I don't know what they're talking about.>> Do you know that now in 2026 the regulations for splash pipes aresignificantly more challenging to get >> Oh, really?>> Um permitted. Yeah. They you can't do a closed loop anymore. Has to like it hasto be new water type stuff. It seems like like >> would be much more powerful than pools,>> but I don't I don't know that. >> Yeah, don't build a pool or an icearena. >> They're very costly.>> You're No, you're in utilities or utilities. Do we know about Patch?>> She got her knee replaced this morning. It will definitively not be coming.>> Oh, wow. Okay. >> Just wondering about that.>> All right. We are on the air, so I'll call us order.>> Thank you for that information. >> All right. I would like to call to orderthe parks commission meeting for Wednesday, January 18th, 2026.>> Let us now do the pledge of allegiance. >> I pledge algiance to the flag of theUnited States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nationunder God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. All right, we're going to have theagenda tonight. Everybody's got a copy. And if you want to make corrections oradditions, let me know. Otherwise, I could use a motion toapprove the agenda. >> So moved.>> Do I hear a second? >> Second.All in favor of the motion to approve the agenda signify by saying I.>> I. >> Any nays?Hearing no nays, it's approved. Using that agenda, we'll move on to theapproval of the minutes from December of 2025.Once again, I assume everybody got a copy.Are there any comments or additions or corrections?>> So I just want to make a correction. So, under the approval of November meetingminutes, it said that I suggested including attachments.And what I said was to make sure we document what the amendments are when weamend a motion becausethe minutes actually said approved with amendments, but didn't say what theamendments were. So, >> and this says attachments. Okay. Okay.Did you get that? >> Okay. Anything else? So, can I get a motion toapprove the minutes with the one amendment?I'll make a motion to approve the minutes with the correction.>> Do I get a second? >> I'll second.>> All in favor of approving the November 15, 2025Lake Elmo Parks Commission minutes signify by saying I>> I opposed. There are no opposed.All right. On to elections of officers. And just for everybody's generalinformation in my archives, I did run across the notes for howyou're actually supposed to do this. Now, we're usually close to doing it,but I'm going to follow these things. So, what we're going to do is we'regoing to canvas for nominations for chair.Once we have those uh we'll get a single nomination for the position and then umthe chair askked if the nominee is agreeing with this and if that's thecase then we move on from there and it depends whether we have multiple or oneand once that is over then the new chair person takes place and there is the samething that you would do for the vice chair.Any questions before we go and do that? >> I do.>> So, you said there's a nomination. Then subsequently, is there a motion on thatnomination? >> There's a motion. When you get it downto one, >> how do you we arm wrestle to get it downto one? >> That's a vote. It's a vote. I I could gothrough the whole thing. If there's only one, you then make a motion and that'sthe person you vote on. If there are multiple, then you do the yays and naysor no, no, no. You tally up the votes for each one and then you do the yaysand nazs for the one. >> Okay.>> So, you kind of separate out the motion from the second because you don't seconduntil you got somebody. >> Yeah. And where is that coming from?>> These were handed out a year or two ago. I think because they noticed we weregetting confused. And as we saw, um, they like us tofollow, I assume this is out of Robert's rules of order. There's no reference.Okay. >> So,all right. So, the first thing we're going to do is look for a new chair.>> And therefore, I would like people to one by onenominate someone for chair. I'd nominate Hank for chair.I'd second. >> You don't need a second.>> Oh, >> he wanted to though.>> Yeah, how much this is how much I want it.>> Um, I would like to not consent to that nomination.>> Oh, this is why this is happening. >> Do we have any other nominations? >> Well, wait. A point of clarificationhere. What if nobody in in Well, we can get to that point. We can get to thatpoint >> because I would like to nominate Ellen.>> Okay. >> Does Ellen consent?>> I would consent to that. >> Good. Okay. Are there any other names tobe thrown into consideration for chair?>> We cannot nominate people that are not here. Is that>> obvious? >> There's a long story about that.>> Okay. I think you were here for that. But there are two others that haven'tnominated anybody. Do we >> anybody else? Generally, it's notconsidered a good thing to do because you don't have the consent. But therewas a time when we were kind of forced to do it. It was like all newbies andone person who knew how to run the meetings and the person who run themeetings was nominated and we survived that thing. But ingeneral, no. Anybody else would like to put forwarda nomination? If not,you've consented and there's only one nominee. The chair being me declares thenominations closed. May I have a second to nominate Ellenfor the position of chair of the parks commission?>> I'll second nominating Ellen for the chair position.>> Any discussion? I will discuss. I thought uh Ellen did agreat job at the most controversial and crazy uh parks meeting we had and shedid a good job. So I think she would be very good. Uh, and as we all heard,we're going to have to do some things with like invasive species. I think shewould be a perfect person for that other than we'll lose our notetaker, butthat's another thing. All right. Any other discussion on thenomination? All right, we're going to take a vote.All those in favor say I. >> I oppose. No.Congratulations. >> Okay. Now, I'm gonna nominate the vicechair. >> Uh, we're you're going to conduct thenomination. We have to switch positions here. >> You don't have to switch the nomination.>> Oh, that's where the >> Now, now your name now your name tagsare wrong. >> That's my grandpa's name.>> See, there's one >> destiny or something like that.>> The memory. See? See this is good. All right. And let me give you thescript here. >> All right.>> So, yes, we go through and do the same thing for the vice chair.>> All right. Um, does would anyone like to make a nomination for vice chair of theparks commission? I would like to nominate Tracy. >> Tracy, do you consent? >> Yes, I consent. >> Are there further nominations? Hearing none, I'll close the nominations. Uh,may I have a second to motion to nominate Tracy as the new vice chair ofthe parks commission? >> I'll second that.>> Any discussion? >> I'll make a general discussion that Ithink it both. Yeah, I agree with what you had indicated earlier about our newchair. Um, I also think that just generally speaking, everybody should doit. So, that's my >> that is my general comment.>> You don't necessarily need surgery to get out of it, but that's another thing.>> All right. >> All right. Well, let's take a vote. Um,all those in favor? >> I I.>> Any opposed? >> Okay. Motion carried>> to new officers. >> You seem pretty excited about it.>> All right. >> I agree in your philosophy.>> Should go around. >> Should be two years each though, Hank.