[Music] Hey everybody, let's see. We'll call the September 17th, 2025 Parks and Force Lake Parks and Recreation Commission meeting to order. First item is roll call. >> Commissioner Eric here. >> Commissioner Matson, >> Commissioner Morhead >> here, >> Commissioner Tyson >> here. >> Commissioner Herdina >> here. >> Commissioner Gary >> here. >> Commissioner Lmark >> here. >> All right. If you're able, please stand and join us in the pledge of >> allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Okay, next item is approve the agenda. Do I have a motion? >> So move. >> Moved by Tim, seconded by Karen. All in favor? >> I >> I the agenda is approved. Open forum. Citizen petitions requests or concerns. Do we have any cards, Kyle? >> I have no one that signed up. Okay, move on from that. Uh, item six, approve the minutes from our August 20th, 2025 parks and recck commission meeting. >> Mr. Chairman, I would approve the minutes with a correction. >> Okay. >> The correction being down at the commissioner updates where it involved the my corn feed and I'm so impressed and happy that we do. But it says on there that member Morehead said only commissioners should be volunteering. And I didn't say that at all. I said that they should be asked first and if we didn't have enough go outside and and get other volunteers. So if that could be corrected, I'd appreciate it. Good. >> Okay. I have one other correction just for the record. It shows me um as present at the August 20th meeting, but I was absent. So just for the record. Okay, Kyle, do you have those two changes? >> Yep. >> Okay. Any other changes to the Thanks for that, Sue and Karen. Any other revisions? >> I move approval with the corrections. >> I'll second. >> Okay, we've got uh Karen moving and Aaron seconding. All in favor? >> I do. >> Next item seven, Chestnut Creek. Uh, I believe we're having a presentation from the community development team. Uh, Abby Uh, thank you, Chair Tyson, members of the parks and recreation commission. For those of you who don't know who I am, I am Forest Lakes community development director. So, I help my name is Abby Whitman. I help oversee planning, zoning, code enforcement, economic development. So tonight, this uh you have a couple applications before you of land development applications that are going through a platting process. And part of our plat review process is your body, the parks and recreation commission, takes a look at the preliminary plat to determine if there are park and recreation needs as part of this land development and you make recommendation to the city council. Just also want to take a minute to introduce our new assistant community development director, Stephen Gilmore. He's going to just sit over there and observe, but um just know that you have quite a bit of staff um not actually there's me and Steve and our admin Don um in house that are helping um you grow um build sustain the parks and recreation open space system here in Forest Lake. So, um, tonight the first application before you is Chestnut Creek. Chestnut Creek application. Do you need a minute, Commissioner or Chair? >> I'm going to just move it. I'm just going to move a chair over. >> Okay. I'll give you a second before I move on. >> So, our land subdivision process follows a three application process review or review process. The first application is a concept plan. The second application is a preliminary plat and then there's a final plat. Um well concept plan was also to come to the parks and recreation commission. you guys were like one month in and uh the concern was at that point um because of this application a few of the applications we've had the concern was that the parks commission wasn't quite prepared to make comment in your first meeting um tonight before you though as preliminary plat. We look at preliminary plat as the kind of meat and potatoes of land development. This is the time that we're really looking at the land development that's being proposed and looking to see how does it conform and not conform to the city's codes, standards, and and so forth. So, the preliminary plat tonight for Chestnut Creek is before you. There's a few applicable regulations that come into play when you're looking at development applications. Minnesota state statutes 462 358 gives the city the right to require parkland to be dedicated at the time of land subdivision. So essentially at the time that we want to take 100 acres or 10 and make a 100 homes or a thousand or 10 that dividing up the land is the time at which the city um can ask for parkland. And the big thing to ask for or the big thing that the state requires is that that it needs to be there needs to be some nexus. There needs to be some proportionality to which you we would be asking for parkland. We need it for some reason. Um the statute also allows us to have uh ask for cash in lie of land or a combination of both. There are circumstances where land for parkland is not needed, not required. there's an excess, maybe there's for whatever reason, we can accept cash on a fair market value or a per lot. Um, the determination of cash is a very individualized assessment. Very traditionally, the city has in its fee schedule $2,500 per lot. But the way the statute is written and the way the land uh the city's ordinances are written is we can ask for more cash above the 2500 if the fair market value of the land exceeds that 2500 per lot. I'll kind of get into a little bit here the city code section 152. That's our subdivision regulations which empower the city to ask for land um as part of the subdivision process. Again, there's that essential nexus requirement. It's just ask bear a rough proportionality to the to what the developer wants to do. In our code, we separate land dedication requirements out by land use. So land that's dedicated or being developed exclusively for residential use would be required to provide 10% of the land area for parkland open space recreational needs. Non-residentidential uses 5% of the land area. And then mixed use goes based on the percentage. If you have a 50 residential, that 50% residential is 10% of that area. And then if the other 50% is non-residential, it's 5% of that land area. You talk about that cash again, we're talking about the acceptance of cash and loo and fair market value. We look at that 10% too. We take that 50, you know, area 50% of the area, take 5% of the value of that is one way that we can do that assessment. So, Chestnut Creek is an interesting neighborhood and an interesting application before you and um I sincerely hope this is the hardest one you ever have to go through. Um Chestnut Creek was approved as a planned unit development in 2016. So 10 years ago, the city of Forest Lake, the city count, then city council approved the planned unit development for 10 114 acres to have 220 homes on it. The project is always designed to have two phases and before you tonight, you see the first phase highlighted in green that was approved in that 2016 approval. And that planned unit development and that preliminary plat approval gave this land some rights that are not traditional if we're just working with vacant land. Now essentially that planned unit development says hey landowner developer you can build 220 units on this property in this fashion. And that is what we call a vested land right. Those vested land rights run with the land forever. And at the time the then what was the former parks lakes trails commission recommended that no parkland be dedicated for the all of Chestnut Creek that the city accept cash in lie of land dedication and at the time that the city council approved it in 2016 the city council upheld that recommendation. In other words, in 2016, the city approved the Cheset Creek neighborhood, both phases with 220 units to not have any parkland associated in this neighborhood. Tonight before you is the proposed plat that would finish off the phase two. So again, we're going to go back really quick. phase one in the green then everything that's on the kind of north and the west um would be considered for uh I think I put in there I have a an issue with I have a slight issue the phase 2 it's not 108 units 119 lots on the 58 remaining acres as proposed the application before you tonight does not show any de any parkland to be dedicated because the uh proposal before you tonight is um taking those old land use approvals and bringing them forward and asking the city may we move forward with the second phase of this development. So no matter what kind of land dedication you're looking at, what you really want to be looking at is what are the guiding documents, city plans and policies that say should Parkland be here or not. Currently, the existing 2040 comprehensive plan calls for parkland in the area, and I don't think Oh, it does show up there. Right in this neighborhood, we do identify for a future neighborhood park. For reference, Chestnut Creek is just to the north of that circle. The circle is not 100% prescriptive. It essentially says, "We'd like to have something there where we'll figure out through these land subdivision processes." Additionally, in your draft parks, trails, and open space plan um that you're going to be looking at updating, we do address that traditionally parkland was developed in what is a halfmile service area. Can the neighborhood be serviced within one half mile of this park or or within one half mile of this neighborhood? Is there a park that can help that neighborhood? When you look at the park or the um halfmile service area, Chestnut Creek is right in this area, which if you look at the kind of historic way that we look at parkland needs, it would be serviced by one of the other neighborhoods in the community. Understandably, again, that's within a half mile service area. Your new park plan, draft park plan, does indicate that the city should be looking at the 10minute walk shed. The idea that maybe a half mile might be a little excessive. Maybe we should be looking at creating parks, trails, open space, features within a 10mi walkshed area. If you