >> We we've we've talked about it a lot and we haven't done anything. >> I I mean I think that would be a totally cool idea. >> Yeah. I think though that's going to put a lot of breaks brakes on which is fine but the community really didn't wasn't really thrilled about the disc golf when it was presented. They're barely putting up with the change in the in the playground equipment. >> I mean to Peter's point, could we I know we're not overlapping, but could we talk about Tablin because maybe there's an option there? I I don't know for disc golf. >> Yeah, I I I don't know. I would put a halt on a whole lot of discussions. Do you have a motion on the floor with a second before the go off the rails? Yeah. >> Okay. So, right now the motion on the floor is to move forward with a playground replacement concept at Ridge Park for combined ages 3 to 5 and 5 to 12 with options to expand amenities in the future. Say all in favor? >> I. >> All oppose. I >> I >> Okay, so motion not passed. Um, so we need a or does anyone have a different motion to propose? If I could just say it back on Pat's comment, I would not be able to uh cancel a playground. What I have in the CIP for a playground and replace it with a different amenity. >> Okay. I wouldn't be able to change the verbiage of a playback. It's already been in place for a number of years. >> Has have we ever looked at any of the grants that are available for and I don't know if >> the out you know like the outdoor recreation grants. >> I can speak to that a little bit. Yeah. Um we're we're starting to look at that. I'm not sure we'll be able to pull it together in the next two weeks, but um our plan is to try to But I wouldn't want to um make anything contingent on that since since uh we don't typically apply for that grant, but we have looked into it. >> Okay. I just think for the future that might be a possibility, Pat, that would get you get us help get us funding for. >> Just some backgrounds on that on those grants. A lot of times you do need to do do the research and things first. >> Yeah, >> that's why we do do the surveys. So even though our pools and that we preach to get as many people to answer those as we can because that that is really what drives those grants um is you have to do the community surveys. You got to do concept plans. You got to have those ideas laid out there and it does take three or four years of that planning to have that all written out laid out so you can just drop it into that grant and they say okay they did their homework. Okay, here's what they want. This is this is the direction they're going. Right? So that's what Ashley's going. based off is like we do have some information there. It's not solid, but could we put it together and put something, you know, throw it at the table? Would they take it? They might they might provide something, but um we have some information there which is better than nothing. So, because we have a number of other parks like next year we go to Stonegate, right? That's the one we're going to review in 2020 2028 27 to 28, right? So, um we have no information on that besides our park master plan, right? So um you know if you start looking at these things two to three years out and making additional plans for those and which is no different than what we're doing right now right so if we do the playground you know is that grant available for you know that next amenity that's geared towards teens 100% but it's two years could be two one year to two years down the >> uh would anyone like to make a motion I I I have a question about your previous motion. >> It's dead. >> I know. >> But but you just said amenities. You did not say a specific amenity, right? >> That's right. Yeah. >> So, we can definitely be more specific. >> Okay. >> I'm looking for the language. Um, I propose that we put a um playground structure that carries the range of the 3 to five and the 6 to 12 year old at Ridge Park uh using the current um CIP funds that we had allocated for it with the intent of um adding amenities in the near future. specifically for teenaged kids. >> Second. Any discussion? Okay. So, the motion is to move forward on a playground concept for ages uh 3 to five at Ridge Park using the allocated CIP funds with the intent of additional amenities in the future for teenaged kids. All in favor? >> Oh, one I'm sorry. Didn't she say 3 to 5 and 6 >> and then 612? >> 3 to 5 and 6 to 12. >> Thank you. Can can we have have some discussion before you take the vote? >> Sorry. A little slow. So, do you do you know what what you're anticipating as far as teen? I don't want to box ourselves in what that would mean for teen. >> I think it kind of leaves it open. if there's something that could be disc golf, but there maybe something comes on the scene that that attracts kids being outside in in the next few years that is not prohibitive in costs and um wouldn't affect the neighborhood a lot with a lot of noise and stuff. You know, I don't want to specifically say disc