>> Yeah. >> Well, I've been assistant once before.>> Okay. All right. >> I've got two years in.>> All right. Okay. Uh moving on to the next agenda item, Adam, futureplayground replacements. >> Yes. Thank you, chair, commissioners.So, um over the past year, we've had a couple of conversations not only withcity council, but including in our workshops and the discussion has come upum being directed from city council to us to continue to look at um how ourplayground replacement looks in the years to come.They recommended that we look at our playgrounds. We look at possible othermeans of amenities to put in their place instead of just going around and justcompleting every uh replacing every playground just because you know it'smet it's met its 25 year lifespan and how do we go from there? Right? So, um,so the issue before us tonight is like to put maybe together a criteria that welook at, um, that we can reference back to about how the parks commission wouldlike to prioritize or review playground replacements going forward. Now, thisisn't something that I plan to like bring um to get approval from citycouncil like our plan or objective. Mike, the other one, try the other one. Um, this isn't a plan that we probablyplan to um, you know, to review. Uh, oh, I think I should take back. We willreview when we review our playground replacement as they come up possibly inthat CIP. Um, likely I'd like to do that the year before before we put that inthat CIP. Right. So, we've already kind of already identified in the um,uh, ahead of time here what we have coming up. So possibly that year beforewe're really addressing that before that CIP before we put it in there of whetheror not we're really looking at replacing that the following year. Um there aresome benefits of getting um the playground in place the year before. Wecan definitely take um some credits or some um funds off of there. We did kindof miss that window with our Lions Park replacement this year.>> Are you trying to show a PowerPoint? >> No.>> Oh, okay. Good. Um >> I'm just thinking out loud.>> I thought you were maybe looking at something and I was worried.>> Uh no. So um we did kind of miss that that window this year uh with our LionsPark replacement. But as we as we begin to prioritize these, we can uh begin tolook at those stages maybe a little bit uh ahead of time. And if it is one thatmeets our criteria that we are going to replace, we can probably meet thatdeadline a little bit closer and get those things on the on the I guess thethe work plan uh for the for the following year probably with a reducedprice uh of taking advantage of the year before prices, right? So,um with that said, how do we want to prioritize and review those playgroundreplacements going forward? U one of our biggest things is our park users reallyvalue our parks and our amenities that are there. And I think Hank brought itup last night is how do you tell a neighborhood that you're taking away theplayground that's been there for 25 years or 30 or 40 years, right? Andwe're going to replace it with something else or how do we how do we value or howdo we review that or prior prioritize that to say yes, that playground needsto be replaced. Um, under our park master plan, one ofthe things that highlights in there is that our playgrounds, baseball fields,and shelters are our main priorities or main things that people go to our parksto see. I mean, playground was probably one of the number one items besides ourbaseball fields that was probably a higher priority because of just thesimulation that we were in at the time. Um, with that being said, that is onething that we um I think our residents really strive to go to um that attractthem to our parks. And I think mainly because of playgrounds when we do dosurveys, that's what our communities um you know, in this last one, we took thelocal communities, local residents to answer that survey. And that's one ofthe main things that they they looked at was one of the reasons why they went tothe park. So, of those parks, I mean again, uhI'll recquote myself from last night. Hank, I think I said 12, but accordingto my report, we have 15 playgrounds out there, right? So, um, so five of which,uh, are categorized as community parks. Uh, Lions, Reed, Stonegate, Tablin areall community parks that are slated for replacement in the next eight years. So,um, so one that's one of the things I thought about as we were looking forwardis how to guide maybe the commission is to look at, you know, we got somedirection from city council to say, look at our neighborhood parks and are arethose the ones that need to be replaced or not? Is like, well, then so then dowe look at, hey, just replacing our community parks? And what's tough withthat is as we look ahead is that yes, our Lions Park was probably one of ourthat's kind of a no-brainer. I think we had a a full vote on that one to replacethat one, right? Um, but our Ridge Park is not a community park. It's stillclassified even in our new parks master plan as a neighborhood park. Our Tabletand Stonegate, which are our next two coming up, are community park. So, thosewould kind of uh relate down that down that trail. Um, one could second guessthat Ridge Park with the development that we do have uh potentially comingforward there in the next 10 to 15 years uh and the access to that that couldeasily become a community park in that area um or be classified as one outsidelike our park master plan that we have now. Um going forward again, Carriage Stationuh is classified as a neighborhood park. Again, the location of that could be umskewed as a as a community park because it has great access. Um developmentaround there probably isn't going to change much in the next 10 to 15,possibly 20 years. Um but um Tannon Ridge neighborhood park um due in 2030.One could easily argue uh a possible uh removal of that one just because ofproximity with Firefly, Downtown Lions, um just things like that. So that thatis one possibly in that in that next group that we could have a second lookat. Hidden null, we do have some possible changes up there coming uh witha new development to the south there possibly that came to the parkscommission uh last year. Um and again up in that area besides carriage station.Um there is no other park for uh residents or neighbor or citizens to useup there. Uh and finally our Reed Park in 2033. That one again uh could beclassified or could I know that is a community park. Um one could argue maybethat's one you do replace or do not replace excuse me because of itsproximity to not only uh pilot park but also the to the downtown area.So with that when looking at our playground replacements uh we look atthe age, wear, tear, overall use, location, proximity to help guide ourreplacement decisions. What else the what else can can the community supportin replacement of the playgrounds that will relate to the community to helpimprove uh our public use in our in our green space?Um you know in that last section I did talkabout some of the things that we use as far as like community surveys, uhcommunity engagement activities just to kind of get that range. But a lot oftimes when we do those again we get a small number or small percentage ofrespondents and the ones that are responding are the ones that live closeto it and want it replaced or want uh something done there. Right? So um sowith that I I kind of turn that over to us to discuss