look at that, then you can see Chestnut Creek. It's where those existing phase one is is outside of that 10-minute walkshed area. So, tonight on the dis before you, you do have two sets of public comments. Um, the planning commission did hold a hearing last week, week before, don't remember the public meeting week, lots of meetings. Um and at that time the planning commission took significant public testimony mostly from the phase one neighborhood residents who are um very disappointed that the second phase of this development does not have parkland. The two comments before you, which I think one was Erikson and the other one was Perquette, really emphasize again um the desire for the neighborhood to have Parkland as part of this um new neighborhood plaque. Staff is very um sympathetic and empathetic. Frankly, from a community development standpoint, I wouldn't stand here in front of you today and say our new neighborhoods don't deserve parks. Unfortunately, we are in a situation where the city council made some decisions 10 years ago that we are in a in a little bit of a pickle of how we would require parkland dedication now when there are those vested land rights. So, tonight before you and staff's recommendation is you discuss this matter and ultimately you need to make a recommendation to the city council. Um the code is prescriptive in that you make recommendation on park need and or location. Obviously there's a lot more to talk about with this specific application. Uh one thing I did not mentioned to you that I should just really quick um that Chestnut Creek neighborhood and the 10-minute walkshed. Where'd my miles go? There we go. This area where it's not currently being serviced by parks within 10 minutes. I did note in my staff report at your meeting in October, I'll be right back before you. You'll be seeing me, I think, fairly consistently for a little bit. Um or other staff. Um the city has received another preliminary plat application for uh the potential acquisition or city's dedication of 22 acres of land for parkland just to the immediate southwest of this parcel. Um it is obviously a raw land. It's a wooded piece of property. It's uh has some wetlands on it, but that is an area that the city has identified as fulfilling that future neighborhood park and um would be able to be meeting those needs of the Ches Creek neighborhood in the future, but also recognizing we don't have an immediate development planned at this time. So, I'm here to answer any questions that you might have. The developer and applicant, Dr. Horton, is also here tonight if the chair wants to call on them for any questions or discussion. Um, do you have any questions for me right now? >> Any questions for Abby? Karen, >> I have one if you can my memory. Yeah, >> I believe that when we said no park at that FA first phase, it was included that there would be one between phase one and phase two and that would service both of them rather than having two parks. >> So, um I de I um have heard a very similar memory from many of the members of the community. The planned unit development that's up on the board right now um did not show parkland. So, even though I think uh definitely the developer had said at some point or another to the city um and maybe residents that there would be future parkland, when the council approved the planned unit development, it did not include any parkland dedication requirements. >> Was there then was there a land payment? Was there a payment for that land? There was a payment of cash fee in lie to address the phase one um per lot. The phase 2 um fees were not paid at that time. Uh assuming that they would be paid at the next subdivision, this second phase. I will say in our phased developments that is something that the city does and staff recommends that we only accept fee or land at the time of land subdivision because there is the possibility that we might be able to acquire more land and or uh additional fees if those land values do go up in time. >> Right. >> There are questions for Abby. I know. I just feel that since that statement was made there, the developer and the neighborhood would certainly have had the opinion that they were going to have a neighborhood park in the middle. So, is that what they were maybe at the planning commission saying? because >> I I cannot find any map or plan submitted into the public record >> through the process with the planning commission or the city council that ever showed park land for it. >> And I can see why because it was all to be determined when the next phase was approved. >> Yes. But this is the layout that we see on every plan um to the planning commission and city council. So >> So is it too late to make that a requirement for phase two to have a park included? >> Currently the developer has asked to amend the planned unit development. So again, that 2016 approval of the kind of blanket development. Um, arguably when you go to amend a planned unit development, the developer would like to make variations to the lot sizes, widths, those sorts of things. The city could ask then for additional public amenities. Um, it's a great question you bring that up, Commissioner Gary, because when the planning commission did take a look at this and took public testimony, the planning commission is very sympathetic, as I'm sure all of you are, to the existing neighborhood, as am I. I don't want to say like I'm not. Um but the planning commission's recommendation to the city council is to deny the planned unit development amendment on the basis that no additional public amenities are being proposed in the amended development. Um essentially the planning commission was looking out for you and saying and looking out for the neighborhood and looking out and saying hey if you want to amend that plan we agreed to 10 years ago great we do too. give us some parkland. Um the developer has that that ability to re-evaluate the overall plan, but I do believe um the action before you, the request on the developer part is, hey city, what do you think of this plan right now as you saw it before without parklands? So, with the amended plan, are they changing lot sizes or is that staying the same? >> Um, the there's a couple different requests. Uh, the one request um so it's a little bit tricky and uh forgive me um Commissioner Eert. >> Yes, ma'am. >> Yeah, thank you. Um, I don't want to get too deep in the weeds about lots, but at the time the development was being proposed, the minimum lot size was 12,000 square foot per lot. The city's planned unit development overlay on this whole neighborhood, phase 1 and phase 2 said your lots can be as small as 7700 square ft. Um, since that time, the city has amended the minimum lot size for the MXR1 zoning district that would now allow for 7,500 square foot lots, but the developer is asking for lots that are 7,100 square ft. They have indicated there isn't that many and it is quite possible that they would withdraw that request. Additionally, the minimum lot size in the MXR1 minimum lot width in the MXR1 district is 65 foot foot width. The developer is asking for 55 foot with lots. >> So, what that mean? The the lots is going to increase. So, you're going to have more homes because the lots are smaller. >> There is a small um increase being proposed above the 220 lots that were originally proposed. I think if I remember correctly it's 225 >> total lots >> yeah five additional lots than what would have been proposed by the PUD >> we do have Dr. important here if we commission like to hear from them >> maybe help >> say Karen am I thinking of a different uh development or we was it part of this >> no that's fine >> when there was like a a small chunk and then we figured that if we went to phase two we'd get three and a half or four acres >> right that's what I'm thinking >> no one ever happened to that >> well it evidently >> well let's let's uh We we do have a guest here. Uh thank you for coming forward. Just introduce yourself. >> Good evening. Uh my name is Deb Rididgeway. I'm with Deer Horton. With me tonight is Mike Su and Frank Hagen. Also with Dear Horton. Um just want to start with we were not the original developer on this property. So we are buying it from um a private land owner. So, um, we are coming in here trying to present this. Um, yes, we're asking for smaller lot sizes. We have one lot that's at 7100 square ft, which we are going to look to eliminate. So, we'll probably withdraw that. Um, as far as the lot sizes, the PUD that's approved allows the lots to go down to 52 feet wide and we are at 55. So, um I guess if we withdraw the application for the PUD amendment, we can we can adjust our lot sizes still to be within what we want here. Um, additionally, as far as a PUB, uh typically the there's a public benefit to um requesting that. Um and we are actually correcting some of the wetland buffers that were encroached upon in the first phase. So, we're looking to help with the watersheds situation on um the number of homes that have encroachments in the in the wetland buffers. Uh so, we're providing an additional 1 acre of wetland buffer with our plan. Uh we are not against doing um a park on the site. Uh we would request that it be public, however, uh and that we get credit for uh park fees for that. But we are not against it. We um we're having discussions with staff and that's why we're in front of you tonight. >> So when you say you've looked at having a park there, what size park were you looking at? >> Uh we just we actually after the u neighborhood meeting we had because it was brought up at our neighborhood meeting. Um, it was really we kind of looked in in this kind of quadrant, this corner, which is kind of centrally located, which would be at this intersection with these um two or three lots over here. So, it'd be pretty small. It' be a pocket park with a playground and um we had shown a half basketball court, I believe, because that was one of the comments from the neighbors that was a desirable feature. That's why as far as square footage, >> how big is that? >> Uh square