Motion passed. Thank you. Um, so our next order of business is to look at those Park Commission minutes from last time. >> [snorts] >> Um, I did have one quick change I noticed. I noticed um uh just looking in past minutes, uh Stantec's coordinator's name is actually Larisa, um l a r i s s a last name Mottl, m o t t l. Um, so that's currently not quite spelled right. Um, did any other commissioners have any other updates? Things that they noticed in the agenda or the minutes? Is there a motion to approve the minutes? >> I move to approve the minutes for July 20th, 2026. >> Thanks, Commissioner Barrett. Is there a second? >> Second. >> All in favor? >> Aye. >> Aye. >> Great. Motion passed. Thank you. Next, we've got Ashley presenting on the 76-acre Park RFP. >> All right. Hello, everyone. >> Hello. >> Um, just FYI, I'm not sure if you guys are seeing the PowerPoint. >> No. >> No, we are not. >> Okay. Um >> Do we need to do >> I am going to have it up in case Tony can get it on, but otherwise I'm I'm I'm fine to just present without it. Um, so we are here to talk about the 76-acre Park uh sports complex RFP. Um, a little bit of background uh on this item. The city purchased 76 acres south of Sunfish Lake Park uh for a city park. Parks master plan notes that the city does not have uh enough competitive recreation fields for the growing population. The previous meeting are listed here for convenience in case anyone wants to look at them, but in case you cannot see them, I will I'll go over it. Um, previous meeting was held on September 9th. Um, the City Council Parks Commission worked out for general direction on this item. On 12:15, the Parks Commission had an update discussion on the item. On May 5th, the City Council approved of releasing the RFP for the park. And last month, Director Stolpa presented an update discussion for the the item. So, I have a quick recap from last the last Parks Commission meeting. What we heard from the Parks Commission was that you all would like this item as an out or as a standing agenda item on upcoming meetings. You would like to see a creation of a task force that included members of the Parks Commission to encourage a balance of interests in the process. And third, you would like to work with the consultant to execute diverse community engagement strategies, surveys, open house meetings, and pop-ups. So, more involvement there. Additionally, the Commission also recommended that City Council should evaluate how the sports complex might impact Lake Elmo Park Reserve and Sunfish Lake to the north to determine if it's an appropriate location for such a facility. Considerations may include evaluating lighting, parking, scale of development, and other environmental impacts. So, it's anticipated that work with the consultant may shed light on some of these considerations. Staff plan to take this recommendation to City Council in a package with the recommendation from tonight at the meeting September 1st. So, RFP process next steps. The the Parks Commission expressed an interest in supporting the RFP scoring committee in making a recommendation on the council to or on the consultant to City Council. Notes on the process. The scoring committee was made up of staff from Community Development and Public Works. Independently scored all proposals using a criteria set forth in the RFB. The committee met and discussed proposals, reevaluated, and agreed on their top three based on an average score. Staff shared the top three proposals with the parks commission. And just to note, those are not publicly available. They are protected by data privacy. Um, was So, finally the proposals were very competitive. I think that's worth noting. Staff are recommending that the parks commission move forward with the HKGI proposal as a recommendation for city council after their team scored higher than the remaining teams in the overall evaluation process. So, those final scores were shared with the commission. Again, you should refrain from talking about the scores directly this because of data privacy. The goal is to bring the recommended proposal to city council again on on September 1st. So, the HKGI proposal scored highest after review on experience, approach and methodology, community engagement, timeline, and cost. The proposal met requirements listed in the RFB for community engagement specifically, which included development of a webpage dedicated to the project, assisting in the development of related questions for the upcoming national community survey, open houses, council and commission meetings, and local community engagement surveys. So, with that, staff is recommending a motion that is in your uh staff report packet, but I can I can share it again if if you need it. Staff is also requesting that the chair or vice chair attend that September 1st meeting to represent the recommended motions. No formal motion needed on that, but wanted to leave you guys some time to discuss it in case in case you wanted to determine who goes, but we can also figure that out via email later. So, with that I can stand for questions if you have any. Or or you can have discussion. >> Thanks, Ashley. Are there questions? >> Seems like we can't discuss the whole lot. >> Yeah, unfortunately. >> actually know uh Are you able to discuss the scoring matrix that was that was used? I think you just listed the the main criteria that you used to score, but are you able to explain that a little bit more? I didn't see that. Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see that as far as what the scoring matrix was. >> I think I shared this the scoring matrix. >> That not the actual num- numbers, but >> Oh, uh the the actual sheets uh or or >> Just like bullet points of what >> Yes. >> things you used to measure. >> Yes. >> I don't know obviously if that's public information. >> Um You mean outside of You're looking for more specific to um I'm sorry, the experience, approach, and methodology, community engagement. I can tell you a little bit about the the score sheet specifically, if that's what you're looking like score card specifically. Um >> What Yeah, I was just curious as to what what what criteria you used for all all of the applicants >> Sure. So, relevant experience, uh that included past performance, team experience, experience with uh similar clients in the industry. >> Okay. >> Uh approach, understanding the project, uh technical approach and a work plan, overall alignment to the RFP, city goals. Uh community engagement, public outreach, communication, meetings, stakeholder engagement. Um RFP requirements, uh meeting agreeing to work with the national community survey or work with the staff on the national community survey questions. Um timeline and then compensation. >> Okay. >> And for compensation, we used a a scoring formula Um to to do points for that. criteria Is that what you're looking for? >> Yeah, you're okay. Exactly. Thank you. And on something like timeline just out of curiosity, how are you measuring what is >> Yeah. >> Yeah, uh timeline was scored the lowest on our we we used the smallest amount of points for timeline because we anticipated that that that we they would need to be flexible and everyone pretty much had a a very similar timeline 4 to 6 months. >> Okay. >> Um when I reviewed things for providing that overview Ashley and also the packet for us. I think when I was looking at things, um I definitely agree with your kind of assessment that all of the candidates and proposals seemed highly qualified and I feel like for the community engagement components of all of the proposals um I feel like they met what we kind of had talked about as a a good benchmark and baseline. Um and I I feel like I agreed with the general flavor of the staff recommendations and um including some of those extra um like value type of metrics. I'm not sure how specific I can be there, but >> Um I'm not sure I can ask this, but just in terms of the timeline, I know you kind of said that was scored lowest, but I felt like obviously one two had pretty compressed timelines. One had a little bit more flexibility, it seemed. I'm assuming you kind of again looked for the one with flexibility. I was just thinking about the time of year and trying to A few of them wanted to seem to be quicker than others, so I appreciated that being a I I guess a one of your factors because I I feel like this could could conceivably go a little bit longer. And so um yeah, in general I was um and then the engagement piece I was glad glad to see and I I thought that certainly they both They all met it, but I felt like there was a little stronger in in in one. So. >> I think that that to me I think that it's also reflected in the um kind of in the timeline and the anticipated hours um that the different proposal proposal were allocating to certain elements. >> Um do the commissioners have any further discussion at this point? >> I don't know if this is an after we make a motion or something, but in July the commission looked at the evaluation of we discussed the evaluation of the impacts on the parks reserve in South Fork Lake. >> Mhm. >> Um I understand that task three of the RFP already calls in for environmental assessment, but I was thinking if we do choose to pursue HQ HKGI, maybe we could have them create a separate deliverable or a separate analysis on the impact it would have on these parks. And I don't know. >> Yeah, Ashley, can you speak to the feasibility of something like that or how that might be incorporated with the >> Before we make Yeah, before we make a contract instead of after and then we have to change up the list of things and ask for more. Just I'm just wondering if we could create something like that. >> Is the question can we do an environmental impact as part of this process? >> I would think like I'm almost asking like in addition to the um the process we already have in the RFP we already have like we're very we care a lot about what the impact it has on the other parks, of course. Would we be able to ask for like in the contract with whatever we choose create a separate deliverable that says, "Okay, here's the impact it's going to have on these local parks." That way we can keep that in mind throughout the creation of the rest of the project almost. >> Yeah, I think that that's something that they and maybe maybe this doesn't answer your question, but I do think it's something that a consultant could add on for an additional fee. So, I think that might be something that we could consider and and maybe bring to council with your recommendation um to study that. Does that kind of touch on what you're >> Yeah, I just I was more thinking about The reason I bring it up now is cuz I'd rather bring it up now and maybe carry it into this motion so it's already understood as like the basis moving onward. >> I think um since the Parks Commission already made a recommendation for that to council, the the goal is to package them together and bring that to City Council uh on September 1st. So, I think maybe we're touching on that. >> I guess yeah, I I really appreciate the um comment and the concern to carry that line through because I do think it's important. And I think that I guess when I look at these scenarios, you know, all of them are looking at some