us to create a priority umto look at how we'd want to do that. Um, you know, I do have the um kind of wherewe sit as far as budget on the bottom, but you know, when we look at that 125to, you know, I think the last one's 300,000, but umwhat can we do in replace of those if it's not the playground, what do we putthere as far as amenities to help our um help our community use our green space,attract into our parks, have our parks used um and so that we're not goingbackwards on on our green space uh within our community. >> Any questions for Adam? >> If I could chair, can I make a point ofclarification or ask Adam about Stonegate?Um, we you have that listed as a community park and I I don't I guess Idon't know how much this matters but Stone is listed as a proposedclassification as and I think that was with the combination or combiningIvywood renaming it. >> We haven't done anything on that.I'm wondering if Stonegate I mean again I don't know to the extentfor the discussion tonight whether this really matters but I don't I don't atthis point consider Stonegate a community park and I guess I don't do Doyou are you relying on that proposed change or>> Yeah. Yeah. Exactly. I am relying on that proposed change to say you knowwith the development that you have going down there uh that will be the only parkin that area intentionally. Right. So, um, you know, we will get funds fromanother several developers that come into thatarea for park dedication funds and where's that money going to go into thispot? But then where do you put that? You know, that park is probably the only onethat's going to be in that area. So, I I I do generalize that as being acommunity park uh and future improvements to that general area.>> Yeah. And I'm I am completely blanking on whether we have when we make thedistinction between a neighborhood park and a community park. And I think thismatters because we want to apparently prioritize community parks. But how howdo how have we made that distinction? Is it geographic size? Is it access? Is itwhat have we used? >> So I think I think as far as our parksmaster plan, a number of those concepts came into place. you know,>> accessibility, you know, uh either be by uh means of walking or travel orparking, but amenities that were there and proximity of, you know, uh whereit's located within our within our system, right?>> Yeah. Okay. >> Because I mean, we do have Lions andReed, for example, which are right next to each other. Um>> I would argue that um you know, Firefly is within that corridor as well. can'tbe any further away from lines than Reed is.>> Yeah, but I just mean that's comm those are both community parks, correct? Okay,that's that's my point. Just as far as proximity, I guess there'sparking at some of it to me comes down to parking. I know Stonegate has alittle parking lot on that north side. >> Anyway, maybe I'm getting down to it. Iwanted to just un understand where we were coming from from priorityprioritizing when we say community parks versus neighborhood.Um my assumption is that's because there'smore people accessing it. I just kind of wanted to>> Yeah. You know, and that and those priorities again came from that parksmaster plan. They changed a few of those if you remember. Um they took a lot ofthese neighborhood ones and recategorized. I shouldn't say a lot.They looked at all of our parks listed them as how they were in ourprevious parks master plan and then uh c recategorize several of them um to bemore identifiable for that. >> Adam, can I ask maybe for clarificationand it was from last night's meeting and then the meeting we had with the councillast fall. You know, there's discussion aboutreducing the number of playgrounds and you know, we heard the number I heardthe number seven. So, in your estimation is is thatsomewhat of the intent of this, but then secondary also is then they asked we'llfind other amenities that might work to replace those. So, it's a little bit oftwofold. >> So, is that is that is that kind I knowthat's kind that's what I heard and I just want to clarify. Is that kind ofwhat >> Yeah, that's I'm not saying that's yeah,that should be the STEM that we look for or at least one asset that we look at umguiding this, right? Is like are we looking for a magic number, you know,are we looking for placement throughout the community, right? Because um we willhave the new development in the far south southeast of town, right? And soagain, that's going to be that is a a quadrant that is looking for a park. Umwill be heavily populated. Um, and so to say that a playground isn't going there,um, we have to have justification. Why not, right? We better have an a reallygood amenity that goes there that that'll attract people there to use it,right? So, with that many people that are going to be in that area. So, um, soback to your question, Tracy, um, is there a magic number? I mean, they gaveus that number. I think, um, we utilize that to how we categorize that. Um, it'sa good it's a good guide for us to say, how can we meet that, right? the the number being seven. I just Ididn't recall that actually. That's interesting.>> Seven reduced. It was thrown out by one >> council. Yeah. Yeah. Well, I I guessthat's worth clarification too as far as I I think the dis that differencebetween a discussion and a directive. >> One council member saying this is whatwe should shoot for. Um I guess I don't this is more than this is a comment morethan a question so I apologize but um having you know one council member'sinput doesn't I don't think shouldn't guideour decision-m process. I think we should take it into consideration, butum >> I think you got to look I mean we'vealready done three um Pebble um Deontraville Glyce and nowgoing to do Lions Park, right? So we got if you're say we're going to do threemore um we're going to be really spread wide, I think. So I think we use thatnumber as a kind of kind of setting stone to start with, but do we end upwith eight? Do we end up with nine? Maybe does that prioritize ouradjustment our our adjustment? I think that that would if we have clarificationof why I think it could clearly go that way. >> Um>> go ahead. >> Oh yeah, you can.>> Okay. >> Uh part of this is the problems causedby previous, you know, development. It's the historybecause we got all these put in at similar times. Now they're all coming tobe needing to replace. Boom, boom, boom, boom, boom. And so part of it would be athought about making this decision and not let's sayyou have X Park and you don't think it needs new playground equipment. Thatdoesn't take it off the board forever. Okay. if you don't put it in right awaythat um but then you it gives you the ability to space out these replacementspotentially and so you don't have all this happening at the same time. Part ofthis is that history of not continuously going through and and uhreplacing that along with how they were built. Okay, how they were added in.Okay, the growth period we get a whole bunch. But so that's one thought. Theother thought is umdon't you think that doing them all, ranking them, prioritizing them like atone time is better than prioritizing them one by one? I is that what you wereproposing the one by one as the budget year comes up? Well, we'll prioritize itin >> No, I think I think what we do is we weprior or we have a we have a a structure right now of how we're going to uh youknow uh tackle this, right? And then as they