footage, it's probably about >> 16,000 square feet maybe. Would you say 15 15,000? >> So less than a half acre though. >> Yeah. >> Did you look at all instead of a cash if you went to a three and a half 4 acre lot what that would do to your plan? >> We did not. >> Okay. Our intention was to come forward with the preliminary plat essentially that was approved um back in 2016. Um but the discussion came up with the desire for a park and so that's why we're here. >> How many feet is Belts Park? Like the playground area that we're rebuilding. >> How big is it? >> Yeah. How many square feet piece square foot? You know >> it's like a hockey rink. So 80 by 200600 square feet. >> But the whole park though has got to be only two acres. >> It's bigger than that. >> What's big? What's the big park? >> I think for reference Kyle did prepare for you what some size parks are that are relevant to the system you have. >> Um to give you a idea of a comparable park in >> for >> right. So if we went with a smaller park like landwise, we could still put a structure at something like Belts Park >> where they wouldn't have the land to run around, but they would have a park. Correct. >> I don't think so. >> I'm not sure, but I don't think so. >> Yeah, I think >> Thank you. Thank you for your comments. >> We have like a quarter acre park right now. >> Can I ask a question? Yep. So, Melinda, this was this was approved, right? But now then there's new developers that have purchased this land from >> this is this wasn't their development originally. Now then they're they've come and purchased the land and so wouldn't that be a new development being brought forward? I >> feel like that's new. >> Sure. Um the land subdivision statute and the land subdivision ordinance would say yes, this is a new subdivision. >> However, it's got that planned unit development umbrella over it. So even though yes, this is a new subdivision, it has the approvals of that planned unit development from 10 years ago. >> Even though it's a new developer, >> even though it is a new developer, correct? Interesting. Thank you for >> This is a This is why when I started out, I said I really sincerely think and I hope that this is the hardest land development review that you'll have to ever review. >> Well, one of the things we've seen in the short time we've been together is uh following city plans and policies is pretty important and for fortunately unfortunately there was never a park planned in this area. Now, there's you talk about in October, there's a 22 acre park that's coming. Granted, that's not going to happen tomorrow, but I'd be concerned if we start every time a development happens, we put in these little pocket parks. That just creates a huge maintenance issue for the city long term and really I don't think meets the needs of what we're trying to get at with having big neighborhood parks. uh whether you recall a pickle road app, but this was approved 10 years ago and plans been put in motion around that. Sounds like other improvements are being made with wetlands. Uh but I know you get a staff recommendation here going to the council to uh and or I'm what I'm hearing tonight is that we stick with that staff recommendation forwarded on to the council. >> I'm sorry, Commissioner. Are you saying the original 10 years ago? >> Correct. Correct. I that's thinking too there's the city made a commitment to the developer and whether it was a good commitment or not, I think the cities need to live up to what agreements they've made >> and it wasn't a park pocket park. >> And it wasn't a pocket park. >> No. >> Yeah. But the developer didn't finish their part of the deal. They sold the land. >> Yeah. >> Well, I'm just saying I mean >> I would I'd suggest and I won't speak for Dear Horton, though. they wouldn't buy the land and they thought that agreement could be thrown out the door. >> Gota >> I don't know if there's any we want any more discussion on this or somebody wants would like to make a >> I guess I'm I'm just kind of confused by the disappearance of that park that had been talked about at one point in time. I think I understand that he said because the plans changed with the developer. There was going to be one developer and it was pretty united in all the people saying this is a great spot and it should be a bigger park to take care of both sections. And I think what I'm hearing you saying is that we should stick with that original thought. Well, and I think you also consider that we heard from Abby, we've got 22 acres coming just to the southwest here in in the very near future. >> I didn't hear very near future and I think that was brought up at that time that you know having people have to wait for another developer. I mean that was brought up that what would happen if it more came but I think it was at the time that was pretty much united in everybody saying it should be in the middle of the areas and that there should be a larger park so that it would not so that could service both areas. >> Yeah, it seemed like it was like three and a half or four acres. >> Yeah, it was. Commissioner Tyson, members of the commission, if I might just interject. I understand that there may have been discussions that there would be a park, but the approvals that were granted in 2016 did not include one. >> It's a shame. >> And and this body did at that time recommend accepting cash in lie for the entire planned unit development. that this this commission former parks, lakes, and trails commission >> eliminating the idea of a park at all. >> Correct. You're recommend the that then commission that sat before you recommended >> the city accept fee in lie and the council accepted that. So, um you'll see that the site was masqueraded as part of the development gearing up for that original design. And I can flip back to my PowerPoint presentation really quick to show you that neighborhood as a whole. You can see those streets as they were originally lined out are in existence today. You know, they're not asphalted, but you have those roads. The one change would be that this proposed development is being uh slightly altered that the roadway would extend down directly to the south and that direct south um connection though it is one property owner over leads right into a property right now called the Sheelander property. That property is not being proposed to be developed at this time. Chances are it's going to be proposed to be developed in I know I use the words near future a lot. Um but uh that will be directly connected to the area um that the city staff has been in discussions with on Amberly Woods, this property here where we would have that 22 acres. I acknowledge that it is a heavily wooded area. it as a wetland area, but the intent of our uh potential acquisition of this land was to combine a portion of this land with lands um of the other four properties around it so that we could make a larger um community park or larger neighborhood park, I guess, depending what those definitions really are. Um that could have both active and passive uh recreation built onto that site. Any other questions for Abby or >> make a recommendation and just um see where it goes. >> Okay, Karen, >> I would recommend that we stick with the original plan of having the larger park in the center of the two and working it out with the developers if if that need be or you know Shame on us if we were supposed to do something else about making it a com a commitment. We didn't have the right to make it a commitment at that time. So my motion would be to go back to the original plan for those parks those I'm sorry developments >> and you're saying amend the plan to include the park. >> Is that what you're saying? If I would have would you have to amend the plan to go back to that then? >> It would require an amendment to the the city forcing the not forcing asking the developer to amend the PUD to put in parkland into this new phase. Correct. >> Yep. That would include in my motion. >> So we're clear Karen. It would be instead of taking a cash dedication fee, you would want the land dedication to happen, >> right? >> Okay. Is there a second to that? I second that. >> Once again, this is a recommendation to the council. It's it's not an action we take, but um well, I've said already I support with the staff recommendation of having cash uh on this. Uh I think there's a better opportunity for a bigger park there in the future. I'm just concerned with the community, the air, the people that are living in that community. Apparently, they're they're not necessarily happy, and I'm just a little concerned about that, but I think it needs another look at the the plan. So these plans have been approved 2016 and anybody that was buying a lot in that area could see there was no park planned >> and that's >> but had been told about the plan. I'm sure >> and saying we don't know that. But >> the city documents clearly show there is never a park planned in this PUB. >> The idea of the park, but now I would be telling the neighborhood again. We didn't commit it at that time, but we were going to do it in the future. And now we're telling them again, we're not doing it this time, but we're going to do it in the future. And that's where I get into a little bit of I would like it all looked at again to make sure because I do not remember accepting money for that whole thing at all. Um, so that's why I would like to go back in in the motion to make sure that it everything is clear again because I just see it as an unfair situation. >> Well, I just think that that 220 units without a park is not appropriate. And I and again I hate to sound like a broken record but some place they got dropped off and at some point it was thought that you know they needed to have parks and there was it was going to be a smaller one for the first phase and there was another smaller one for the second phase and then said well gee if we go this other spot we can do one park but it was going to be larger like I said three and a half or four acres and you know and now we're don't have a park plus they