various alternatives. And I think that that would necessarily need to be a part of um considering everything or like in considering those alternatives. Um So, I think I would >> where that leaves us, but >> uh since you already do have that recommendation, I don't know if you need to to add on to this recommendation since they will be packaged together unless for for some reason you want to make it into one motion, but since you already have that >> for a separate deliverable. But, what we want to make sure with our um information that we were going to put forward is that it's addressed. And it's clearly addressed whether it's a chapter or section or whatever. >> Mhm. >> But, that's what we're looking for to make [clears throat] sure it's addressed. >> Sure. Yeah. Um I think that that maybe that's something that we can work out on a in a kickoff meeting or a with a task force when when we talk to stakeholders and the consultant that maybe we could do a clarify that to the consultant. But, I I think yeah. That's possible. >> Thanks, Ashley. Um does anyone feel so moved to make a motion on with this information that we can um of course discuss further? >> I'll make a motion to recommend HKGI to the City Council as selected for the Parks Central Park Sports Matt Complex Master Plan with the inclusion of those items that we had recommended in the our July meeting. >> I second it. >> Is there a discussion on this? >> Um, I would just like to note that I am available for that to support this on September 1, so. >> I don't know. I looked them all over and didn't know what the scoring was, but I went through it and I thought that they were as somebody has said, all very good, very competent uh, people. Um, I did not look at their past experience except for the glossy stuff that they gave. Um, but they all look like they could do the project. Um, and I submit to the complex scoring chart that the uh, group did to come up with a final selection. >> Here, here. >> Yeah, I guess >> [clears throat] >> my only discussion point would just be to say that while we're not, uh, you know, it's it's kind of hard to I think take a vote on a motion when we haven't had discussion. That's >> [laughter] >> a little bit awkward for me. However, having this, the opportunity to review these and understand different proposals coming in and how that looks as we go through this for me as a commissioner, knowing that I'm going to have to weigh in somewhere along this process is beneficial to me. So, thank you for allowing us to do that. >> Can I ask if approved by the council next week, what would do you consider next step that would involve this group, this commission. >> The Parks Commission? >> Mhm. >> I think we'd have a kickoff meeting with the consultant team and internally and probably reach out to the chair to figure out who wants to be on the said task force. And then bring the task force to stakeholder meeting with the the consultant is how I envision it, but with some flexibility. >> Any other discussion? >> I thought all three options look good. Um and uh the one mentioned HKGI above, but as echoed by others, um without really understanding the criteria in that um but it it looks like a good choice to me. >> Okay. Okay, so the motion on the table right now is to recommend HKGI to City Council as the selection for the Central Park Sports Complex Master Plan with the inclusion of the elements from the July um Parks Commission meeting. And I'll take the vote. All in favor. >> I. >> I. >> Any opposed? All right, motion carried. Thank you, everyone, and thank you, Ashley. Um next we have the Lake Elmo baseball donation number one. >> Nope. >> Doesn't matter to me either way. >> I think maybe. >> Take a chair. So, uh recently received a donation from Lake Elmo Baseball Association for improvements to the Ridge uh Park ball field. Um part of your packet does include their donation form and their intent uh what they'd like to do to that baseball field. These improvements will help accommodate the the growing number of youth uh ages 9 through 12 that are participating in the Lake Elmo Baseball Organization's program um and enhance the field's uh functionality. Uh issue before the commission tonight is would the Parks Commission like to recommend to the City Council to accept the donation for the um the new fencing at Ridge Park. This would include a backstop, some first and third base baseline fencing, and including the dugout. So, if you remember a couple years ago in 2024, the the Lake Elmo Baseball Association did donate to uh the city the improvements at uh Reed Park. Um so, uh this would be very similar to those um those upgrades to that field would be identical to this one. So, no outfield fence, just uh updating the back the backstop fence at the field currently. Um as we do go through donations that are uh proposed to the city, we do have to as a Parks Commission, we do have to review them. Um and uh consider consider options before accepting them. It doesn't have value. Does it uh potentially create liability for the city? Will somebody be offended by it? Um will will there be more maintenance to it than there will be than the gifts the gift should be objected to, and do those costs outweigh the value of the gift? Does the gift uh carry uh implied duties that the city must perform? Um if the costs are direct indirect do exceed the value of the gift. Um Does the gift uh still be warranted for the public purpose or is being served? Um or you know, a cost value situation. Does it Is it more of a burden to the city than what it's taking on? Uh number seven was also does the accepted gift imply that the city will replace it if it's broken or worn out, destroyed or vandalized. And number eight, do all ingredients um all agreements that we want to add to this for any donations in there that we want to make note uh for future of this of this donation. So, um The proposed donation will be placed in the parks general maintenance fund uh for the purchase of the fence. Currently right now, I think I did put the proposal in there. It's about $26,000 uh for that fencing. Um So, I think the last time they did uh do a donation of about 30,000. So, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it's like 27,000 is the fencing cost. So, uh in our previous this one they did donate additional funds for some um red ball line spot uh bleachers benches inside those things as well. At this time I haven't heard back from them if they're would like to include benches or anything like that. So, that's what we're looking at for donation at this time. Um so, our options in front of us tonight are to approve the donation or deny the donation from Lake Elmo Baseball Association. Um I do not have anybody here from the parks or sorry, from the Lake Elmo Baseball Association tonight to um for comment. So, um I'll answer any questions that uh commission might have. >> Adam, are they currently using that ball ball field? >> They are not. >> They're not at all? >> No. >> Okay. They are for practice or anything? >> Not that I'm aware of. >> Okay. And you think you gave us the money number? I didn't see that. >> No, uh the fencing the fencing product was I I requested what it would cost for exactly what we did at um at Reed Park. >> Okay. >> And they brought that back. It was about 27,000. >> Okay. And so the city uh public works will do the installation? >> They uh they do the installation of all the fencing. >> They they that. >> So, the only thing that we would do is we would tear out the old one, just prep it for the installation. >> Okay. The ball people do the installation. >> The fencing company will do the installation. >> Oh, the fencing company. Okay. >> But the public works coordinates, you coordinate that? >> Correct. >> Correct. Okay. Um kind of dovetailing on Peter's question about usage, um that was one thing I think I would like to see moving forward and just in the form that they fill out is to provide what type of usage either they currently have or what they're expecting for the future because I have no idea if they're if they're not using it, are they growing? Are their numbers growing? Are they stagnant? Are they declining? So, that I think that would help frame for me if an improvement is is warranted and um I guess my other question is, you know, we've talked about this park and kind of what it maybe should have in it or not have in it and does that still fit with kind of what we >> Right. >> talked about in terms of passive versus active recreation. So, tho- those were my two big questions and then if we were to put the field exactly where it is or keep it where it is, um question about just ADA and accessibility. I mean, do we should probably have I'm guessing there's no there's no trail access there to get to that field if I recall. >> That's correct. >> So, that's a huge I think for me that's an issue. Like it's would be our responsibility I think to provide some type of accessible road to that field if we go ahead with improvements. We should have that. And that's one of the questions in the application. Or or one that one that when we evaluate kind of when accepting a donation or not. >> So, currently, this is not one of the fields we can they can reserve, right? >> Correct. >> So, it'd be moved to one of the fields that we they could reserve. We'd change the status then. >> Yeah, Tim. Um we we could potentially move that to a um a reservable field. Likely with improvements, there'll be additional people that would like to use it. And as you see on that on their form, they're just asking for the use of the field. So, we would have to move that to a reservable field. And then we would have >> blah blah. Well, if you don't can't reserve it, you don't know. >> Adam, does public works staff have any concerns with or any comments on how Reed Park has been working for from your perspective for the past 2 years? >> Um as far as No, the only thing probably changes in the last few years are just the um since I've started here is probably just the the size of the parking lot. We expanded that a couple years ago just because of I think at the time it maybe only held less than eight cars, right? Our expansion here a couple years ago because it was utilized as kind of a um I don't want to say a graveyard site, but a a site for construction at the time on that development, right? They stored a bunch of things there just as they did some reconstruction of the road, water main, and items to there. Upon completion of that, public works did expand that a little bit. Um might not be more than 12 cars. Um you know, just just a slightly bigger. So. >> Cool. Sorry, I should have been more clear. Uh Do you have Does public works have any concerns or discussion on how Reed Park has been working for the past couple years after the donation a very simple donation was applied? >> Yeah, no. There's been no issues. No concerns. Like it fills its purpose. >> Okay. >> So, we probably, I don't know. What are we talking about here? 10 cars for a baseball tournament? >> No, I can tell you. No, cuz I've been at Reed Park for many games this summer and the parking lot's not big enough. There's people parking in the grass. There's people parking up 30th Street. Um that's a concern I think for um Ridge