do come up, Yeah. then we would umwe've already have that in our our judgment to say this one isn't going tobe replaced in the following year and then um we have a different amenitygoing in there. Otherwise, we go back to the drawing books and say this is whatyou know um after rethinking that here's reasons why we should>> and like I said we could not replace and then come back and it would be morecostly but if you >> could make say come back in a few yearsdo it. Okay, that convinced me about that process. But I I do agree that Ithink we need a process to go through and do this. Okay. And so I foresee,like I said last night, there's going to be a lot of push back, especially if wedon't put an amenity back. Andpart of the clarification I'd want to get from council is, okay, what was yourgoal here of reducing playground sets?Was it to reduce costs? Well, if you're going to reduce cost, putting in newamenities doesn't necessarily reduce costs.Um, or was it really to eliminate thosethings? And then maybe in your centralized bigger parks, you could havebetter equipment because you weren't spendingmoney all over the place. You were centralizing those resources. So, thatwould be an interesting feedback question to get from the council.>> Or was it also to look at different amenities in those replacements? So, youknow, whether that's a disc golf course or whatever that may be. So, we have amore variety versus every park. >> That's not going to save moneynecessarily. >> No, it's not. No, no. I And that's Ithink that's a good clarification as to, you know, because because, as you said,because of the timing, you know, with maintenance costs and then just overallreplacement, we've put ourselves in a tough spot. Can chair can we move this to discussionand not just questions? >> So I'm going to recommend um that wemove through each park that's listed for discussion like individually just tohelp structure everything and then at the end let's come back to generaldiscussion maybe on like what are the overarching goals. Does that sound okayto folks? >> You want to go through every part for>> um these >> that Adam has listed on our agenda.>> Oh okay. in the CIP things in the CIP. >> Oh, I see. I see.>> And just kind of uh if folks have thoughts on the meritsor other ideas, um maybe that like those notes might be helpful and then we canhave a general discussion again at the end. Well, I guess I do we need to havediscussion about our criteria in in general before we would make a decisionabout these individual parks or um>> um well, Adam, maybe this is a point of clarification for you. Uh is it am Icorrect in thinking that you're not looking for arecommendation per se that you're just looking for discussion points at thistime or you clarify >> that? Well, a little bit of both.>> Okay. >> It's something that we can take with us,right? That we can jot down. We have as our notes that we can take with us whenwe review the next park. And I think Peter's got a good point here. Let'smake a criteria, you know, what that might be. if it's community parks, ifit's neighborhood parks, if it's uh parks within certain distance from eachother, whatever that might be, have that criteria lined out. So those are the,you know, four or five things that we can address each one of these parks umyou know, a distance from the the neighboring park, right? So those alljust very similar to how we did our portaotti uh policy, right? So if wecreate that, it's a lot easier to go down through each one of these and sayyes, no. >> Okay. Okay. Well, let's have adiscussion on the criteria and uh proposed process of how uh parks mightbe evaluated in the future for a if the playground's replaced or not. Well, I'll throw out some location,the type of park, the potential for alternatives,attractive alternatives, um, neighborhoodfeedback, and I would also put in alternativesthat something that we heard about yesterday was wildlife paths.If we take a park that only has a playground set in it and it's notreplaced, well then that park could be characterized as a wildlife path, but Iwould put that in the um alternativeforms of recreation. >> I think we can classify that as anatural area. I think that's what we have in our Yeah.>> our classification as a natural area. >> Yeah.So there's some ideas of criteria. Um,as far as process, I would say have staff take, for example, this list usingwhatever criteria and present something for us to review.then come back at least at a second meetingso that there's the potential for um feedback. And even with all of that,we would still wouldn't make the decision until we come up with in thethe budget window. Um, for process, I feel like I wouldrecommend that we can that we hit pause on things fora, you know, three, five years. I feel like things are changing so dynamicallyin our community right now that um, yeah, like making a final decision forthe next 30 years feels uh, like it might not be the wisestthing. Um, and like we saw it at Pebble Park,right? Components of that playground had been removedbefore the the site was replaced in that, you know, that's obviously goingto be on a case-by case basis if and when and how that happens. Um, and so Ithink that some of these parks it might makesense to have short-term decisions Could we add maybe usage anddemographics to the criteria >> like neighborhood demographics?>> Yeah, because if we're taking out one and thatyou know the demographics change. It could be we could be aged out and in 10year 10 years it's back to ones that would use a playground.>> I agree. I mean, usage is a huge one. I don't know how we answer that.>> Um I not that's not to say we can't. I'm just that like like um>> it's a little bit anecdotal probably. But>> hidden null for is up in the northeast and it's hidden hidden behind a bunch ofhouses. I suspect that that's just not used,but that's simply me suspecting that based on it being hidden away and youhave to kind of it's probably used by the people that live directly there. Iguess I don't know if but I don't know, you know, we can't installsurveillance cameras. We, you know, we can't have, maybe we could have a littlestrip that goes across when people I don't know how we measure that that use,but that to me is a huge one. I mean, we just did CLC and I I live right there. Imean, it's named after my family. It's a park that's important to me, but I'mlike, >> man, do we can we justify this park,this playground by its usage? I I don't I wish we could measure that.I think accessibility in addition to just use is important tome. Um, like for instance, I live immediately adjacent to Reed Park, butmy recommendation would be not to replace it because I can access LionsPark and Pilot Park via trails. >> You know, it's not a main road. So,prioritizing trail connections. Yeah. for like using those funds to improvethat >> to me. Um, you know, that would be areally suitable alternative versus if uh, you know, like Firefly Park, I don'tknow how accessible that truly is to Lion's Park because you have majorthrough fairs right now. >> There's going to be a tunnel.>> Yeah, we decided that last night, right? No, the thing about Firefly Park is andthe one I see and this is where we all kind of have to join in on this is likeTana Rich if we could get that trail connection there.