want smaller lot sizes doesn't sit good. >> Well, I certainly respect that you and Karen were here before, but I all we've got to go on is a record of what was approved and documented >> and was no park was ever documented that would be put here at any time in the future in this. >> Well, >> and I don't think I don't think Dr. Horton's asking for smaller lots. They're complying with and that's not our lane anyways. Lot size isn't our lane. This is just about parks. So I don't want to go down that path, but so >> so the motion that Karen has made and seconded is that recommend the city council accept land dedication in instead of a cash donation. >> Is that appropriate motion, Abby? That or >> Yep. That's a I think that's an acceptable recommendation and that at least um gets us in front of the council's lap that will help provide the developer with the answers they need to see if they want to move forward with the development. >> Okay. Any more discussion? >> Okay. All in favor? >> I >> I >> I >> opposed. I All right. Thanks for coming out tonight. >> You You've taken the condo item, Abby. Okay. >> No. >> Hopefully our toughest phone may have to >> pardon. >> I agree with you. probably the toughest thing we ever have to talk >> that that one um I mean you'll see many more land dedication uh discussions or land development discussions in the coming years. We have a lot of land subdivision that will be happening in Forest Lake in the coming years um where we have some of these what I would call historic developments and uh they're tricky to navigate through. So it's my hope we can get through them and actually get the land developed. Um and then we move on and have some other items. So >> see what happens. >> Are you ready for me, chair? >> Yes. Thanks, Abby. >> Awesome. Thanks. Well, uh you know, I will say this one again. Uh between the two tonight, I'm probably going to run through this because I won't go through as much history and the statutory requirements. I think you've all just been briefed on what what subdivision review and land dedication requirements are in our previous uh proposal. But tonight before you, the city has uh for consideration a re you have a recommendation to the city council regarding the Forest Lake garage condos project. So as a reminder, >> anytime there's land subdivision, doesn't matter if it's residential, non-residential, or mixed use, we have the right to ask for land to be dedicated for park recreation open space purposes. Tonight along Forest Road for your consideration is the Forest Lake Garage condos, which it would be a nonresidential development plat um that would consist of uh quite a number 100 plus uh commercial condo units. So garage spaces um sometimes are called man caves. I don't want to offend anybody by saying that, but I think we all kind of think we know what we mean when we're that. Um, and this is a land subdivision process. So, in that, uh, not only will the developer be coming forward and platting up each of these buildings, but then those buildings get platted up even more. And so, tonight before you is that consideration of should we accept land? Do we have recreational needs in this area or should we um recommend cash in lie of land dedication. So, I included in my packet some a little bit uh analysis that the city has done to determine um we have a lot of people coming to Forest Lake during the day uh large employers and our employees of our community are using our recreational facilities. So, staff the city does believe that even our non-residential developers need to contribute to the parks trails recreation system. Looking at our park, trail recreation map. I don't even know if that's what it's called. Park and trails map. Um the development is located in an area and I should have put a big star right on these. I'll note that for the future to put big stars where these are. Um no parkland is being proposed in this area. There is the Hardwood Creek Trail on the other side of Forest Road. Hardwood Creek Trail will connect to a trail on Highway 97. So there is definitely some recreational amenities in the area but at the moment we don't need any more parkland in this area. Um so tonight for your consideration just the same as the last application what are our parkland needs and if there's no parkland needs making a my recommendation that we make a recommendation to the council that we would accept fee in lie of land dedication. >> Thanks Abby. >> Any questions >> questions for Abby? >> I will say the developer is also here as well if you have any questions. So, I'm just trying to understand the layout. So, it's right on the other side of the airport. >> It's just on the north side of the airport. >> So, there's nothing that we have anywhere near that that anyone would need a park. >> No, it's the airport, this property, and then interstate companies. Interstate companies does um you know, heavy land development, roadway uh development, maintenance. Um, there really is no residential along this roadway at all. Not to say that residential is the only need for parkland, but at um in this area is just not designed. We do have the Fenway Complex not too far. Um, South View, is that it? >> That's close in the um neighborhood. So, we do have some park, Cedar Park, I think it's not Cedar, Clear Lake Park, >> um within close proximity, >> any questions, comments >> like this one? >> Yeah. But do you know what the cash what's what is the cash donation amount? Has that been calculated? >> That has not been calculated. I know in the past uh city staff would bring to the parks, lakes, and trails commission a specific dollar amount. As a reminder, we're at preliminary plat. We're making the sausage right now. And part of making the sausage sometimes is not necessarily um telling all the secret ingredients. This is part of just ongoing development uh negotiations with the developer. So, it's my recommendation we don't have you recommend a specific dollar amount, but we would bring that dollar amount back to you and give you that update later after the dedication had occurred. >> Karen, >> she would appreciate us recommending that there are no parks necessary there and suggested a cash donation. >> Correct. My recommendation should anyone want to make a motion would be a motion to recommend the city council accept fee in lie of land dedication for the forest lake garage condos. >> Somebody like to make that motion >> and if so you could just say so moved. >> So moved. >> All right. Melissa makes that motion. >> I'll second. >> Aaron seconds it the commission recommends to the city council accept the cash dedication fee in lie of land for the forest lake garage condos plant. Any more discussion? All in favor? >> I >> I >> Okay. >> Posted. Okay. Thanks, Abby. >> Thank you, guys. >> Good evening. >> See you next month. >> Sausage. >> Uh staff report on FAA facility use agreement. Kyle. So um we are coming into the time of year where we would normally start negotiations with flaw um for facility use agreements and that's something that's been done on an annual basis. um what we are discussing there there's a lot there's a lot to discuss here right we're the city is looking into taking over the dirt work the um field maintenance part of um Fenway Park with with dragging the fields prepping fields everything like that so being that um we've had those discussion we're kind of looking at a two-tier deal here we're looking at um entering what would be a an agreement negotiation for FLA but then also kind giving an update on where we were at with the with the field prep. Um what was it back in May? I believe there was discussion here with this commission on what what would you like staff to um look into as far as the the field prep goes? Uh go um field maintenance goes for the dirt work. Now that flaw has expressed interest in in letting that part go. Um it was identified to discuss with the school district to discuss with internal and then um look for maybe a a third party or independent contractor to work with. Um did provide just an update. The the school district stated they're in no position to add that type of work onto their plate. um which had kind of led into some good conversation with the school district that uh staff is continuing to have with them on a monthly basis looking at again our whole system. The goal at the end of the day is to not be duplicating services within um there's there's been a couple two meetings now and it's it's very encouraging with where we're going. Uh but the reality is in 2026 we need somebody to to provide the dirt work at Fenway Park. So, um, contractor availability, it's it's that's a tough one to to nail down. Um, not a ton of options if push came to shove if we really had to seek that out. Um, what the idea is is that would probably come at a pretty hefty price. Um, and and to find somebody local, um, it's a challenge right now. So discussing internally, we myself and Dave feel pretty confident that we can um manage that being with equipment. Um we'd add equipment and we'd need to add staff. Um I don't know if you want to just provide the update that we kind of calculated that in for 26. >> Yeah. So, in the current uh CIP or the equipment, capital equipment plan, uh there's a a what would you what do you call it? A field groomer. >> Yep. >> Um city staff does not have a a field groomer. And then um plugged in uh two additional seasonals that we plan to be out there. Um also on uh proposed budget is an additional parks maintenance full-time employee. Uh this was actually just planned uh because of increased work that staff has but this that would they would absorb a lot of this work because there's a lot of work that as you remember a lot of work that happens in April and May and August and September that these seasonals are not here. So that full-timer would take a lot of hours of that full-time spot. So, it's kind of fortunate or fortunately has lined up that it was kind of planned that we were going to be adding staff at this point. The unfortunate part is that a lot of those times it's going