golf right now. >> It's all got to come back to us anyway, >> right? because I don't want to necessarily box ourselves into this park either if there's a better opportunity to do something really cool for teens in a different area. >> Right. >> What it does is it moves the ball forward on the >> playground. >> Yeah. Yeah, >> it does. Though I'd be inclined to say that the other the other our original motion gives us more opportunity. This does box us in to do teenaged in this park, which I don't know that there's >> a reason considered. It doesn't have to be done. >> So, that's the way I would rate it. >> I mean, and I think that the intent to add amenities is still there and it's just recognizing that >> sorry, it's >> Yeah, I'm sorry. >> We're kind of capping out at that 12 age range right now. >> Yeah. So, the motion is not it's to consider teen >> with the intent. Yeah, >> I don't think it handcuffs us. >> Your motion isn't that we must put. >> We shall. No, it is not shall. It may >> ordered. >> I don't remember what I used actually. Okay, let me restate the motion on the table as I have it written down. And if it isn't right, please help me here. Uh, the motion to move forward, a motion to move forward on a playground concept for ages 3 to 5 and 6 to 12 at Ridge Park using allocated CIP funds with the intent of adding amenities in the future for teenage kids. Could we say with the intent to consider? >> Well, a motion. >> Would you like to make an amendment? >> She could amend it if you want to amend it. >> Does that does that help you? >> Comfortable. >> Fine. >> Yep. >> Yeah. As it is, it's fine, honestly. >> Okay. Okay. Well, then let's leave it as it is. >> Yeah. >> Okay. All in favor? I >> I >> I >> Any opposed? Motion carried. Okay. >> Great discussion everyone. >> Excited about seeing this. >> On it. >> Can we ask a question before we >> uh Yeah, we might not be able to respond to you, but >> if we fill out a form, would you respond or it's just too late? Oh. Um, you can go ahead and ask your question. Yeah. >> I was just wondering does your motion include the parking lot to them? Is that part of >> No, >> no, it did not. >> This is bits and pieces. >> Okay. Okay. So, your motion is to just move >> correct to the park. >> Think about some other stuff. >> And uh is is your motion to put a in or just replace it. Okay. >> I have a question. Um, do I contact all of you if I want to comment on your future plans? Just >> Adam's email is on there. All of our emails are on there. >> To get input Zero teenagers. >> Zero. I'd rather have tax money where it's going to be used for the teenagers. I respect everything you're saying. We have teenage grandchildren. They would love it when they came over. They don't live near us. So, it would be used as much as >> the more comments email the better, right? >> Get your neighborhood to come on out >> next time. Thanks for coming out tonight. >> Yep. Thank you. >> We got to figure out a better way to get >> moving on to Tablin Park. Uh this playground was originally installed in 1997 and again has exceeded its life. Um after nearly three decades, they used the structure shows signs of aging and wear that are typical for playground equipment of this age. In addition to general general um deterioration from weather, exposure, and frequent use, the playground uh was designed under older safety accessibility standards and no longer reflect current best practices for public play equipment. As a result, existing equipment is approaching the point where removal or replacement is necessary to ensure a constructed safety or continued safety for usability of the uh park visitors. uniquely uh the play set at Tablin sits at the bottom of the park while the swing structure uh currently sits near the parking lot. Um we did do a survey in this park in 2023. Again, our responses to that were pretty minimal, but people were largely in favor of replacing that playground set. So again, in front of us today is would we like to remove or replace this playground structure? Um I don't you know just based off our criteria again and u maybe some comments that came from our um our collaboration efforts with city council is like you know we just we just we're going forward with the one at ridge we replaced the one at uh Pebble Park. There potentially will be one or is a good consideration of one at the new 70 acre lot as well. So this one lands right in that diamond uh of all those and really really stems down that miles per part uh apart from it, right? So otherwise, you know, from Pebble all the way up to ridge is, you know, you do have that two mile mark. You have that two- mile mark from um Ridge all the way back over to Stonegate or Hams, right? So we kind of keep that distance. And like I think you go back off what Peter said is like maybe seven's too many or minimal number. But now if you start looking at those mile markers, right? This makes a little bit more sense. So this one, this park here, just because of