>> Yeah. >> Then there's not needed. And I know forexample that development that Adam was talking about out by Hidden Null andCarriage Station, we originally did not ask for anyuh park space because it was going to actually be aperfect connection for all of those parkswherever the status of that addition is at. But um getting back to your point,accessibility is a big thing and if we were to cut down on these, there wouldbe more money to put in for trails. >> If you could do the trails,>> if you could I mean the development aspect of that is something whereespecially on the west side where um you've got parks that are spread out. Ihave concerns about uh you you access those by by uh Pebblefor example you access that by except for the immediate neighbors there is nopath there tablin you can get from one section but there's a lot of people thatdrive there um you know the the um stonegates the same way I meanobviously there's neighbors that live there but people well there's a paththere actually but the Being able to connect the trails I think is I meanwe've experienced very little um ability to connect trailsthrough the years. We the developments put in trails but connecting themtogether has been very very problematic. >> The other one that fits right in thereis ridge and the heights. >> Right.>> Okay. I mean >> ridge is very isolated. bridge is veryisolated unless it's connected to the heights and unless there's a hugedevelopment to the south. I don't know. But like I said, I think any decisionsthat you make five years down the road, they cancorrect that or change it if demographics change or whatever. But ifwe pick a park and say, "Hey, we're not going to do it right now because we haveother priorities. Well, I guess as far as criteria that weuse, which I think is the question, I'd kind of back up and say I'm going torely on the master plan, which we put a lot of all of us put a lot of time andeffort in. It's a a document that's it's a working document. It didn't change.It's not set 100% in stone, but it does say, and I'm going to read it directly.It says, "Ensure every neighborhood park has a playground or a play feature." Andit goes on to say um to have a flex field as well as uh a distinctivefeature to distinguish it from other parks. So to your point, whether if it'snot a playground, it's a play feature. Um if we're if we're going by what thisrecommendation says, um that that costs money. So it's not about to me abouteliminating um you know, eliminating infrastructure.So, we save money. Nor is it something that I I I don't believe it's somethingthat um our citizens want. We have I guess I bythe count in the the master plan, I see 13 parks. I guess I don't playgroundsrather. I don't know 13 15 I don't know. But I do know we're in the plus categoryby the by the national standard. Uh that to me does say that we could do muchbetter about coming up with instead of the the playground to have a playfeature, some sort of alternative to a playground. That makessense to me. and for coming up with criteria. To me, that seems likeuh eliminating some of the redundancy over on the east side where they'reclustered together a little more closely, but replacing them with somesort of play structure rather than just eliminating all together and makingnatural areas. I mean, that's my perspective on that.>> And one way to do it, just picking up on your idea, is to do it the backwardsway. fulfill the plan and say, "Hey, we're not going to have playgroundequipment in these parks, these smaller neighborhood non-use parks.We're going to shift it to those resources to the west or whatever.But it's a way to approach it too. then you would give the idea to councilthat we are in fact taking listening to them and doing what their directive is.>> Again, I I don't know that that's a directive,>> right? >> I I gota I want to be careful with thatthat we really get hung up on the idea that one>> strongly suggested multiple times. >> Okay. Well, um,>> that we should look at it. And that's that's where I'm that's what I'mstruggling with because if we can make the argument that we should keep 15playgrounds or whatever the number is, I don't have a problem doing that if wecan justify that that makes sense, >> right?Um I I mean the biggest issue that I havewith our playgrounds the way they're structured is not like kind of wherethey are are in geographic location. It's how they were structured within thedevelopments. Again, I'll bring up that that hidden null. It's just something tome that the developer said, "Oh, we have this corner. This is going to be yourpiece for the park. It's not >> at all accessible in a>> in a way a normal neighbor neighborhood park would be more than>> and the same with something like HS however you say that that's structuredhouses literally clustered around it. That's great for those individual housesbut we can't really do anything about that. That is said and done. Uhbut to the idea that I I think there definitely could be we could look at acouple playgrounds to be eliminated uh for and certainly with the idea that weadd other play features. Absolutely. But to say that we've got to cut our parkour playgrounds in half, I just have not I I want to really be careful with theidea that that's what we're we have a directive to do.Yeah, I agree. I I feel like I'm hearing four criteria develop from thisdiscussion. And that's one, does the park classificationmerit a play feature? That's definitional, right? That's yes or nobased on the proposed definitions. And maybe there's a no, not currently, butyes, if we if we go with that proposed classification.I'm also hearing the question, is the play feature redundant?Is there a nearby playground that would be accessible or suitable if thatplayground was removed? And then, are there suitable amenity alternatives to aplayground at that site? >> Can you say the last one again? Um,yeah, help me with the wording, but essentially like if that playground cameout, >> is there a suitable amenity that wouldbe a replacement or not a replacement, but like>> So, I guess that gets at that redundancy question justI I I don't I mean, I'm trying to capture this discussion. Does that do itlike missing? >> No, it's good.when um when we refer to suitable amenities like alternative amenities. Ummy only concern is if we put let's say we substitute a in hidden null how it'snot very accessible for people. If we take out the park and we put when wethink when we're thinking about this disc golf or something else, my onlyconcern is if it wouldn't like it's not going to attract people who live morethan five minutes away from it >> because of the the I can't remember Ican't think of the right word, but like novelty. Not novelty, but it's just notas applicable to many people. >> So rather the question is, is there analternative amenity that would be a good Yeah, that's that's something that wedon't just plop down and say, "Okay, good. We fix this park." It's likesomething that ties into the park >> and no pickle ball>> and and that neighbor and that neighborhood and where they use it.Would they use it? Yeah. >> Yeah. I guess the only thing I would addto that list I I really think the idea ofis it you know is is it being used and will it be used is paramount to it.>> Right. >> I don't know what the threshold iseither >> and I don't know how to measure that.