Park. >> Yeah, there Yeah, I kind of there's like 34 spaces at Reed Park. Um yeah, and I think that there's at least like probably double that. Um >> Well, there's there's like 12 kids on a team. Two teams. Parents don't always come together. Grandparents come. Um so, there's quite a few cars for games it is. >> Yeah. >> Yeah, and that amounts to like once a issue a week for seven >> is Saturday morning or >> No, no. In the evening. >> Yeah, weekly in the evening. >> [clears throat] >> And I think that you said I think it didn't say weekends. I guess that's my point about we have no idea and I that's why I wanted I I feel like that should be a part of the application is for them to explain how they would utilize it. I mean, I know they vaguely kind of said, but I I would like to hear some numbers. Cuz this is what we're talking about, parking, access. Is it Is it one game a night? Is it two games a night? Is it three games on a Saturday? I I don't It doesn't tell us that. >> Yeah. Um Quickly, do we have any more questions for Adam? And if not, then we'll just have some discussion with the commissioners. >> Just one statement along this line is that that's the way it is right now. Okay? There's a ball park there. They could fill that with They could use that with the same number of cars and stuff. And yes, there'd be more incentive if they improve it, but they could do it right now. Go ahead. >> Prime out bridge. >> Yeah. Yep. >> Okay. Let's do discussion [clears throat] within the commissioners on these things. So, we've heard that accessibility improvements um is a consideration. Um, existing and future use um uh particularly with respect to the parking infrastructure is also um a topic here. Do any commissioners want to bring up anything else that they're seeing and trying to understand um in terms of evaluating >> I have a question about what the uh ball association does now uh for maintenance cuz I know they drag it after games. What else do they do for field prep or whatever that the city doesn't >> Yeah, so they they provide their own bases. They don't do all their lining. They do the dragging of the ball fields. So, uh they do majority of the of any type of maintenance on it. >> Do they mow the outfield? >> No, our sub our contractor does that, Karen. >> Okay. Chair, do we have public comment on this? >> Um, we have a comment that outfield is extremely rough. >> Okay. But, no one today is >> Um, if you fill out a public comment form for this topic, I am happy to invite you up. >> I didn't know where the form was. Can I sign it? >> [laughter] >> Enter it again. >> If If would like to provide extra comment, um there should be a form back there that will have your um name, address, and the topic. >> Oh my goodness. >> [snorts] >> I think yes, the full sheet. Yeah. >> We can send our high school over to help you. >> Um I guess one thing I you know, for discussing, I think that the number one is the gift of lasting value to the community also kind of jumps out at me. Um you know, this is a 25 estimated 25-year lifespan um improvement and you know, I think that we are there's there's multiple elements in action with respect to how Lake Elmo City Parks are maturing, growing, changing, being planned. Um and I guess I I question the if this is truly the or or if if this gift will have the lasting value that um you know, we would be wanting it to. >> Are you thinking in the context of potential different ballparks coming and those being replacing this or what do you I mean >> Yes, absolutely. >> Yeah, okay. >> Yeah. >> And 25 years is kind of the life expectancy of a lot of playground stuff it seems, but you're saying maybe it's not even getting to >> Yeah, exactly. >> We're using it else using ball for ballfields elsewhere. >> I think you have to look at the age range. They're talking about 9 to 12-year-olds. And I think the fields that we're talking about um south of Sunfish would be for older kids, the larger fields. I I know also um that the numbers at Lake Emma Ball for the youngest kids are are rising. Um under eights and up. And so I believe their numbers are going up as a whole, also. So the fields that they have They don't have enough fields as it is now. And I don't know that they will be utilizing these younger kids will be utilizing the new fields. >> Fair point. >> And that's why it would have been good for them A to show up or B >> [clears throat] >> to provide that rationale because we have eight ball fields right now in the in the town. And why this one, I don't know, but that kind of rationale would have been helpful. >> Yeah, no, I did speak with them and met with them on site. And there was one of those situations that that's some of the very few things that we talked about. Increase the level of uh number of kids that want to get involved before they start turning them away because they don't have times and practices and places to play. Here's an opportunity for a field that is potentially flat. Their Their intent is not to put an outfield fence in there because of the age group, right? >> Mhm. >> And like you said, our future looks at baseball fields and maybe a complex or something like that would have those distances, those likely for those older age kids who have already developed to the point of like, yes, I'm going the baseball route, right? Where they're This is plan and development of youth athletics, right? I'm not here to speak for them on a lot of this stuff, but these are just conversations that we've had where there's an opportunity when we looked at, you know, several of our ball fields um in our community um when we've been talking about this for 2 two 3 years, and we looked at these and like, how is there Do we improve Reed Park or or sorry, Ridge Park or or Kleist Park? You know, it's just backstops, right? Um when when do you get involved to improve those or just let them go, right? >> So, Adam, what you're trying to say is that the contingencies have been discussed and like I'm involved one in the before with this one or or with this discussion. >> Yeah. >> Okay, cool. Um Sorry, here. Let's uh pause quickly and invite some public comment from Dave Dressel on this topic. Um Dave, if you want to come up, state your name and address for the record and then um up to 6 minutes. >> It won't be. Dave Dressel, uh I live at 1743 Ivory Ivory Avenue North, um right by Ridge Park. I think this is wonderful that the Baseball Association wants to donate like that. I do. I think that's great. And all the call outs that you put out, I wasn't even thinking of all that. But vandalism and all that stuff is a concern. All I'm going to say as a former baseball coach, they they would have to absolutely redo the outfield to smooth it because it's really rough and kids get deterred pretty quick when the ball goes this way when they're coming to get it. So, for the kids' safety and everything, you got to consider the extra amount it would take to level that outfield. Um but I think it's a neat idea. Um I agree though, there's not enough parking just for all the other reasons for Ridge Park. And to change that would probably change the road. You'd have to do a lot of disruption to make that more palatable. Um kind of funny, you're talking about baseball growing when I think it's lacrosse is going crazy. So, that'll be the next thing you get to deal with in the parks is do you have enough lacrosse fields? But again, nice donation if they want to do it, I think that's wonderful. I just think there'll be challenges um with additional monies needed. Yeah, that's all I've got. >> Thanks, Dave. Okay, thanks for that. Um [clears throat] quick intermission there with public comment. Um other discussion from commissioners, what else are folks thinking about? Um >> I think their track record at the VFW field, Lions field, and Reed Park is is great for what they do. Um they do a lot to the city. They bring people in who use um restaurants and things in town. Um and I I think it would be a an asset to to fix that field up. >> [snorts] >> Yeah, I guess [clears throat] so from my perspective, it seems like this park uh VFW, which we're going to talk about, and and and perhaps the Montroeville are probably the best candidates for improvements on our the parks for that age group that they're looking for. I think this looks like a park that has the potential to do as I understand what their needs are, and I agree I would like to have them here to be refreshed on what their needs are, but as I understand it >> [clears throat] >> um and sports complex aside, whether it's because it's not the right size field, or it's just 5 to 10 years away, um I think this is a potential park that can happen. I do uh echo public comment that I think more work needs to be done done just with sides, fences. I And I think really what I would like to see is for us to make a determination on discussions we've already had about this park overall, and whether this this part of this um uh field should be moved uh you know, relocated within the park, how that fits in with parking, um how that fits in with other potential amenities. I just really don't see any need I I it wouldn't make sense to add fences and spruce this up without having that larger discussion we've been having completed. So, that's my perspective on it. >> Yeah, I agree. I think there's a couple There's definitely reasonable concerns such as the parking and the ADA compliance compliance, but I think regardless if we accept this or not, the park's still going to get used. So, in the meantime, we might as well accept the donation and foster youth sport. >> Um something else that I'll add is I did look up the mission of the city as well to help be kind of a a compass. Um and that the mission of of the city of Lake Elmo is to provide planned quality public services consistent with the city's character in a fiscally responsible manner in partnership with our community. Um and I guess that last part is something that I'm thinking about as well. And so, just wanted to share that with the other commissioners. >> Adam, do they have a time frame? >> Oh, that's what I was told. So, they would do that this fall. Uh they'd be just like we did with uh Reed Park. We installed this fall so it's ready for spring next year. >> Thank you. >> So, if they put it in and we don't have all these issues worked out because we're going to put it in the reservation system, we could block usage until we get that resolved, right? >> Yeah, on our on our website it's on it's typically not on the website like we are right now. So, going forward, yeah, you could block times if needed. >> Point is, just because they put it in doesn't guarantee they get what to do whatever they want to with it. >> Correct. Yeah, we'd have to approve that as a commission. >> Wait a minute. Isn't like Iowa if they if they build it? >> [laughter] >> Out of the cornstalk? >> Yeah, yeah, I guess I'd like just just clarify. I mean, if we we told them, yes, this is fantastic. We like the community support and you provide an infrastructure, but we really need to plan on what's happening with the park as a whole. It's not going to happen this fall. Do you think they'd say, well, we're not interested? Or what would you be your hobbies? I don't expect you to speak for them, but >> Yeah, that'd be a question I have to probably take back to them. Um, would they hold the donation until that was later feathered out? I'm sure they would. Um, and then probably bring it back again. >> I I honestly don't really remember where where we left the larger design of Ridge Park. Can you remind me where that's I know what I know we're talking about the playground, but we kind of set aside the rest of it. Or we're going to revisit that? >> The the rest of the design of that park? >> Yeah. >> Yeah, we're going to revisit that as those things came forward, right? So, none of those uh potential uh amenities were in our CIP yet. I think I shouldn't say I shouldn't say that for sure. Like our I know our disc golf was also in our CIP for year few years out, right? So, um to utilize or to evaluate whether that fit that concept, to plan for a development for that, would have to would be, you know, yeah, couple of years out before we do that. Unless we have unless we revisit that for a different park. So, uh which has been brought up by um actually a designer already. So. >> I guess that was kind of my point. As we had talked about disc golf, we had seen the plans, we had talked about some things. Pat, I think you brought up something for teens and so, once you put the field in there, we're we're going to be somewhat restricted. And then we're also talking about the playground and the size of it and scope of it. Does adding a baseball amenity change our thoughts on that? So, I I I I think the donation is wonderful, but I'm just trying to figure out in the larger context of the park and then just future where where we sit. >> Uh question for you, Adam. As I read the donation form, it's that the donation is to go into the park's general maintenance fund for fencing. Is it actually a little bit more Like is that to Is that not actually the intention? Is the intention to accept the donation for fencing in the immediate future? Is it like you know, you know, if you said, "Well, if you uh accept this donation and um wait like the fall passes and then we're talking about this in the spring, you would we would go back to the baseball and say, "Hey." >> Yeah. So, I I I would I would recommend that either it's a we go back to our recommendations of either yes or no. Um yes meaning that we're moving forward yet uh with the recommendation recommendation to city council. >> the recommendation to do it this fall. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Do we do MOUs with these when we do these? Do we put this in kind of a MOU? >> No. Not in the past we have not. >> Okay. I think that would be something I'd like to see that we have that kind of outlined kind of you know, here's what we're going to do, here's what the city's going to do, here's what baseball's going to do versus just minutes of a commission meeting. >> Um I guess what I'm hearing here is uh there's like people are very supportive or commissioners are very supportive of this idea, but there are more details that uh we feel like are kind of unaddressed here, which I think is very similar to what we experienced at um Reed Park where we had baseball on several sequential agendas um to get that worked out. And so I guess I would like to propose a motion to table this Like Elmo Baseball number one donation um for the fence at Ridge Park um until next meeting. Is there a second? >> I'll second that. >> [laughter] >> Okay, is there discussion? >> Uh what would be the intent to do in that? >> Um I believe the intent would to be to clarify to you know get Like Elmo Baseball to clarify some of these option or some of these details. Um I think it would be a time for us to bring together all of these kind of lingering pieces on uh Ridge Park and we and allow us some more time to be confident that this donation would meet all eight criteria here. >> Okay. It would be good to hear from the baseball people as I've said before, you know, what the reason is and the rationale for doing this. Plus it would be good for them to address what they plan to do about the holes and what they plan to do about the parking, okay? I think they they've got to know that there's a problem there. They don't see a parking line and the way the city works, nothing happens overnight. So they would come in and talk to you and figure out what they're going to do. If they're going to cordon off an area or bus people in from someplace else, I don't know. But, I think that's why I would support this is to bring them in and to provide some at least acknowledgement that they know that these issues are out there. >> Yeah. I think I think that's the Tracy's point of the MOU to say not what are they going to do about parking, but do they have an expectation that we do something about parking or that we do something about the field. I think that's >> Cuz you don't want the first thing to be out there and all of a sudden there's all jammed up with parking and we've got the sheriff involved and all kinds of stuff. You want to figure out in advance. >> [clears throat] >> Other discussion? >> I have I have two comments. Um, first of all, they use the fields at the school on all Sundays. >> This one? >> Yep. Mhm. >> Right here? >> Yep. Um, and so the likelihood of losing them, I don't know where the Valley Community Center is with using the fields, you know, with that agreement. I think it was supposed to be finalized maybe in August, was it? So that's an issue that they would possibly lose those fields for the younger kids. Um, and the other point is maybe there'd be something where we could say the first year just use it for practices or something like that. So there wouldn't be as many cars as we work on other details with the park. >> There's something >> Great. I think that those are great things to Yeah. Iron out with them to get a >> Yeah. >> more >> Exactly. >> proposal I guess. >> Make a better decision. >> Yeah. >> I would just like that we stay a little bit on this. I understand that this is kind of I don't want to use the word passive cuz it has negative connotation, but this I I really don't want to lose the donation if they are proposing it. So I think like instead of just I don't want to say just tabling for next discussion like actually advocating for this information and advocating for people to actually come in and speak would be more aggressive and more that also has negative connotation. I don't I don't know really what I'm trying to say but it's like you get what I'm saying. Not just not just letting the $30,000 just kind of drift away cuz when they realize they I don't know. >> Yeah. Mhm. I think Adam I expect that we couldn't work with you to get this squared away for the either the next um agenda or if that if September is unworkable for Lake Elmo baseball um you know, at a time that's mutually beneficial. Because good point. I don't I don't want our motion to be dismissive of the you know, initiative and and the you know, good faith donation here. >> Yeah, and I think as months pass I just want to say as months pass it does make it also harder to attain this by the end of fall. >> Mhm. >> Sure. >> Yeah, absolutely. >> Cool. >> Okay, so we have a motion on the table um that's second in to table the discussion on the donation of the fencing donation um from Lake Elmo baseball for Ridge Park to the next meeting. Um and we have a second for that. Um I'll call a vote. All in favor? >> Aye. >> Any opposed? All right, motion carried. Thanks, everyone. Adam. >> Yes. >> Please walk us through the second proposal for a donation. >> So, um thank you, chair. The Lake Elmo Baseball Association reached out to me um in subsequent to the first one and said they'd like to donate uh to the VFW ball field as well. Um this this donation comes with a request that the city aid to the cost of their project uh 50%. Due to the timing of this request, uh this these funds aren't available in the city's maintenance budget to um just provide that. Uh um likely their intent was to do that work this fall for the sod to be established and ready to play by spring of 2027, right? So, um they were looking to kind of fast forward this one through a donation with the with the little bit of help from the city. Um recognizing that request, I did inform them that, you know, that that those funds aren't just laying around with government. Um you know, we don't have that sitting in the budget ready to spend, but also with the that amount, we need to budget for have that ready or uh have a place in our CIP for that. So, that's why I bring this uh to us in a different realm of of would the parks commission like to recommend adding this to a CIP project in 2027 um budget to include these improvements at VFW. Just a little bit more on the background, the the baseball is a primary user of this field. Uh in the fall, we do have the a fall ball club that does come in and use that. That's going to be more like just uh um I wouldn't say amateur athletes, but kind of that that second level of athletes that are coming in maybe on a club. They're maybe doing some fall tour stuff, uh but going to use that field for practice and games as well. So, um but they are still the primary user from that April to uh July August time. So, um the association was seeking to spend $48,000 for baseball improvements there at VFW. Included the infield sod, adding some ball field line, adding walkways from the dugouts out to the batter's box, as well as some irrigation improvements. And just some history on that, if you do visit that field, it is kind of wore out between those areas and they do have some artificial sod laid in there just cuz that's where kids spend all their time, right? And it's a I don't want to say a cow path, but back run I grew up like that's the path you always took, right? And in a small gate, that's where all 11 players, all 20 some players end up going, right? And so that does get wore out fairly quickly. And so making those paths to those to those to the batter's box is ideal just to make it look a lot nicer, right? The irrigation on that field is under-sized for currently what it is. In the past the irrigation used to run from an old well individual well building and now that's hooked to the city water. So that line is likely under-sized and the meter is just a 1-in meter trying to serve a large ball field, right? In comparison to our Lions Park that's a you know that's a 2-in meter that runs that. But with ball fields they do use a lot of water, right? They do have larger irrigation heads that serve larger square foot areas as well. Their proposal does include just in updating the irrigation in that central area in the green field inside inside the um inside the base area and not the exterior of everything else. So in my proposal and analysis I did indicate that that might be something that we look at in the future. If this is something we want to do is you know it's kind of one of those deals that you go in and dig it up once then come back a couple years later and dig it up again or is it kind of like a one-time deal where you just start try to make improvements to it. So um as far as going back to the irrigation we have had it running the last couple years and again that's where I I just emphasize it's it's probably underpowered for the size that it's