to go to more work that we're ab absorbing. So, um if it doesn't get approved by council that full-time employee, then then we're going to have to figure something else out, too, because our current staff would not be able to accommodate. You know, we can add seasonals, but it's those outside portions that we can't accommodate. So, it's somewhat in a work in prog progress. We're we're positively thinking that that position would get approved, but and we're planning that that position would be there as we start planning on doing that maintenance, but we're just not 100% that we'll get the equipment and that staff. But overall, Kyle's correct, the school district can't do it. And I if you contract it out from what we get for per field rates, it's going to be astronomical to take care of Fenway just Fenway fields itself, not alone cooling camps and shilling and all these other fields we have as well. >> Um conversations with FLA have been pretty positive uh with the whole picture. Again, they are the ones that brought forward that they would want to stop providing that service. So there's nothing here that's um rubbing elbows by any means and everything's kind of on the up and up. The the biggest thing and this is kind of the twofold part is we're getting into this time where FLA does do their budget in October. So we would like to provide them some kind of number of what uh we're looking at for charges. Um, something I add in this report is just there's been a wide range of costs that have been um, tied into services provided out at Fenway Park for FLAW. Um, again really FLA is housing the youth traveling sports, right? Um, those prices have ranged anywhere from $17,000 up to $75 plus thousand that they have had to historically pay for services. Um, back when an independent contractor was taking care of those fields, uh, I think costs were upwards of 75,000 plus. That was for all the field maintenance, for the chalking, for the field painting, basically everything that the city is going to be taking on. Currently, um, the 2025 agreement had flaw paying $28,000 uh, $28,500, I believe, um, for their usage, and that was for the for the park usage. Um, one thing that we want to note is that the Fenway Fields, those are a specialty use. Um, it's a specialty use park. It's a community park. There's some things there, but when it comes to those fields, it's special use. It's it's an athletic complex. So, the city really has to be mindful of, you know, um there's a lot of dollars that go in. It's a great uh it's a great facility um flaw. It's great to have those youth programs, but that does come with a dollar amount. Um, right now there is not a um hard proposal of a number, but the the current rate that FLA is paying for the year 2025 was based off of a $10 an hour usage. They used about 2,800 plus hours in total between lacrosse, softball, and baseball. And and that is just city parks. they do use other facilities um that they need more hours, but the usage for our city parks and fields is about 2,800 um 50 hours. And we just said 10 bucks an hour um for for that is very reasonable when you look at um uh this type of park amenity use. So Kyle and that and that fee was them doing the dirt work. So it was they they were incurring that cost of doing the dragging and trucking. >> Yep. And that and they do pay that out. They hire the staff, right? They have they maintain the equipment. Um all of that comes with uh on top of that that fee. Chair. >> Yeah. Thanks, Kyle. So we've got two options here in your recommendation and things are changing out there. It's city's going to maintain those fields. it's no longer going to be a partnership or flaw to it. And it looks like option B though is continuing what's been done in the past which in that world doesn't exist anymore. And option A is the really where we need to go it seems like is you know negotiate a rate which you were going to do even under B. But update the policy to reflect the new world we're in and certainly the research the most efficient software. That's that's kind of an operational issue. But certainly I know I've tried to use the software and it is pretty cumbersome and we're going to have a new world. How are you going to run those things? You certainly should research that software. >> So I guess what I'm saying is it seems like B reflects a world that doesn't exist anymore and we need to move towards what you're recommending in A. >> Yeah. And in the um the new facility use policy is really with the idea of we've had a separate use user agreement with FLAW. um we have a very um it's it's an outdated use policy for anybody else that comes in. Right. So basically you have this agreement with FLAW that really portions of that could be adopted into a new policy. That way anybody that comes in and rent the fields that's just the user policy for these fields. There are other users that would be able to use the field. There's tournaments that could be hosted. And that's kind of where yeah, this new policy comes in is just to say go away with agreement. There's really no point of having the agreement if you have a strong use policy at the forefront that just lays out this is what the use policy is. Flaw would be um classified. So they would have kind of they would still maintain priority use. Um we're not trying to push them off off of there, but we're just going to look at have a a solid use policy, then we don't need that agreement. And that's what that item two and that option A was. So >> questions for Dave or Kyle. >> I don't know which one, but either one. I was glad to hear you said that Flaw is being amicable about this. I'm not exactly sure. I think they would prefer option B maybe. But this park has always been an exceptional park. Brought in many many more thousands of dollars for the community other than regular parks and has been run so efficiently by flaw. And yes, leadership has changed with the world changing when one passing. But I think for my part, I would like us to continue to think of that as a very exceptional park, one that we're very fortunate to have, that it's run by a flaw that is a very good working with the school, with the city. So, I just want to make sure that their expenses get so high that they have to put it on the kids again and that we treat them like anybody else because I I just don't think that's the way it should be. >> Just just to add some some background just for everybody in the room. Um, so when I first started here, what's almost 12 years ago now, uh, Flaw did everything. They did the scheduling, they did the irrigation, they did the mowing, they did the dragging, they did everything. And that was that in the back of your mind is it's swfields, right? Because they maintain it. It was that was their fields. Slowly as time gone on. In 16, we took over the irrigation. In 17 we took over the mowing, which we contracted out for two years until we got the equipment at public works. Then we public works staff took over the mowing. And then you know now by 26 or in 24 we took over the scheduling 25 we do everything but the dirt work and now in 26 city is going to maintain schedule do everything it's now 100% complete maintained by the city. So to the chair's point is that's that change is we call it we I I'll call it flow fields just because that's what it always was. Right. It's it's really now Fenway Park. It's 100% maintained by the city and and yes, it's we still want to work with Flaw and we want to make sure they get their times in and all that, but we're also doing 100% of the maintenance, 100% of the scheduling out there. So, it's that's where that big change is is that we have to try to recoup some of that those dollars and be more competitive with other cities. And I think that's what Kyle wants to do that research and look in and say, "Okay, are we competitive? are we charging way too little for for, you know, for time for field use. We don't also want to have flockhead kids paying $2,000 to come and play softball. So, I mean, that's where you you have to find that that happy point. But that is that biggest change is that over the last 10 years, it switched from 100% flaw maintained now to 100% back to a city fully city park that's fully maintained by the city. I think too it's it's important for the commission to know and certainly you know we can have a conversation when flaws here in more detail but you know it's the the reason flaw is what they are is to assist with these costs right it it the the costs don't go away um so you're you're stuck with this flaw is a great they're a great service um to the youth sports community but that's kind Why? Flaws here. Flaws here, too. They they they do their gambling and they get proceeds from that to help with costs that go into these systems. So, it's it's flaw is great. There's no question about that. There's no question that they provide great services and they serve our youth. But, I think the the purpose of FLAW raising funds um and having these students pay a the each family pays a fee to FLAW to be a FLAW member, right? they're paying those fees for FLA um to raise funds to assist with cost and and what's happening is that um the city is fronting those dollars and that's kind of not the purpose of a complex like this, right? The complex should be paid for and and that's why FL comes in because they say, "Hey, we understand it's expensive. We're raising additional dollars to help with these costs." I think um Commissioner Eert, you are in the hockey world, right? hockey goes for 240 bucks an hour for ice. Um, and that is player fees. Um, the association might do some fundraising as well to assist with that, but those costs just don't go away. And we have to be very careful of saying, "Hey, they're great, so let's just pay for everything." I don't think that's a super sustainable model. We don't want to rip them off. We're not we're not going to see any positive movement from getting these funds. What we're going to do is just say we're recouping cost and and making it a more sustainable model to be to be long-term. Um, but