>> Yeah. >> Well, some of it will be by communityinput. It'll have to it'll have to be becausethat's how that's the only way we kind of know usage or even you know but Istill think I go back to Stonegate and and Ivywood and right now then that's inthe neighborhood I live in and there's not there's not that many kids right nowbut I don't know with the new developments maybe there will be thatcould change the total focus of those two parks right now you got pickle ballcourts and a shelter and then the playground at Stonegates way on thenorth side. So >> those new developments wouldn't even Imean they can access it but they wouldn't even really know it's there>> cuz you can't see it from you can't see it from the road.So to me demographics and that's going to change>> is a is a well yeah so that I mean is that all basically community feedback isthe current playground being used? what is planned there like communityplanning, population,housing stock, that type of >> because I'm sure there's neighborhoodswhere the neighborhoods aged out of thesystem, out of the playground system, but then in five years it might changeback over. Well, I think that's where like a five-year decision could beprudent in some of these cases >> versus acomplete removal from the CIP. The other reason I like these criteriais then we would apply that to any new parks.So, does it make sense to put a playground equipment into the newcentral multi-functional parkballpark thing and the place on the south side, southeast side, you know,maybe it's not seems really clear right now, but when we get up to it, maybeit's not. So, I'd use it for new equipment, too,because there are going to be other developments. >> Could have you repeat the criteria thatyou have? >> Okay. Well, I feel like they've changed.>> So, let me give you what I have right now and then we can dis like let's workon this one. Does the park classification merit a play feature,either current or proposed classification?Is the playground redundant? Meaning, is there a nearby playground that would beaccessible and suitable if this one was removed?Is there an alternative amenity that would be a good fit at the park?What is the community feedback, including is the current playgroundbeing used and is the neighborhood um anticipated to change in the nearfuture? um you know thinking about demographics, population, that type ofstuff. So that's four criteria I guess. Does that adequately get everyone'sthoughts? >> I think Peter had mentioned Peter's mainmessage was the usage. How do you measure that? But I think you candefinitely get that back through that community feedback.>> Um if it's surveys, if it's, you know, um>> correct me if I'm wrong. Um but I think that's generally how we got to um thereplacements of or how we did our surveys for the first go around when wedid our first four parks, Cly, Pebble, Tablet, uh Deontraville, right? We didit again for Reed, we did it for Alliance. We always had that survey forcommunity input. Um, and I think that's been a huge input on use and, you know,um, our intent for that park as well. >> I would also hate to remove a playstructure or do another major change to a park without uh, inviting communityfeedback. That seems really shortsighted. >> And I think you'reum, adjacent. What was your first one there?Your first criteria >> the classification>> no no the second one adjacent >> the redundancy>> redundancy would include in general location and your accessibility all bein that that's my feeling >> okay I like it so we've discussedcriteria Yeah. Uh would we like to discuss processof evaluation? Well, as Adam talk about, first thingyou do is put these all into a document criteria.Then we'd have a standing document to use.That would be one thing, one step >> and use it to evaluate Yeah.>> both current like planned projects as well as future ones coming online.>> And again, we can once it gets out, it can be shown to council members andsaying, "Hey, this is what we're going to use as a criteria.">> There you go. And then I guess we have we would haveappropriate justification for, you know, saying we want to replace this existingplayground with a $200,000 playground. >> They still make the decision. Yeah.>> Yeah. But versus now where we don't have atendency to look at that integrated approach, this would a little bit startto direct us in looking more at that integrated approach with trails andconductivity and the adjacencess and all that. If we put that down in writing andsay, "Hey, these are the things we're going to look at before we add a new orreplace uh play structure.">> Yeah, I think that's a good point. Mark checks the boxes, right? Yeah.>> Or it gives you a a a reasoning at the end to say we are replacing this becausewe may have only marked three of the four boxes, three of the six boxes,whatever that but our reasoning is this. We have potential growth. >> That's great. Any other thoughts oncriteria or process? Did folks want to discuss individualparks um that are on the agenda itemor do we feel like this is plenty to go from?>> I think we talked a lot and I think we've already talked about specificparks. We didn't go through them completely, butwe gave some examples there to help develop our criteria.>> Yeah. And Adam, you're not looking for an adjustment to our CIP at this point.So, >> no, I'm not. I, you know, if you wantedto to maybe just do a trial run or a test run of your criteria. Mhm.>> I would maybe just try ridge and or tablet, you know, one of those ones thatare coming up this year to say, you know, and not to adjust your criteriabased off those two parks, but does it work?>> Yeah, that's a good suggestion. Folks supportthat. >> Sure.>> Okay, let's think about ridge and tablin. Uhpark classification. Does it merit a play feature? >> Tablin Tablin Community Park. >> Mhm. Yeah.>> Um >> bridge is not>> bridge is not >> bridge is a proposed neighborhood parkand every neighborhood park needs a play feature. side. Correct.>> Well, is is Ridge is currently a neighborhood? Is Ridge is Ridge aproposed community park? >> Uh, it is not.>> It's not. >> I just had it up. I don't know if youguys can >> Yeah, this is page 22 of the masterplan. >> So, I don't know if you guys can seethis or not, but this is this is our parks m this isn't our parks masterplan, but Ridge uh on Ridge Park on here is a neighborhood and it's proposed as aneighborhood. >> Okay. I thought when we had discussed itthat you had characterized it as a potential community park.>> Yes, I think I did in November for >> Yeah, that's what I thought when we werelooking at those changes to the >> entrance and that right at ridge. Yeah.>> So, I mean would would you as staff potentially suggested as community park?Maybe it doesn't matter for this discussion>> right now. E either way it merits, right?>> So, they would both merit it. >> Yeah.Um, is the playground redundant at Tablin or Ridge? Aka, is there a nearbyplayground that would be accessible or suitable if the playground in questionwas removed at Tavlin? I think we maybe needto look at the new park just south of Sunfish,though that could be hard. Heights Park. It's a natural area, so not superapplicable. >> The new park within the Lake Elmo>> ball field. >> Yeah.>> Oh, you're talking about the the complex.>> The complex, excuse me. >> I guess that's not super accessible.>> Then I'll throw in a thing here. Well, they have great access to the Lake ElmoPark Reserve, which has one of the finest playground. pieces of equipmentin America. >> I don't know if that counts.