trying to do, right? Uh probably doesn't need to be limited more on zones. Some of the things need to get fixed that are out there just cuz it's a lack of use um or being um operational probably 3 to 7 years ago. So, um So, again, just a little bit that you know, our city's contribution was to support the improvements to the city a city amenity um and address the some of the safety issues that they addressed in their their in their uh listed items. The the partnership with Lake Eola Baseball will also allow the city to invest with the association to increase the total number of contributions towards the project. So, again, our 50% you know, their 50% kind of really really uh reduces that that amount of funds that we end up putting into there. Um >> At least three pages. >> Uh two. And I needed four [clears throat] of them. >> Kind of small, right? So, I think you're going to have to put some some glasses on cuz you got glasses. You might have to shake your head. This is our CIP um schedule right for the um for the next 10 years. Again, that is something that we go on and um that we're going to review uh back in early May, June, we start going through our CIP. I'm just bringing that up because that is something like our intent as our our as our as our work plan is to kind of go over our CIP projects, but also to provide that with you so you have that that gauge of where where our funds go. Um as you as you can see, by 2029, um those funds have diminished to uh the amount of zero. So, keep that in mind as we um continue to add projects or we continue to push projects out. I know we uh looked at Tablin Park as a playground of 127,000. That's something that we set aside for the time being, but we also have, you know, a pavilion to review yet this year, right? So, just some things that So, funds that are in there. We've got a couple items yet for the for the Lions Park playground that we'll buy. Not huge cost, but we're under budget on that project initially. We still have the Ridge Park playground to decide on yet for 2026. But also some projects in 2027 and 2028 coming forward that we'll have to kind of either adjust or re- re-discuss as we go forward before that the fund becomes empty ultimately. So, um So, the options I think are in front of the commission tonight are is to recommend just including that into a CIP budget in 2027 if we want to make those improvements or we don't move forward with that. So, I'll take any questions that we have. Um I listed it out as, you know, if we if we were going to go in there, there are some things that, you know, if we're going to update the irrigation in that front lot, our irrigation system that we have right now should be upgraded at the same time. That's why I did increase that a little bit, but up for discussion or anything that you any questions you guys might have on that. >> Adam, the city water that's currently being used for irrigation as well as if that line the diameter were updated to be a larger diameter, is that water potable? Just in thinking about the little consideration of drinking water. >> Adding a water fountain? Yeah. >> So, it is potable? Okay. >> So, currently right now the waterfall minutes there is usable. So, the water that is used actually Yeah, comes from our regular system. Yeah. >> So, you were talking about all this internal stuff and better controls and all this. But, they're going to put in a 2-in line, right, to the main? >> They In their proposal, they are not. So, you might suggestion would be is that we do If we are going to upgrade it, upgrade it upgrade this is some larger you know >> So, we'd use more water eventually. >> Correct. >> If we in 2027, if we contributed and put it in the CIP and we did it all at once, would then public works do all of that work? I guess I I'm understanding from this that in typical fashion, I mean, they got quotes, they got the contractors. Um And I guess just from a liability standpoint, typically, would public works kind of coordinate that again and get appropriate quotes and be comfortable with the selected vendors just to make sure that a project would be done right. >> Yeah, if we were to make that a CIP project, uh we would have to get a second bid uh for those and likely ask the ask the vendor, you know, that they propose to update their bids that they're that they're appropriate understanding that it's competitive at this point, right? >> Has there been any This is a little more long-term kind of with we're talking with the Baseball Association with VFW and this kind of gets to the sports complex a little bit. Any just planning discussions with these groups saying, "Okay, in the next And I know it's hard, but in the next 5 years, 10 years, you know, what are you anticipating, you know, for fields and improvements so that we're not always just reacting to it and we can maybe plan it and have it in the CIP versus having to add in the CIP and maybe taking something out that we had planned. And secondly, would there be any interest, and this is just an idea, of somehow with the these groups having kind of a a minimal charge, but that charge would go they would pay that they would whether it's a per player fee or a group fee, an association or VFW fee, paying that and that goes into kind of a shared kind of CIP fund so that when they do have these projects that there could be kind of a either a cost share on them or they could just have so a pot that they could utilize to do a project. So, it's just more thinking ahead so we're not scrambling cuz they have the money and we don't or we have the money and they don't. So, just an idea. >> Yeah, just to go back on that first conversation. I think if you look back um potentially what 3 years ago already, right? 24 when they presented. I think they had a little bit more um synopsis of their planning and their figure of what they expect for kids coming up, what they expect for groups, ages um that you know, they could likely bring to that next meeting as well when we talk about the the previous fee. So, um it's kind of that analysis of what they what they look like in the future uh versus what they look like now. >> Yeah, cuz I would hate to turn down $48,000 because we were reacting to it and trying to figure out, okay, sorry, we can only put it in 2027 cuz we don't have the So, it would just be being more in sync so that we know what's coming, what their desires are. Maybe we can't meet their needs, but at least we would know with VFW or baseball, hey, we want to do we want to redo this infield or we want to do whatever and then either they would have the funds to do it and or we could cost share on certain things like they're asking us to do on this one. >> Yeah, we currently don't have that with VFW is so at the Lions ball field we do have our sign rental, you know, that those those items do go into a fund for future improvements of of that area. So, you know, so we do have a Um we have done that in the past is what I'm going to say. Um so, just not for that that ball field there. >> Um and Adam, what's the can you please just remind us what the threshold is um if we didn't want to add a CIP item that we need to stay below? >> So, um that that number is 20,000. So, if you're looking at that 20 25,000, that's going to jump you up into that CIP uh number. >> Is this also an item that could be tabled till we get more information next month? >> What information do we got to get? >> that's the question for us. >> This one's got a longer time frame than the first one. >> Right, yeah. So, >> What information we got to get? >> Well, the background like talking about >> Oh, all that. >> get you know maybe would they be interested in in you know paying a large larger portion over time for some of the maintenance of of the fields where the irrigation is needed and things like that. I don't know. >> I mean, I think that if right if the irrigation is a pertinent issue for us it's going to have to be a CIP item. Um in which case making a motion on this to get that in action will allow us to get will allow Adam to go out and get two bids and will allow our next conversation to be more informed. Um So I guess I I feel like there are details that need to be worked out here, but there also seems like a more clear barrier of our action. >> So just to give you a timeline, so CIPs are we can add, subtract, normally we we got to review those things in like I said June, right? So I'm bringing this forward as a as a new topic, right? That you know, we haven't discussed in the past, but we do have up until probably about I would say if we're going to make a decision before December to add this to the CIP cuz our city council will approve that approve approve the budget and CIP in December. So you know, if we whether we pass it tonight or you know, it's just a number going in there. It always can get removed or otherwise we have that discussion in the next one. We can always increase funds whether you approved it or denied it or wanted discussion with it. So we just have to know that before that December timeline. >> Great. >> That timeline is very helpful, Adam. >> Cuz ultimately they're not looking to do this type of project until the fall of 2027. Um where again they're not going to try to lay down new sod and everything in the spring of 27 when they got you know, X amount of games scheduled and you know, they got to wait till that grass is established. So >> Are there other questions that commissioners have for Adam? >> [snorts] >> So this the recommendation you had, Adam, said not to exceed 50,000. So is that because you were recommending the additional information? Because we don't have to include what they're spending in the CIP, right? Just just what we would add. >> Yeah, just is we'd add to it, correct? >> Okay. >> And [clears throat] it's correct that there is not a formal donation form from Lake Elmo Baseball associated with this proposal, right? >> did submit a donation form knowing that if they were asking for the city to contribute half of it at this point. I did speak to the donors and just give them the update of like where we stand in the city at this point. >> Okay. >> Um and so that's where it's available, um but they're they stepped back to say, "Hey, our best bet at this point would just be to make it a CIP item in order for us to be able to help fund it." >> Um would any commissioner feel so moved to to make a motion? Commissioner Barrett, maybe? Or others? >> Um sure. I move that we table the recommendation to approve the CIP project in 2027 for improvements to VFW ballfield not to exceed 50,000 until next month. Um where we can perhaps get more I'm going to stop there. Sorry. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> Any discussion? >> I I think it we can get more questions answered next month. And we still have some time, some leeway before December. So we can always pause it longer if we need to. >> But as raised by Commissioner Veto, we're not trying to >> Geo >> downplay free money. Okay, so that needs to be conveyed. We just got questions. >> Agreed. All right. So, the motion on the table it is to move to table the recommendation to approve the CIP projects um the proposed CIP project in 2027 for improvements to VFW Ball Field um to next month's agenda. All in favor? >> I. >> I. Any opposed? All right. Motion carried. Thank you. Um next we have the Ridge Park Playground discussion. And I'm guessing we probably have some more public comment for this element. In which case, if you would like to speak um please do fill out one of those forms in the back and hand it to Ashley who will get it to us. Um we would invite comment on this agenda item after Adam's presentation. >> Hey, thank you, chair. Um last month uh staff presented uh actually four options in regards to the Ridge Park Playground. Um the commission asked that staff go back and review [snorts] that and put that in a price range of what we had set for the CIP. My our numbers were above that CIP number. So, they're looking at numbers likely from that 100,000 to that 125,000. Hearing no discrepancies with the style that was presented, I did take the look back to the um we removed one of the uh vendors from that cuz it wasn't it was said didn't fit the scope of what we wanted at the park. Um so, Flagship did present all three options that we initially had um and just uh reduce some of the amenities that may have been in that playground. So, but also included um um I did have them ask I did ask them to include a bench with some shading in those areas if it wasn't included in on the on the playground itself. As we found out that first um the first option including shading on the playground itself was added quite a bit of of money to that. So Um so the issue before us tonight is would the Parks Commission like to make a recommendation to City Council for the replacement of Rich Park playground set with one of the proposed options. Um again we have 25 $125,000 assigned to this play set. Um Not a whole I can go over all three options again. I'd love to present them but we we have no projector here today but otherwise I'll take any questions from that. Some of the the um you know I didn't provide a option at that $100,000 range that we had talked about in our last meeting late because in the background I knew we're having that first conversation. Right? So knowing that we're going to potentially have that option of bringing additional people to the park I didn't want to downsize the playground to be like okay now we undersized it. Now we have to build an additional something additional on to it. So that's why the um just to be transparent of why a $100,000 option wasn't presented. originally this time. >> Great. Thanks Adam. Um next I'll invite public comment um from Jim Williams if you'd like to come up. State your name and [clears throat] address and again six minutes for your >> Thank you. I'm Jim Williams. I live at 1805 Ivory Avenue North. So I'm actually the president of our HOA in Parkview Estates and I join with Cardinal Ridge and across the street is Tory Pines and so we've all talked about [snorts] the proposals that have been made and I I think Adam and I have talked several times as well. I think our our neighborhood and and the other neighborhoods realize that the city park is an asset of the city and not our neighborhood park. That being said, we also all live there. And we went through the road construction and the revamping of our roads just a couple years ago. We were all quite displeased with the process of that, and we have really inadequate parking for our own neighborhood today. We have one side of the road parking. So, if you have company or people coming over, we don't have adequate adequate parking to even have guests come to our homes now. So, adding traffic to a park that it's virtually a quiet unused park today is is a bit of a concern to people because there's been little discussion in my opinion about infrastructure to support added traffic to the neighborhood for whatever the park's going to look like in the next 10 or 12 or 15 years. And that doesn't I think was mentioned earlier that there's really not a well-defined plan for what the stated purpose of the park's development's going to look like in the buildout. And today is probably not the time to talk about that, but I think the reality is if if you're if we're looking at a project and spending a hundred thousand or in my opinion much more than that in time, we should not do something today and spend a hundred thousand dollars and have that process negated three years from now because there's a new development and there is traffic and you want to put other amenities in there, and now the playground's in the wrong place. And the parking is the parking that was improved needs to be moved. The roads need to be improved. There's There's a lot of things that are if you went there and saw the park today that some of the conversation I've heard makes me feel like I think you said earlier we still don't have a very good long-term plan of what Ridge Park is ultimately going to be. And I think I think it's essential before we I would think before you make significant investments in that park that that plan is well thought and developed in conjunction with all the other park developments are going to affect it. I heard comment about there's a development going where the water tower might be put in. And that's expected to be a high volume residential place, but it's not for many years. And yet a playground has a limited life. 15 20 years time. So I don't think we should put a playground in today to support what someday might come as traffic when the reality is I mean I've lived there since 2008. I can count on one hand the number of people that visit that park in a week. It's it's mainly used by the residents in that neighborhood for walking trails, walking their dogs, walking with their child children. There's very little There hasn't been a baseball game on that baseball diamond for at least 3 years. So your comment earlier Tracy was the the allocation of land for the baseball diamond. The diamond's already there. It's just not maintained. So it hasn't been used. So you know, I'm not trying to be an opponent of development and progress, but I really think the whole concept of what's being talked about at Ridge Park is very premature for the population and the traffic that uses that park today. And and our neighboring subdivisions all kind of concur that that we're a little bit con- confused by the desire to make an investment when there's not an infrastructure to support what's being talked about as a development. So and I you know, maybe there There a plan that's in a separate discussion, but the road the road and the traffic and the parking lot is a major major expense that I think the playground pales in comparison to the cost that looms over the road development and entrance and exits of traffic going in and out of that development. So, that I would just ask you to think about that before I'm not trying to oppose taking donations or doing anything, but I I would just I really feel like it's money not well spent at the moment. A playground The playground's not functional today. So, if you want to have a playground, we have to do something. There's no doubt about that. I would just limit it to that until the population and or the traffic and or a plan is developed that warrants more more in investment and more infrastructure improvement. That's all I have to say. >> Thanks, Jim. Are there any questions from the commissioners for Jim? >> I actually do have a question, Jim. Are you I guess the are you then advocating for the installation of a playground, which is the agenda item we're talking about, or are you not? >> Yeah. I I am. You know, I have personally I have mixed feelings. Our neighborhood as a as a group in Cardinal Ridge and Torrey Pines I I don't think there's any opposition to a new playground being put in. Although, we've talked and I think it was suggested to move the playground out of the low spot it sits in closer to the parking lot. So, when people come to visit the parking lot, if they drive, they don't have to walk through the wetlands to get there. >> Mhm. >> I think we would be okay with that. I mean I mean it makes sense that we if we're going to have a playground and it's a park, the playground can't be used today because it's not safe. So, you know, I don't think that would obstruct any long-term plans you might develop or have for further development of that park when the population warrants the development. So, I'm not opposed to that. And I'm guessing it's probably as cheap to replace the playground. And I worked at our church school and replaced the playground there 2 years ago, so I know what playgrounds cost. And to repair a playground is not much different than it to replace a playground. So, um and and I'm guessing you found that with your proposal. So, I think that part makes sense to me. I just think a lot of the other discussions don't make sense to me. And I don't want to see you lose the donation for the backstop, but honestly, if it's not used today, I think you meant somebody mentioned earlier in the conversation about the the large park. Um and how that might affect other parks. And I think all those things are still being discussed. So, why why an investment would be made that requires an infrastructure and parking uh revamping of the roads without a long-term plan of what the park's going to look like in the next 5 to 10 years seems seems peculiar to me. So, the playground I think is is a minimal investment really in comparison to the whole concept of what you're talking about. >> Okay. >> Okay. Any other >> Are there other questions? Okay. Thank you, Jim. >> Thank you. >> All right. Are there questions for Adam? >> So, um the current structure, if we do nothing, if we don't replace this, you're tearing it down, right? >> Correct. Well, it's going to come out this fall. >> Regardless. >> Regardless. >> It's coming out this fall. >> It must, right? Go ahead, Faith. >> [snorts] >> And this proposal or any of the proposals, do they include any type of accessible route from the parking lot to the playground? >> So, uh that'd be based off of placement of that, right? So, in in the money that we have set aside for this playground is the playground only. So, likely public works would have to create a gravel path to the to the parking lot at this point. Future on future planning would be to, you know, if it's a change in dynamics of the parking lot, whatever, would be to incorporate, you know, asphalt trails so that's accessible. So. >> Is our discussion now more than just the structure choices at placement? >> My understanding is or I guess yeah, Adam is that could be a good clarification. Feel like I'm seeing in these proposals that the um idea would to be to put it adjacent to where a proposed moved parking lot is. Is that correct or is that still flexible and is that something that we need discussion on? >> Yeah, I don't think it needs any further discussion. Public works should isolate where or have an idea where it's placed based off the concept of possibly a future parking lot there as well as using those using that concept plan that we prepared earlier this year for placement of that. So, >> So, moving it out of that low area is >> Correct. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> would be a component of this. >> Yeah, it's not going back where it was before. >> Okay. Are there other questions for Adam? All right, let's have a little discussion among commissioners and then hopefully we can make a motion and then have more discussion. I feel like I really appreciated seeing the changes to um hit that cost benchmark. Um and I I mean of course a little smaller amount of amenities, but I still think that these are all really good options and I feel like I really liked option two um for bringing some elements that we don't see at other parks like that cool tandem swing. And I think that the swings serve a large age range as well. >> This is money in next year's CIP? >> Uh no, this is proposed for 2026. >> Right now? >> 2026. >> Right now? That would If we didn't do this, that would give us um >> [laughter] >> money for the other options. >> It's a shell game. >> I don't know. I'm hearing and we've had our own concerns about putting anything there and so I think for there and we have been um advised by some people around the city to start to cut back on playground facilities. It's an option to think about. You can always come back and visit it. As we get this integrated completed plan figured out. Or the Well, or then you just look at it as a It's just replacing what's there. It's not the the playground's not going to increase the traffic that much. Different than what it was. Yes, maybe nobody was using it in 15 years, but Yeah, there'll be two extra cars, but it's not like the baseball. It's completely different than the baseball in my opinion. >> Yeah, I guess that my perspective is I I could very well go along with Hank and say as much as work I've put into it and I would legitimately feel bad about that. I would not have a problem just saying but with the with what we're hearing from neighbors, with what we're hearing from Lincoln Elmo and baseball and having some unknowns and and knowing that we've discussed the broader uh development of this park uh I would not have a trouble delaying it. On the flip side option two to me too, it's it's under budget. It's a good spot or or a good set of facilities rather. Um as long as it was in a spot I would I would advocate that it would be in a spot that would potentially allow for it would allow for potential placement of other amenities if that was what was decided. Meaning I would not like to be for making a decision on the playground and that's all we're making a decision on. I would like to to be in a spot that could accommodate other features. So we don't get stuck. Uh that's where I'm at. >> I would agree. I'd like to see the long I'd like a historic more on the long-term plan including just infrastructure options. Um I would hate to put this in and then somehow something changes when we look at the broader scope of it. Um and I'm going to be the broken record on engagement. I'd like to I appreciate Jim being here tonight to represent kind of the the association, but I guess I would like to have more engagement on an overall plan that the neighborhoods could react to as well. And we have more information on that. So, that's kind of my take. So, I would be okay with not moving forward with just the playground as well. >> I would agree. And also, Stonegate Park would be the next closest park, and that's up for next year, right? Replacement, so I mean, just another factor. >> I seem to recall some people coming several months ago saying that they used the park the playground with their grandkids. Some of the neighbors. Um I don't remember numbers, but it seemed like there were two different couples that mentioned that. So, I think it does get used sometimes besides the people stopping by. I don't see an issue with waiting and not putting in this fall. But maybe over the winter if we can set a timeline amongst ourselves to say, "Let's get something going on the overall picture of the park." So, that we have something in mind and possibly be ready to go in spring. Um and I do like option two. Uh the only thing I don't see is and maybe I'm missing it, a bench. For people for adults or other people to sit on the outside. Um but I don't think we should wait a long time without having a a playground there. The three communities you talked about don't have a playground. >> That was my comment back to the designers if we could shrink down the swing size set and in in the place of that put a bench and a shade on the one side. >> Yeah, there's a lot of swing, sir. >> The only other thing I would ask of the commission, we did review the concept plan we put in our budget, public works budget to to make and prepare concept plan for Ridge Park. If that's our intent, like we had public comment on that. People come back on that. If we didn't like the concept, we should have said something so that we continue to spend that. Otherwise, we're going back to the drawing board or deleting that one and starting over, right? >> Right. >> We had a public comment on that, so >> No, I I agree with that. We have had public comment, and we have had the opportunity, and we can only do so much about about the development of this park. The larger picture here that I This [clears throat] is a 23-acre park? Is that about right? 22 acres? Doesn't matter. It's a fairly large park by our standards, average-wise. We have as mentioned that potential development on the south. We have potential development that would come to the west. Um we don't know when. Maybe our planner has some tidbits for us. But I think the the point is that we have a park there. It is very unlikely that we would establish within those new developments another park. >> Particularly of this size. >> Particularly of this size. So, that means that whatever we're doing has to be in consideration of this park being utilized by a lot more future residents in the very immediate area. Unless the city of Lake Oswego decides they want to sell that parcel and have it developed and choose another place across the street, which again seems fairly unlikely. It's a possibility. So, this is our park for this immediate area. We do have the opportunity the obligation rather to make sure that it's usable for a variety of residents. It is going to be busier. It's going to have more traffic. There's going to be amenities there because it is a part of our system and that's that's how our community works. So, I think we do have to I think Adam made reference to like, "Hey, we don't want to undersize this." Um we've also heard from our council, "Hey, do we need playgrounds everywhere? Should we be doing other things?" That leads me and hearing public comment, that leads me back to, "Hey, let's let's not redo the plan that we have. We have a concept plan I think we can work with and I think we maybe should just focus on that larger picture before making decisions on this playground. It certainly is one of the options for the future. That was pretty long-winded. But I'm good at that. >> So, can you clarify you're saying that you are in support of this playground and you are in support of uh not moving forward at this time? >> saying we could approve a park and I would say as a part of the approval sorry, a playground and say as Pam said or Pat, sorry. Sorry. Uh said, um let's let's get the larger concept uh revisited this winter before we install that playground so we know where the playground is going in relative to everything else. I think that's what I'm saying. >> For example, you >> You could call me the wrong name. >> It's okay. >> This is back to Adam. For example, you could come off 15th Street, right? Make an entrance there. I'm just throwing out some possibilities that you could come in that way, right? And not put the traffic in the neighborhood. >> Um >> Isn't there a conservation easement off of that park? >> Part of the park is in a conservation easement, in the wooded section. >> Okay. >> [snorts] >> Um other discussion from commissioners. Would someone like to put a motion on the table? >> Um I would I would make the motion to for option two. With uh delaying the install until we make further decisions on the broader development of the park. >> Second. >> I think it would be good to have a time frame um or an end point for the playground being installed. >> Well, your money's only this year. >> Hm. Carries over, though. >> Carries over. >> Yeah, well, we're not moving it anywhere, so. >> Uh yeah. >> If I could add, just >> Yeah, of course. >> Appreciate the the the motion. Um The timeline's the biggest the biggest thing is that I'd have concern about. If I go back to If I go back to my designer and say, "Yes, but hold on." Right? That's going to be the biggest thing. It might not be available. I can cuz he's going to ask, "Well, when? In spring?" "No." "In the fall?" "Maybe." And the price will go up. So, I don't know if the you know, are the parts going to be available? Yes, but is that concept, that plan you know, cuz they're they're reinventing the wheel all the time, right? So, um That's all I have to say about it. It's like If we knew what that time frame was, it might make more sense, but that's the question I'm going to get right away. Cuz again, the salesman wants their dollar at the end of the day, right? So, so just take that into the concept as well. >> Um In thinking about timeline, does uh did Flagship propose a timeline for install when talking with you? It Was it this fall? Was it next spring? Um Or or was that timeline not given? >> So, that install would still be uh if approved, would still be installed yet in 2026. >> So, this fall yet? >> Okay. >> Would you be comfortable with the idea of saying, "Yeah, we can do an install, but we can put it in a place that still gives us room to put in other amenities in"? Is that something you'd be comfortable saying >> that we can do? Yeah, I think that's comfortable. >> Well, okay. Based on that and based on your input right now, then I guess I'd vote no on my own motion. >> like to amend your motion? >> No, let's just vote on it quick. I don't know what I'd amend it to, honestly. [laughter] Uh >> Um do any other commissioners like to discuss the motion on the table right now to delay install? >> I should have a good question. Did we get any feedback from National Night Out on this? >> I was not presented at National Night Out. So, the again back to our concept plan, we had surveys out to the three neighborhoods uh that were allowed to participate in that as well as participate in our daily monthly conversation on Ridge Park on the concept plans that we um that we initially came out with then we revamped again. So, that was our uh community communication with that. >> Can you The motion was to approve it, but to delay the installation, correct? >> The motion on the table is to recommend option two with delayed install until decisions are made on broader elements of the park. >> So, those decisions can be made tomorrow next week or it doesn't really set a time. >> No. >> Um that is correct. So, uh Peter, you would not like to amend your motion? >> Well, I mean, let's see. I um I guess I I'm going motion >> You can add like or December 2027. >> No, it's I would just say that motion doing would be into a install option two uh and as long as everybody else is comfortable with that amendment then >> Um okay. Well, I So, your proposed amendment is to move forward with option two and delete your uh contingency there. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Is there a second to amend the motion to remove the contingency component? >> I'll second that. >> Okay. So, the motion on the table or all in favor? >> I. >> I. >> Any opposed? Nay. Uh would we like to have discussion on that? Would you like to explain? >> I guess I'm just not comfortable. I I realize we kind of have the general area, but I don't know what else is going to be in that park and what else could change from a Maybe we change how some of the concept. I I don't know. I I just I'm not comfortable with just picking a spot for a playground and building everything else around it not knowing what that everything else is. >> Okay. Thank you. Okay. So, the motion on the table right now is to recommend option two for the concept at Ridge Park. >> Adam, do we need to talk about removing some swings and putting a bench in or is that something you can deal with later? >> If you wanted to adjust it, you could. If it was going to be more, then I would not proceed with it. If it was going to be less, it would be something I I could do personally if that was the intent of the commission. >> Okay. Can I amend the amended motion or do we start new? >> I think we should start new. >> [laughter] >> Okay. So, let's take a vote on the current motion and then we can have a second chance at making a cleaner motion. So, right now the motion on the table is to recommend option two. All in favor? All opposed? >> Nay. >> Nay. >> Nay. >> Okay. Motion failed. Um Pat, would you like to propose a motion? >> I move to recommend to city council the request to purchase and install option number two play set with the change of having one or two fewer swings in place of a bench. >> With shade? >> Pardon me? >> With shade? >> With shade. >> With the shade, sir. >> Yes, thank you. Without it costing without incurring any additional cost. >> Um >> I'll second that. >> Okay. Sorry. I apologize for cutting you off. >> That's all right. >> I got excited. >> Um Pat, is your intention to keep it below the 125 or is it to keep it at the like 120? >> I'd like to see what it was at. >> 125 is what's in the CIP. >> Our cost of option two is 119,900. >> That'd be a really expensive bench. Um shade Yeah, the shade bench. That's expensive. Okay. Um I'm going to cut cut it and say uh to be less than 123,000. >> Wow. 5,000 would be a lot. >> Adam, I have a quick question. Um it it talks about the 46 trees as well as the wood chips in the the labor for that. Is that included in the 119? >> It is not. So, in the past in a lot of our projects, we have we have those nuances that you know, it's drain tile, it's trees. Those are just little expenses we put into those um mainly cuz one of our huge conversations over the past two or three years have just been let's add more trees to our parks. Um So, that's what those come in. So, you know, with you know, Pat's motion um those help fund that if it's not enough public works budget. >> So, that's that's a different separate thing than the 125, though. >> Cor- So, if So, for instance, right now this park is 100 or this playground set is 119,000, right? So, with Pat's uh motion right now at 123,000, that would help offset many of those costs, which include like the trees, some landscaping, the seed, you know, drain tile, you know, potential fabric underneath, things like that, underneath the wood chips. >> Okay, so the motion on the table is to move to recommend city council the request to purchase and install option two um with replacing um some swings for a bench with shade for or less than 123,000. Um I'll call the question. All in favor? >> Aye. >> Aye. Any opposed? >> Nay. >> All right, motion carried. >> Can I have just one representative then that I would talk with over the next couple weeks just for our just the color? Um there's hundreds of options of colors. We can either go with the color that we It's been presented, but otherwise there's a number of different other options. Um we've done that in the past. A lot of times we just stay with what has been presented, but just a need of communication with that. >> Okay, is anyone particularly keen to talk on color here as the commissioners? >> Okay, is there a possibility our communications director can send a Instagram poll out to the Lake Elmo community? >> Yeah, just make it quick, like a week or two. Yeah, we do that. >> It's a good idea, Peter. >> Um would you like to be the representative then? >> Wait a minute. What did I What >> [laughter] >> No, I second that. >> I'm happy to be the representative for this and we can get back >> I actually honestly don't know what I'm what I'm what am I >> I was suggesting that the community should pick a color but what a what what I'm happy to volunteer what am I volunteering for? >> Would you like to be the liaison working with Adam? >> That's that's absolutely fine. >> Okay okay Peter you are the liaison. >> Got you. >> For the color decision. >> Okay okay. >> The color guy. >> Okay. Yes I can handle that. >> Okay thanks Adam. Do you have any other notes for us on that one? >> No. >> Okay. >> [laughter] >> Perfect. Um our next agenda item I believe is public comments. And we would I would like to invite um Susan Dunn up if you could please state your name address and again 6 minutes. >> Susan Dunn 11018 Upper 33rd Street North Lake Elmo Minnesota. I really watched love watching the dynamics today because I was the other end of the bell curve. I was one of the people that originally got the land acquired for the city of Lake Elmo for our passive parks. With some vision to modern build and read and and so forth. So I was at the other end when we were had a referendum that we put out to the city and had a vote on spending money for parks. And it was a positive and we went on because people really appreciated the need for environmental parks in Lake Elmo at that time. And that was back in the 70s. Some of you were about born then. And now I had the opportunity to to go through the new elementary school down on 10th Street. And that sparked something for me. My mind always working even if I'm old. And uh I thought what are they going to do with the old school here in town? What are they going to do with the new playground equipment that they put in there not that long ago. And you probably already thought about that, but is that going to be repurposed or if they destroy that old building and take it out, um, is that going to be something that would be available to the city or to the maybe some of the other schools? I don't know. But whenever we talk cost, which is pretty important to us, I believe, it's something maybe to take into consideration. Number two, that RFP, I really appreciate you making that motion to add um, the environmental concerns on the site that Clark's Road had chosen for the city of May Lake Animal, the 76 acres. I really don't think he realized the importance of that wildlife corridor between the regional park and Sunfish Park. So, I am I really appreciate my Parks Commission making the motion to make that something that they do look at with the RFP. Thank you ever so much and appreciate what you do. >> Thanks, Suzy. Do any commissioners have questions? >> Well, part of that was because of Suzy's uh work that she presented those corridors to us. So, that helped highlight that concern. >> All right. Thank you. Um, communications and updates. Ashley, do you have anything? >> No monthly updates. >> Okay. Uh, do any commissioners have any updates quickly before we wrangle Adam back in here? >> Tammy and I both uh toured the school. >> Yeah. >> Which was really neat. >> It's very impressive >> It was nice to be invited along. >> Just on that subject, we had been told that they were going to move that playground to the new school and it seems obvious to me they're not. So, what we have been told in the past was not the case. >> Maybe it just hasn't been moved yet. >> Maybe you were supposed to do it. >> Maybe. >> [laughter] >> But it's a good thing we could ask Mark Tremmelhausen perhaps he would know the district. Um Adam, do you have any communications for the commission? >> Yeah, just so recently many of our seasonals already left and gone back to college so it has left with our full-time staff to do much of the duties that for maintenance within our park. So um we just got a heads up on that. Our mowing has been limited the last few weeks. We did call off the mowing just because uh with our lack of rain the last almost month month and a half it just hasn't been there for the need for for mowing. Um you'll notice that in two of our parks that we mentioned it before but we did add another canopy to one of our portable toilets. That was down in the Stonegate area between Stonegate and Ivywood. Um we feel looking for commissioner's feedback on that. That is something we just do out of budget but something just kind of isolate those things that might not be very eye attractive but still be able to use be able to use to many of those parks. So the first one we did was up in Clydes earlier this spring. We completed the one in Stonegate just here probably within the last month from our last meeting. So Um in the last couple weeks we had a lot of comments in regards to bees within our public works area parks playground set. So staff has been going around doing more inspections to address that. Just so for users just be careful out there if you do have those just that you will fill out a report or >> It could be the color. >> On the playground? >> Is it bees or wasps? Do you know? >> Well, yeah, wasps. >> Yeah, grown grown bees. >> different. >> At least the park's getting used by animals as well. That's all right. >> I I have a couple of comments, questions Adam. Um the road into Sunfish uh the trees on the east side have been I wouldn't say trimmed, hacked. Is that something public works did? >> Uh east side or west side? >> The east side. >> East side. So, they So, public works was in there and removed the buckthorn from east and west side of the entrance into Sunfish. In the center island we did remove some of the invasive trees and things that were growing in there as well. So, that was all within the last probably 3 4 weeks. >> Yeah. Um some of them were really hacked. Not I I don't feel that care was taken cutting some of the branches off the pine trees and whatnot. I mean it looks like um like they just took a power hedge trimmer. I can't remember what you call it, the mower, and just slashed them and it looks really bad for the entrance to the park. I I think it would be nice if they had taken time and and maybe that was the issue, maybe they didn't have time, but it looks really bad. Um and one of the comment about uh the Ivywood pickleball court, I I noticed the the fence doesn't reach the ground in some places and boards have been put in, which is fine to keep the balls from coming out, but the gate itself could use a like a 2-in something cuz the ball tends to go out there. That's all I have. Thank you. >> All right. Thanks, everyone. Our final agenda item is to adjourn this meeting. Someone like to make a motion? >> Motion to adjourn. >> Second? >> Second. >> Everyone jump at once. Who would like to >> Me. I'll second. >> Okay, perfect. All right, all in favor? >> Aye. >> Aye. Any opposed? All right, motion carried.