we'll definitely work with Flaw in those discussions to make sure Yeah. we don't just price them out. >> You use that $5 fee. Could that be one that's that what it was five or $10 fee >> that they were paying? >> $10. >> $10. Could that be raised up? I mean would I just >> the the hourly the hourly rate that we Yeah. That's what that's what we'll end up entering discussion with them. Yep. Yep. >> It'll be good to hear what they have to say. And >> so >> working together >> just right now like the city we figure between cooling camp and Fenway it's about 190,000 plus between equipment staff time um just general maintenance out there. Right. So, um, if if FLA paid $28,000 this year and the city put $200,000 in this year for those spaces, they're they're getting a great deal out of that, right? They're not paying out of their ears for those spaces. So, it's it's important to kind of know that that number. Um, if they end up paying, and this is just a throwing a number out, let's say they pay 50,000, that's still we're now adding services on. So our 190,000 turns into probably 275,000. I mean just 250,000. So you know the gap the city is putting forward a lot of resources. Um is the pricing like to be able to to reserve the the space the same across all renters so to speak? So does FLA pay the same as say a group coming from Blaine wants to reserve the fields? >> So right now >> rate or is it is there an option to be able to have >> questiona you know we're not trying to make a profit as a city not trying to earn money so I just need the bare minimum to operate and cover costs for the city whereas hey people come in from outside at that point your rate is different to be able to reserve it. So the city can earn some money, I guess. >> So currently, um, if you were just a person walking off the street that said, "I want to book Field One," you're going to pay $45 an hour for Field One. Flaw was paying $10 an hour. >> So they're getting a great deal. Yep. And um, and there'll be room when we we're looking at other policies, right? There's other cities to that are doing this. The school district has a similar policy that we're looking at. um you still build them in to that classification where they're still going to get a great deal. It's just again new times, right? Things are expensive, staff are expensive, equipment is expensive. Um that's one thing that our public works department does very well is we we we give people the tools they need to get their job done and don't have to worry about things breaking halfway through the day, right? going to happen. But um we that's a lot of resources being poured into that and we just have to be mindful of you know those expenses. >> All right. Well, this is a we knew this was going to be a difficult issue like you say switching 100% to us take care of it. And I think a couple things to keep in mind. And I mean, nobody, we all want youth sports to thrive here, and we know it brings in people, but also keep in mind that half the kids at Flaw don't live in Forest Lake. >> 51% of the So based off of this year's numbers, 51% of the kids that participate in lacrosse, baseball, and softball are from Forest Lake. 49% come outside of Forest Lake. And so, you know, how much should, and this is a council decision, how much should that support be? And then certainly, FL has resources. They grossed over 21 million in PTE proceeds last year. >> Yep. >> And so there's there's if we're going to get into a financial arrangement with FL, we need to have open books so we actually see where see the resources. So, >> right. Uh because we we're talking about subsidizing these fields to the tune of $150,000. Well, we just talked about wanting a threeacre park. How's that going to get built? How's that going to get maintained? So, >> we've got to keep look at the full picture. >> Well, I agree, but I put those two in completely different packs. And, you know, I can go along with option A. I I was going to prefer option two or option B, but because I do hear a lot of collaboration between you and I've sat here when every the city was way against flaw flaw was city were kind of and then FLA took it back and so they've had a lot of back and forth, but it's always fell back on this is a good opportunity for the city. Maybe 49% don't live here, but they do drive here and get gas and eat and do a lot of other things while they're here. So, I don't think we want to lose the value that that complex brings in when we're in negotiation, but it sounds to me like you're working with FLA and it would be very important for me to come back and and they say we're all on board. >> One other quick history item too is that right FLA um being that that was kind of their housed system, they they put capital money into that, right? So I think ideally you look at um an opportunity to say hey if they can be paying the going rate for field usage at a deal um you know they don't have to maybe worry about the capital. That's something that we can kind of try to figure into. Um and that's based off of hey we start running more tournaments you start bringing in more funding there's way more there's an economic boost with running 10 more tournaments a year right there's there's those discussions to happen too. So it is just noted that flaw does they had put capital out there over time. Um that might that's going to likely shift as well now that we're fully taking care of that stuff. So let them pay the daytoday and then the city worried about the big picture. >> So do we have a motion for either A or B? I'll motion to uh ask the city staff to uh consider option A. >> A second. >> Okay. Motion by Sue, second by Tim for option A in the recommendation. All in favor? >> Opposed? All right. >> We have any easy items tonight? >> This next one, they're getting harder as we go. I know we haven't been here seven hours, but the clock says it's 2:30 in the morning. >> So, um Oh, I'll wait for you, chair. >> I'm sorry. Go ahead, Kyle. We got uh master plan park master plan scope of services. >> And we do have um Josh here with Bolton and Mink. And I I apologize for making him wait. I kind of thought maybe a couple of those points would go a little bit faster, but uh but here we are now. So, um as discussed, we have our parks master plan in 2022 sitting in draft and uh part of that to get that moving forward is to reopen uh um you know, the the items here within the scope of service to uh try to finalize this parks master plan. and um you know chair as long as you don't mind Josh coming up and introducing himself. Absolutely Josh >> speak to some history as he has >> welcome >> been around since the 2014 even >> is that >> it's been a while um good evening uh Josh Shields principal landscape architect of Bolton Mink um I do remember a number of faces from some of these previous plans um Commissioner Morhead and I worked on that 2014 edition and then I picked up the 2022 actually here I'll since I printed Um in the 2014 uh really set the basis on things and then the 2014 I picked up when some staff went from Bolton over to Washington County. They had started this process and I think um Commissioner Gary I think you were involved in this one as well as Commissioner Morehead. Um, this one uh from 2022 was really left unfinished, but it looked at uh demographics, updating the general goals. Um, trying to get a sense of the facilities, which you know, we were looking at some of the figures from the um developments and there's a chart in here that talks about each of the parks in the community and how large it is. um also where it's located and an appendix um does also have an accommodation for school or non non city related facilities that do contribute to uh parks and recreation. Um but then uh there are some definitions for the different types of parks and kind of what that means and it's based on the National Recreation and Park Association findings. So it's it's streamlining that information together. Um the biggest thing that I would say when I was brought in to try to wrap some things up is um just some recommendations. One of the biggest things that came out of that was the understanding that the 2014 plan developed the goals, the vision, um did a lot of the categorization of parks, um the the data points, but it didn't necessarily streamline what's the commission do versus city staff versus council versus other entities, what are those partnerships? So it started to try to develop a little bit better um organization of roles and responsibilities. That's what we started doing in that 2022 plan. Um there was a lot of of there was a lot of change over lots of different entities, right? The commission saw some change, city staff saw some change, the world was going through a lot of change. So, um, in the best interest of all of those, it was put on hold or set to the side. Um, Dave and Kyle reached out to me, I think probably the last month, uh, to bring it back up since this commission has been reformed, um, getting through the paces, getting up to speed, and then looking at um, what I'm going to basically say is kind of shuffling them together, but in a finalized state. So you'd have one plan, but it's what you need in order to help with the decision making from Aby's earlier discussion points like what does it actually mean in the bigger system providing um information to you as you're coordinating with different uh capital improvement discussions or um or having back and forth with city staff and getting a better understanding of some of the funding sources that might be available to help build out the system. Um, so what we had put together, which I'm assuming is an an agenda, a packet item, um, should be a scope and, um, it's through Dave, Kyle, and I sitting down and kind of brainstorming with what what we knew of the previous plans and what we thought you might be looking for. Um, this is probably the first time you're seeing this, so I don't know how close we are to to hitting the mark. Uh, we hopefully are in the ballpark, but we might be a little bit off. So, we had a base scope of surfaces