>> Yeah, I'm I'm very hesitant. I always have been. It's a certainly an amenityas a part of our community, but we have to pay to get into it. It's not it's notour park system. Um I hear what you're saying, but I'm really hesitant toinclude that as a part of our >> I I I don't know that I'm right in mylogic, but that's how I've logged it out.>> And that's a different accessibility. >> Yeah. not trails or walking or whatever.That's to me that's just an well not accessibility equal access>> and and actually you can't from Tablin you have to go around the whole I Iguess if you're you can't enter>> get in there can >> I think you can>> Yeah there's a back way back entrance >> yeah and I mean it would be a couplemiles >> to a playground to the playground>> if you need to access it via a car you're going to have a big challenge>> okay so So, it seems like for Tablin, we're agreeing at no, the playground,there is not a nearby playground that would be super accessible or suitable ifit was removed. What about for Ridge Park? >> No, the same applies.>> I know. >> On a busy road, too. Is are therealternative amenities that would be a good fit at Tablin or Ridge?>> I think we've discussed a lot of opportunities for something at Ridge.>> Yeah. >> Yeah. On the website right now, it saysRidge Park is getting a playground upgrade and will feature an ADAaccessible walking and bike paths. >> Oh, I'm sorry that did not mention Oh,wait. Sorry. Yeah. Um, the playground upgrade.I'm sorry. I read that the first time and I thought I was going somewhere. Isaid, "Sorry." >> So good.>> Well, the thing is, and this is the difference between the community parkand the neighborhood park, there's not much else at Ridge other than theplayground. And at Tablin,>> you have the baseball field, >> the sledding hill,>> and the pickle >> field at Rich. There's a baseball fieldat Ridge kind of. That's part of the distinguishing thing there.>> So if you get rid of the any amenity a ridge, it's going to bealmost a wildlife area, >> which might be okay for a five-yeardecision, I also might argue. And there were some voices in that crowd that camein that talked about everything was bad, but because of the noise. >> Okay. So, I feel like we're havingtrouble answering that criteria. >> Yeah, I think that's a Yeah.And then we would ask what is the community feedback? Thinking aboutcurrent usage, thinking about um current or future neighborhood demographics. We can't answer that.>> Well, yeah. And I I stuck on the idea. It's the same as usage and demographics.To me, the the same demographics seems even harder. I I mean I don't know thatour sophistication level is to review projections on turnover for housingstock. I I just don't think we're going to do it.>> Yeah. >> Umcertainly for well I mean maybe not certainly but potentially for newdevelopment. Um who who the target? >> Yeah. I mean globally or higher levelyou could look at stats from school district and just in general morehigh level global numbers of how many age group are in Lake Elmo what's youknow we got 22% 50 and older we got that kind of stuff we could we could access>> we can look at census blocks as well which>> are not going to be >> the level of specificity that you wouldneed um you know population under five,population under 18. That >> we're looking at these two parks rightnow just as a demo and just going by observation again because Tablin hasmore things. There are more people there. So somebody's brought their kidso they can play pickle ball and you send the kid off to the playground.Okay, that's not going to happen at Ridge Park. Okay. And I can tell you Iprobably can count on one hand the number of times I've seen anybody aroundRidge Park, okay, utilize I don't think I've seen anybody utilize theplayground. I've seen people in the park walking around.But that's how you got to if you're going to make those determinationsbetween those two parks. That's one of the ways you would make thedetermination. >> All right. So, I feel like our criteriadidn't work super well to be like obvious yes, obvious no. But I thinkthat was also not going to happen. >> No, that's not gonna>> there's a lot of gray. >> There's not a lot that's not>> Well, and and there's it it very well could be because of the two parks wejust used. There may it may be a lot easier for other parks. Um>> I I think it's going to be hard for everyone.>> Yeah. Yeah. I mean necessarily be easy>> because again it's going to be on a one by one basis. You could and going bywhat's in the plan. Hey, it's got to have a playground.>> Yeah. I think so. Here's one thing that I think we were missing,at least for me, is I think that part of the question which city council wasasking is if there is currently a climber structure with three slides,that type of thing, are we looking at replacing something equivalent ormore? And have we do we ask the question if we're replacing with something thatmight be smaller in footprint like less less expensive um less ofan amenity. So if we if our answers are yes I think that maybe we need to askask this follow-up question yes with what like yes or replace it with andlike what does that look like? The good thing about the criteria is before therewas no way to demonstrate that we had considered any of these things. It lookslike we would come in playground fix it go stamp stamp stamp. What the criteriagives us is the ability not to say that we're going to get rid of any not to saywe're not going to do it but that we've can show demonstrate to city council andthe public that we are considering these things and hope Peter is right. Sothere'll be some parks that just stand out. Hey, this really needs this kind ofamenity. Okay? And therefore, we can move ahead with it. But even if we don'tdo that and we just go and replace it, we can argue that we have gone throughand had the discussion maybe to get rid of it, maybe>> to keep it for all these great reasons, but we have those reasons now because weput this into a policy or directive or whatever it is, guideline or whatever itis. I think that's the benefit of having these. But I agree, I think it's goingto be difficult for H1 going through because>> it's really hard. >> Um to be blunt, uh people with generallygood intentions and generally good reasons put these parks where they'reat. >> Okay.And so even though we've got a lot of them, there were a lot of good reasonsto put them where they were at. And I agree with Peter. Maybe we haven'tgotten a specific directive to do that. But I think now what we can do with thecriteria say here is what we evaluated. >> Well, and I also think it'll be helpfulmoving forward. It may actually help the criteria. There may be occasion whereit's we use it to warrant to add a add. >> Oh, yeah.>> You know, if the sports complex goes goes in and we decide it makes sense tohave a large playground there. or whatever, you know, whatever I meant,you know, I think it's going to help in that way as well.