accessibility and um topology of this one, it's a little bit harder to put a play structure there that isn't going to be crammed in on the rest of what we already have there, right? Um we do have the new um pickleball courts here that are very popular. Um you know this this site is potentially uh one for a shade structure as well uh that we use. The sledding hill is very popular in the winter. Um which brings you know just a trail that connects that parking lot to that back back community. So that accessibility from community to that park is very is is good. Right. So, but going back to the north is where we lose our connectivity as far as our trail connection to anything. So, um so something to considerate take into consideration from staff's point of of this park is like the placement of this site unless it's extremely small um you know with minimal uh with minimal features um I would venture on to this onto the scope but like let's leave the current play structure as is. It does show um wear and tear, but overall structurally we don't have any written reports of issues with this one. It's small enough um where when it was built that it's not like our demat or pebble um you know our ridge issues. We don't have those issues with this one. Um we have maybe visual components of this one that are you know the plastic's starting to fade. deteriorating, right? But overall, would this one last another two or three years until we find out what's happening on our 76 acres? Yes. With that, I'll open it up back up to uh the purchase commission for uh comments. I'll make a comment. If people want us to get rid of play structures and one of the criteria is kind they got to put more trails and sidewalks. I mean, that's the answer. Okay. That this park in particular is connected to the one neighborhood, but that's it. And there's the other neighborhood that's to the east, for example. >> You can't get there. >> You can't get there from here. >> So, pass that on to anybody who happens to say, "Hey, we should get rid of a lot of playsets." is hey then we should buy a lot of land for trails and paths and things like that. So >> okay announcement >> I my kids grew up in the other playground to the east and we went to Tablin all the time >> to slide and play ball with the kids from Tablin Park used it a lot >> and the neighbor kids would walk Yeah. walk along ST road >> across the private property. >> Yep. >> No along No water. >> No, you can walk on the sto road or you could follow the creek. Um either way. >> Okay. >> But um I don't know how many use it now though. That's that's issue. So my question Adam is it used to be that VA like T-ball would have practice there and the siblings were always at the playground. Do any organizations use that? >> We don't have any reservations for that park for uh the ball field. >> Okay. So you don't keep track of it. You don't they don't regularly. Okay. Um, and as far as the swings being at the top, there's a lot of people who come and play pickle ball, but there's also a lot of uh people play basketball and their kids will use the swings. So, I think the swings at the top of hill are are still used a lot. Yeah, I have a very similar question for you, Adam. Um, so when we're thinking about replacement, we're just thinking about the playground. We're that's separate from the swings or in your mind, are they connected? >> In my mind, they're connected. Um, okay. You know, the swing is the the old style of the triangle um style. >> What are you calling? >> Classic >> parts for those. Um, you know, swings are normally pretty consistent. The only thing we do we have to do is change the brack the brackets to all those when we're placing swing boards. >> Okay. Um, cool. Another question I have for you is do any of the playground designers that you've worked with in the past have options for something like an embankment slide that would take advantage of the huge hill here in a way that would be a bit unique? or is that something that if you wanted to pursue that, you'd have to go outside of the normal vendors? >> No, I I think all three of our our previous um playground uh concept designers would all do something like that. Uh you got to take into effect a lot probably a lot more engineering in order to do it. Um you know, there's going to probably be a retaining wall. You're probably going to want to go with some type of um port in place. because any type of you know it's either going to be a turf type thing um I'm trying mat that goes down the hill that's what we see on a lot of them but um you might have to have a port in place or something because I don't know if the chips will stay on both levels you okay without another border or something or retain holding >> okay and then my final question for you um in the map of course you know there was a PAS station there for a number of years >> that is done and there are no plans or concepts to do to have something else temporarily or permanently there. Is that correct? >> No, that PAS um uh station that was positioned there in the in the far northeast of that park was a temporary um just um to gather gather data, right? So there is no intention of anything going back there at this time. Okay. So, I have a question. So, Tablin, was that changed to a community park because I know that was the recommendation or is that still a neighborhood park? >> It has been a community park. >> It has been. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Adam, just to back up, you said that there are safety concerns currently. you expect that there's a two to three more year potential life out of that? Did I understand that correctly? >> You know, I would say that, you know, we we have we have no um repair maintenance requests for this one, nor have we had any in like the last several years. And that's why I said, you know, I think you could get by, you know, um and we could review this again at a at a later date. So, again, maybe in the efforts of maybe separating this out. So, I think that was maybe one of the council members concerns of like, yeah, it seems to be every year we're having one of these, you know. So, this might be a situation where you'd be able to separate this one out um to get it outside those realms of maybe we're only doing them every 3 to five, you know, we have we come up on. So, >> you think that is that plausible? I mean, we've got a number of other parks. Do you think we're just going to stack that up with some other parks at this? >> Yeah. Well, I mean, going forward, we're Yeah, we'll be reviewing a lot of parks and then it'll just be >> back around, right? So, um >> Well, you also don't pass the problem on to the future like somebody passed to us where they basically lined up all these playgrounds one right after another >> to be replaced 20 years ago. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. That may, you know, and >> and they were never addressed, right? And so when some so when we start boarding everything up that just brings up the idea of like what is you know people bringing up the question of like when do these need to be replaced? Oh we're we're 10 years behind already. Right. So now we start putting them in those as placeholders. Let's really start reding those. since they've taken on the first one maybe five years, maybe a little bit beforehand and they could have spread it out, but no, we're here with this. >> Y >> and we have not done a concept plan of this park at all. >> Uh there is one concept plan. It's fairly old. Um probably like in from the 90s, early 2000s. >> Okay. That was before they made the um they made the foot trail or the the uh wooden steps that go down to the towards the baseball field and down to the playground. The initial concept was an asphalt trail that zigzag back through this wood this steep hill here to make its way down. Um they went they went away from that and made the um the wooden steps that went down the hill. >> The steps will need to be sometime. >> I should have done that. the railing railing. >> Well, there's just a lot of I mean, this seems like there's a lot of options for this park and I mean even more so than maybe ridge and so to not have options to look at whether it's the playground, whether it's the Ellenir concept or seems like the ball field doesn't really get used. So, I would struggle with identifying where a playground should or shouldn't go without knowing where everything else probably lands. Mhm. >> Yeah. I guess that's why I asked whether there's two to three years. I mean, you could take it out and let it sit, but I guess I'm inclined with Tablin to, >> as I am with most locations, but even more so, I think Tablin to look at it in totality and say, "Okay, what do we need to do before we start putting a playground down?" And remember that across the street, and that's a big street, there's going to be a multi-million dollar park being put in in a few years, >> which is relatively close to this place. >> It's about a mile. >> So, >> well, why I say relatively a big jump across the street? >> I No, I just mean we don't know if there's playgrounds or >> Well, yeah, we don't know. people have talked. >> Yeah. There's also I mean Mandot has a lot of rightway around Stillwater Boulevard. Uh we heard last month about this concept of going east to west with a green trail. >> Um just you know there's a bunch of city >> owned open space south of 35th or south of 34th as well. >> Mhm. So it seems like I guess in my mind it seems like a lot is happening here and locking ourselves into something might be premature here. Um there in the master plan there's also these ideas that you know it's suggested that maybe a skate park could be a good fit at Table. I don't know in particular about that but I think it's certainly something that we should be we should be using this master plan. Right. Um, and so overall based on what I think I'm hearing is I think we should reconsider this in 2028 or earlier if urgent maintenance requests start