that that went through project coordination, current plan, review of of recent studies or park improvements. I was out at Belts, you know, obviously there's been some work there in the last year that wasn't reflected in the 22 plan. Um, Cedar also has some new uh playground facilities that wasn't in that. So, just getting an idea of what has happened since we put that down in 2022. Uh, getting that information updated. Um, there was some public and uh, agency engagement as part of that 2022 plan. And I'm going to say, um, also city staff at that time had done some engagement prior to that plan. They had had some open houses. they'd had some focus groups. So, we went back through, reviewed the notes from those engagement activities and tried to make suggestions on items that we think might either benefit from being um getting a fresh opinion or a fresh look or that maybe didn't really have a lot of of participation and wanted to to qualify the the data. So that was the focus uh the focus group surveys and um discussions with this group um just to make sure that it's what you actually need and is going to provide the the direction the city needs and then finalizing the recommendations into that that full uh fullyfledged plan. So that's task item four. One thing that is um an item under that is uh 4D. In 2024, the Department of Justice um made a basically made the I wouldn't say that it's a law regulation uh for ADA documentation requirements. And that's really all the cities in the state of Minnesota, but you know, really countrywide is is not just looking at at accessible ramps uh to be able to move from street, sidewalk, across, but really looking at um legibility from a reading standpoint. So any document that is online available in PDF format or online and is a as a readable document, just make sure that it it subscribes to those requirements. That's part of that portion four, making sure that what's delivered to you uh is is meeting all of those and that if somebody needs a screen reader that they'd be able to actually pick up what they needed to out of the document. So, so that's the base. The other thing that we were looking at uh were some optional items and I think the staff reported and indicated some of those as well. Um it's been a while since there've been engagement. The community's changed a little bit. Um so we thought a community openhouse might be appropriate at some point just to get consensus that um what the plan is uh suggesting is is supported uh by residents and and business owners. Um what we were looking at in 2022 really was focused on parks. there was an aspect of connectivity but it really did not look at trail corridors or u connections from that perspective. So rather than having it as part of the base we separated a trail search corridor u mapping update as an optional item. Um, where that really becomes important is when public works is looking at projects that are transportation system related and there's an opportunity to build in a trail or missing link. Um, oftentimes that's when when those can happen. U so it provides a little bit direct better direction on that. um when some of the developments or opportunities for developments come up, if you know that that you would like to get a trail connection through a tight spot and have it on a map, then that can be part of your your opening uh negotiations along with park space. Um and then the um the city is required to um basically update their comprehensive plan um I don't know if it's every 10 years, but but every so often. So in some ways there's an opportunity for some of this effort to kickstart uh what would be a requirement for 2028. So the hope is that we can pull some a little bit a little bit additional effort maybe now that would put everything together so you could copy and paste it into the comp plan once that's ready to go for at least for the parks and or trail system. So that was another optional item that we had included in there. So that pretty much hopefully brings you up to speed. That's the last what is it 11 years brain dump. >> Well, thanks Joshua. So we've got the base proposal and then there's three alternate options that we can discuss. Guess the question for is uh budget wise, would you have budget if we did all three options? Yeah. So, this this would qualify for park dedication funding. So, dedication that we've got that we've taken from the GRD condos or whatever ones we've taken in the past. We have a a healthy balance a little over a million dollars in there of of of um park dedication dollars. So, this this would be used because you're using it to plan future parks, future usage. >> So, it would qualify as an expense. so that there would be budget in there to um afford that. And just to add on B and C, you're going to have to do that anyway. So, in 2028, we're going to tell you you need to do it. It would be nice if we had it done. So, then Abby goes, "Where is this stuff?" We say it's already here in the plan and it's done with. Um and that price, Josh will tell you it'll go up to. So, in two years, I'm sure that 125 and 2600 is going to be a different price as well. >> Yeah. And just to have that tied in with your master plan just I mean really honestly makes sense just to have it get it all if you're going to do the whole update just get everything in there. >> Questions for staff for Joshua. Absolutely correct Dave that comprehensive plan it's not a if it's you have to do it. And I I like the trail search idea because as we deal with issues like we started with tonight with plats come in, knowing where these where we want trails in the future, they're becoming more important than actually parks in some ways to at least to some people. >> Correct. It also helps with grants. If you have it on a plan showing that this is going to be a trail when you're doing a road, you can apply for a recreation grant showing that it's in your plan that you're missing this link. And it it really scores a lot of points knowing that you've planned for this, research this, and it's all part of that, you know, our pedestrian facilities throughout the city. >> And it certainly seems to make sense to have the community at an open house to get their feedback. So, but any Karen? Well, I'm just always appreciative of Bolton Mink and the detail and the care that they put into their plans for us because they do an excellent job of it and are very good at trail planning and trail finding money for trails. Um, so I just again appreciate the work they do and and find no I mean if you're looking for a recommendation on this or just >> we looking for a it would be a uh motion to recommend to the city council approve the scope of services park system plan base services development fee of 28,500 plus options A B plus option D which would be all the above. >> Be happy to make that motion. >> Okay, Karen will make that motion. Second. >> Second by Tim. Any more discussion? All in favor? >> I. >> Thanks, Joshua. Looking forward to working with you. >> Thanks, guys. >> All right. Item 11, Kyle and Dave's park updates. Um, so we have um currently we have belts that's that's getting wrapped up with the playground, right? Uh, historically Belts Park has also had a sand volleyball court and the current plan is to put that back in. It's also maybe a good time to just have a discussion um on park amenities. Um, we have another park project coming up next year in Bay View. Um, just want some input from this commission on on on the ideas or do we want to look at our system to see if any other parks pop out to put something like a sand sand volleyball court in. Uh, historically it's been at belts, I believe, cuz uh um location. I think the high school kids like to walk over. Um, now we have three high schools here, right? So, um, but just kind of some things to be considering and before we put it in the ground just to kind of discuss is is there how does this commission feel? Does this commission feel like we should maybe look into some other areas to put um that that sand court or just any other amenities that we have to do? I think it's just sand volleyball at belts. Correct. There's so um just kind of open up to discussion. um on if if we want to look into an alternative site for the sand volleyball. Does anyone feel they have any any input on that? >> I believe also the the the question is the ice ice uh rink there too. And if you looked at that map, so public works is going to put basically put two courts back and then in the winter flood that where that rink usually is. Um, usage wise, there's not many people that use that rink. Um, and we put about a thousand hours in per rink of of uh staff time to maintain it through the winter. So, >> I think the the usage the the hours seem so inconsistent. you know, I go by there, you know, on my way home at 8 o'clock at night and there's people out skating in the dark. I don't I don't know when when the hours are, but I, you know, if you had regular hours that could be depended on, I think you'd get a lot of use out of it. >> And I live down the street from there and what makes my heart happy is that I see all the families out there and people I feel like I see people skate. Now, it isn't like 20 or 40 people out there, but I see, you know, a handful of people out there skating almost daily. >> It's nice because if you go out to Tower Park and kids are playing hockey, if I'm trying to get my young kid to go learn how to skate, >> right? >> It's nice going someplace where people aren't shooting pucks and flying around that >> I can give them the little helper and have them out there learning how to skate. That's how we started with our kids. that's so wide open that people feel safe with their kids there. You know that you know there's a lot of you can see everything from the road. There's no shenanigans happening. >> Well, I think weather related has caused problems in the past to not have it be used so much because it's water. >> And so I think in the beginning when we had better weather it seemed for that there were people out there all the time. And so