>> Yeah. And I guess I just I sucked into my my breath there is because I Iactually think we have to do that now as we as we form this criteria and start tothink about how that would look, you know, what it looks like at Ridge. Ithink we should be having that discussion of here's here's not theultimate decision, but here's the park commission's perspective on whetherwhether we need or want a playground in that complex. So, we have that questionanswered not only for the complex itself. It's when hopefully we get someinput to say, "Yeah, this is what we we've decided and we've thought about itand we've gone through some criteria, but also so we can do that>> for this decision-m process now to say, well, Tablin doesn't necessarily needthat because down the road is going to be a big sports complex playground." So,I think we need to do that now. I mean not now nowbut >> as part of this as a part of thisprocess >> but as a draft go through it and say heythis is what we would if we had to rate all these by our criteria right now thisis what we would rate them all as >> that's>> yeah and plus sports complex right>> yeah um >> right>> so I think okay so hearing that I think that yeah we a shift of mindset to notthinking about evaluating just current ones and making the the final criteriaor the interimm criteria uh more flexible would be great and I also agreethat like going through getting some information on these things would bereally useful. Um, Adam, is it something that you could you like set up a surveyfor the us to provide like go through that as like a little homework before afuture meeting? >> Yeah, we could. Yeah, we could writedown these um we could write down theseclassifications or these criteria. Um, we put together a um uh we put togetherour parks, right? And then we you guys classify them or kind of bring them backas a as a you know just to review each one again. Why we said like you saidthere's going to be gray areas of people what why people pick one versus otherbut that's part of the discussion right and I think that's what Hank's gettingat is like >> um we can scream till we're blue in theface about something right but uh at the end like it either meets the criteria oryou know you have somebody that might think else ways.>> Yeah. And I think I I mean just to capture that gray area, I think thatreframing these criteria to like a yes no sometimes versus a yes no might be more accurate. >> See what we get. >> It's a starting It's a starting point.>> Right. Right. And it we might change it a year from now or two years from now.It might be it's fluid. We might have to alter it. But I think we need afoundation. >> Yeah.>> So let's see. We've approved Lions, right?>> Correct. >> Lions is all approved. >> So but Ridge is not. So Ridge would bethe first one in the shoot as far as evaluating>> and tab one both are 2026, right? >> Table. Okay.>> So, we would we'll be having the same discussion hopefully with better answerwith a more clear recommendation. >> But Ridge was the one that we saw in thefall, right? With the concept >> with the concepts with the parking andand that might alter our decision. Oh, you know, because it was had one of themhad a shelter in it, one of them had a soccer, if I remember, soccer field, youknow, >> and I know the neighborhood didn't likereally any of those. But >> that might again, that might help if we>> might, >> you know, maybe there's other amenities.You know, maybe a walking trails is what only fits there or what's it once makessense >> at least for the next five years or so,>> right? and it fits that alternative kind of amenity or use. >> Other discussion, >> Adam, do you feel like you have what youneed from us? >> Yeah, and I can always follow up withyou if they have additional questions. That's what I was looking for. I waslooking for a criteria that we can gauge and we can umum score these as we go along. Um but we can definitely take that quick littlesurvey in between just to kind of do a test run as well uh to kind of get abetter idea to bring those back, right? to uh justify those important>> and I think that we've we didn't hear it from council last night but we've heardit in prior workshops that they want to know what we're thinking to help them aswell. Um and I know that that street goes both ways, right? And so they mightfind it really helpful if we have a this is what we're currently thinking. We'regoing to be asking or recommending that yeah, you spend a lot of money here andnot here and Okay, great.Um, next agenda item is public comment, which there is none. Moving on tocommunications and updates. >> So, um, just an update on our ice rink.our ice rink just because of our warm weather and rain. It's kind of wentdownhill, but we do have some colder weather come back here into next week.We did uh put on another layer of ice today. So hopefully do that again Fridayin between snowfalls here. Small little bit tomorrow into Friday. So hopefullywe can put down some more water on Friday. Um and then into early next weekto get our ice rink back up and going. Um our grooming operations, we did groomtwice this year. Again, lack of snow uh since the rain and ice storm. So, umthat will come back once we do get some uh some additional snow. Um and like Isaid last night, you know, our purpose is to um get our new Shilkins Park intothat grooming or that ski trail grant uh for 2026 here. Um we will probably tryto test run uh our grooming through there just to get the um just to getthat path down and ways of operation with that. Umagain, thank you all for coming to the parks and city council workshop lastnight. hopefully that we can continue that for the years to come. I think ouradministrators definitely in line with that of continuing that operation. It'sbeen a huge asset I think for for both parties just to kind of let things outin communication that way. Um I do plan to bring back the Ridge Park conceptjust take some of your guys' ideas, work with our our contractor on that. So Idid talk to one of the association members probably likely bring that backin February already. Uh and just an update on Lion's Park. Um we did bringthat um to city council as you remember back in October and November um and thenit was tabled and then we brought it back to him. Uh so we did miss thatguideline for that reduction of cost on that playground. Um and so there is anadditional fee to that playground of $10,000. So I did uh write a memo backto the city council go to the next workshop or sorry the next city councilmeeting on the 20th to ask for that additional $10,000. or other option isthat they deny it and public works installed the um the play chips or thesafety chips for that. So um the play chips do come in or the safety chips docome in at about $12,000. Option is that we can purchase those um for about halfthe price that 250 cubic yards is what it is. We can purchase that for about$6,000 stay within our budget of 317,000.We don't have a whole lot of room as far as the landscaping and other things thatyou know additional trees and things like that, but uh public works couldinstall that on our own if they if they proceeded not to um take on thatadditional $10,000. So, um you know, we do have 2.4 million in there uh toadjust with. So, it will be their discretion on what what they decide todo with that. So, um just to be transparent with that. Umthat's all >> status hiring public works director.>> Uh the that is on the next city council meeting as well.>> Y >> and we're on February. The next meetingis February >> which is also a date change, right?>> Yes, there's also a date change. There's a holiday on that. We always we alwayshave that confusion of January and February, right? So we have thatholiday. So it is does run that Wednesday. Correct. The>> holiday 16 or 6:30 and the 18th Okay. Any updates from commissioners?Okay. Can I have a motion to adjurnn the meeting?>> So moved. >> Second.>> Second. >> All in favor?>> I >> I. Any oppose?