coming in. Um, does that do we want to discuss that before we make a motion here? Yes, I think that's a good idea because we also have the issue with the pickle ball courts in our, you know, issue of being in neighborhoods and how far away they have to be and you know something there might change down the road in the near future. So maybe we should just put everything on hold and this park could look totally different in a few years. So basically reconsider a concept for Tavlin Park in 2028, not just the playground. >> Correct. >> Yeah. And I guess I would I mean we don't have to do that tonight, but I would like to see additional CIP funds directed that way in anticipation of doing more than just the part. >> And that that's the key thing we got to remember if we do something like that. And that will actually put us potentially in a better place to do multiple holistic things. If when Adam comes in April and wants the CIP ideas, that's when we start throwing out some, hey, well, why don't we put some money in there? We don't have to figure it out. We just put some improvements to Tablin Park 3.2 million. But >> is it? Yeah. I mean, I I guess just for what I see as an improvement is getting rid of those stairs. I think the accessibility issue to me in this is one that needs to be addressed, especially with the playground down there. Um, so I'd like to look at it from >> and those stairs in a few years. I haven't looked at them closely. I've been up and down them a couple times. They will eventually need to be replaced. >> Yeah. Well, I I walked them today. Um, >> did you really >> with my new knee? >> And I hung on to the railing. The railing could be replaced. >> Yeah. >> Or strengthen at any rate. But there is the other the option because you you can go south on on the back side of the of the tennis courts and there's that trail, but I think the backside is dirt. >> It's asphalt up on top. Yeah, it's asphalt uh from the from the edge of the pickle ball courts all the way down the the large >> but but that's the that skinny snake bike trail there is is not asphalt. Correct. >> Yep. >> So there is another way down if you know I don't know how steep that is if it could be asphalt. >> They can see what happened. People were playing at the ball field and they just ran up and down the hill and so >> they got a boy scout to put a build a trail. >> We were really happy when those stairs went in. I will I will note that those stairs were constructed by the Boy Scouts. >> Yeah. >> Black, wasn't there? >> Yeah, >> I think there is a black. >> It was It was a nice addition. I have to say it was a mess before. It was always washed out. >> So, what happens if we don't spend this money that's earmarked for it in the CIP? Now, can we Does that stay there or can we use it for something else? >> No, it's just crossed off. It's just um yeah, it's that's just crossed off for 2026. >> Okay. >> But we could reapply it for a future year. >> Yeah, your funds are still um your funds in in the park dedication funds are still, >> right? So that's where it's coming from. So those funds are still there. You can allot it next year to something else. Okay. >> So we need a motion. >> We need a motion. Would anyone like to propose a motion? I'll make a motion to keep the current play set at Tablin and reconsider a full park concept for Tablin in 2028. >> Second. >> Any discussion? Any additional discussion? >> Right. Call the question. All in favor? I >> I any oppose? Okay, motion carried. Thanks everyone. Moving on. Announcements uh communication and updates. >> Um not a lot of communications or updates uh for this month. You know, we did get the snowfall. We do not plan to be doing any grooming. Um, I think as I noted last month, our ice rink is closed. So, we're just waiting for summer and spring. >> And you have a new >> We do. Yeah. He started over He started before our last parks commission meeting. >> What is his name? >> Pete. >> Pete. >> Pete. >> Pete Thoren. >> Bill Tholan. P H O L E. >> Okay. Pete. and tell them welcome. >> Do any of the commissioners have updates? >> Oh, I have a question. What's the criteria for the pickle ball nets going up? >> So, we placed up two down in Ivywood uh before, but um before the snowfall um when it was 60° or 50°. So, the next ones will go up uh we'll put them back up at um Pebble and Tablet um back when the weather when the snow moves back. >> Okay. So >> pretty soon. Okay. >> Yeah. So we've got a new policy for that. Those those quotes have been marked uh for reservable and non-reservable. Uh our our process is going pretty smooth so far. Um we'll see as we venture into the season. >> No complaints about the changes in the fees. >> Yeah. >> No complaints. >> Um I'm sure we have complaints. >> I'm not taking a reservation. You haven't heard though, have any. >> Any updates from the commissioners? With that, can I please have a motion to adjourn the meeting? >> I move to adjourn. >> Second. >> All in favor? I. >> Motion carried.