when I looked today, I went out there and I thought because I I envision people using that if the ice is there pretty regularly. Is there just that one little road now? That one little strip of pavement that they can drive out to park there? >> They can't drive out there. It's a path now. The parks commission or the city council voted down a parking lot and now they park at the church. >> Parking lot, but we used to have a drive that they could go in. Is that where that big hole is that we have to make all the little people happy more where the asphalt is asphalt walk. >> Yeah, they they've painted the parking. It's off the side of the road. >> It'll be all on street parking road now. >> Well, I realize that, but I'm saying before we did have a larger part because when people go in there and the ranger wasn't on duty, they could at least sit in their car and put the skates on the kids. And I didn't see any of that when I was there today. It seemed to me that now you're telling me they aren't even going to use that one little piece of >> Noel. Yeah. because uh it was kind of brought to council that they didn't want a parking lot in in that that park. So now >> I'm not even thinking of a parking lot. That was over here. I'm thinking where they were parking before over there. >> That would have been where the parking lot was. >> But that's where that little hole is too. And of course that's going to always be a real problem for me that I don't know if we had to do it there, if we wanted to do it there, if we're going to make it pretty there. But that little indent, I know you know what I'm talking about. It's something to do with water. The holding >> pond water pun. >> Never been there in all these years. And now because we put the other surface on the playground. Is that why they we were required to do that? >> Because we put the pedestrian facilities in which triggered square footage within requires treatment which also we made it to the size that just in case at some time we want to put a parking lot in there, we don't have to rip the entire park up again to build another storm pond. So it's sized correctly. >> Give up on that. So Dave, I think you got your feedback on the hockey rink. Uh it's gonna it's going to be there this year for sure. >> Yep. And I and I that was just thing. It's not eliminating it. It was just a thought of >> would you want it down at Lakeside Park or would you want it at a different area? If if the consensus is nope, keep it at Belts Park, we'll probably be coming back to and saying we need about $50,000 repairs at the warming house >> because we've been holding off on that. That was part of the the rehabilitation of belts. >> Could it be at Lakeside Park? Where where are you thinking? >> The center circle. Um, you know, we don't want it on the lake. It used to be on the lake and the ice is just >> Well, you saw last year how half the lake ended up in the park, but that's those options if you have more traffic that you use the park more year round where you have a skating rink there and that your your trails are shoveled and you have a portable warming house that gets brought in in the winter time. Those are all discussions. But if you if the council or the commission is no 100% we want to add belts, then we don't even need to explore those options. >> I just want to be sure that we have one, >> right? What are the discussions with the Porsche Lake Hockey Association because I know they're talking about potentially getting ice at the BFW and a couple other sites because they're really pushing that for the community for the hockey association itself, but also to be available for the community, I'm assuming. >> Yeah. So, I have two points. I'll answer that first. So, the association, they started renting ice last year with with the city at tower, >> right? >> Discussions are right now is that they're likely going to rent like Monday through Thursday night, 5 to 9, one of the rinks at tower. So, they're going to they're going to be pretty heavy user weather pending, right? >> Um, one other note that uh I want to mention, Commissioner Gary, you brought up the the hours. So last year was probably the first year we had those warming houses consistently staffed. Um they were open 7 days a week. Um basically 12 to 9 all all seven days. That's that's the hours. We did have tracking done on that and the and that's where we talked about the usage being low. We understand people drive by and see people. But um we do track that daily usage when the warming house attendants are there. And that's the point is that it I mean those numbers are pretty they are pretty low compared to when you look at like tower obviously there's two ranks right but that's kind of when we see that and when um Dave mentions we put a lot of manh hours into that rank that's just those are the conversations we want to have is it location um could that be a driver uh and so just note that's that's why right we have those numbers tracked I do have them week by week tracked so we can certainly you know have another conversation about that. Again, this year the rank's going to be at belts. We will do our best to staff them seven days a week again to have that consistency and then we will still do the track. So, we'll we'll bring those numbers back to you guys in the late winter, early spring and really do a over two-year average. Um, but just note that we do keep track of that because again, that's a lot of resource going into those. Um, the hockey association, yeah, they're they're they want they want ice. They need ice. We we know that and we'll give them what we can. >> It seems like this discussion though might a little bit premature if we're going to be updating the this master plan because there'd be a discussion of this is a classic example of what what do we want in each of these parks for facilities, >> but I think being Dave in your memo it says the pock rink's going to stay there right now. We've got time then to but I think you're hearing loud and clear we want to have a hockey rink somewhere. >> Yeah. The only I guess the only difference is if if we're not 100% sure that we want it there, we won't put that sand volume. We we would do that this fall. >> Okay. >> But if we don't if we don't What was that? >> Are you saying that we're not liking the sand volleyball there? Because I I have a strong feeling about it being there. And >> we not we might not just put it there. We might put it back kind of where it was or put it in a different area. We were putting we were we would put that sand volleyball court in the spot where it's next to the warming house. So then in the winter you'd flood a path to the, you know, so you don't have to walk on skates >> through the dirt, >> you know, through the grass over somewhere else and where the lights are set up. So we're kind of try to multi-purpose one spot instead of, >> you know what I mean? And if we're not if we're 100% sure that this is where we always wanted this thing to be, then we'd put the courts in this fall, get the at least get the sand hauled in, and then flood the sand. >> That's good. If if we're if we're not 100% sure, we just flood it over the grass like we do have done every other year and then talk about this more, >> which is which is fine, too. Then, you know, it's not like sand is super expensive, but it's also cost enough and the labor to to put it all in if we decide later we want it moved. >> So, the the volleyball is staying at belts, though. >> The volley volleyball would stay at belts, but we'd have to decide exactly where we want to put it. If we want to keep the rink there, then we'd put it where that kind of where that red rectangle is. >> And if we don't want the rink there, then it's up for debate. Do you want to kind of put it back where it was somewhere else to open up that green space? >> Back to the whole master plan thing of how you want final. I mean, we got the the top tier of belts done. Now you're down to the bottom bottom tier of how we want that to look. >> Does that baseball field have baseball games on it? So flaw flaw um baseball will not use that field and softball says they can't use it because it's too small which it it could be used but they choose not to. >> It's a it's a nice neighborhood field. >> Yeah. >> Um you know it's a skin field. >> Yeah. >> And you see families going up you know with paleo and pitching or >> practices happen there. The reason I ask is could put the volleyball court right there. And then you've got, you know, kind of people trying to play volleyball and you got when they're little kids, they're playing teball. They're probably not going to hit them. I don't know. Um, >> and that's kind of why we want to have this discussion because once we put something in, it's going to be really hard to move it, right? So that's why we want this overarching conversation of 100% the rinks there, volleyball courts going there. All right, this is where we're going to do it. Um if it's kind of like hey let's see what the rink usage is after another year of getting consistent hours. Um if if we're getting 30 40 people a week at belts which is kind of what our numbers are saying we're averaging about 40 people a week tower we're averaging 220 plus. So when you look at those numbers that's a that's a pretty big gap. Um, is it smart to have it there? >> Hockey versus recreation >> there. There's two rings at tower and one is kind of one has hockey board so it's painted red line, blue lines and one is more often you know just can skate around. So there are still recreation skaters at Tower. Yes, you see two usually two pickup games going on. Um, but just even the fact people do come down and just skate circles down at tower without stick and puck, you're still getting that recreation usage and that's just what we want to again have a good in-depth conversation because once we put stuff here, it's going to be hard to move it. >> Now, are the are the lights being improved at belts for the for the rink? >> Are the lights what >> are the lights being improved at at the belts at the ring? >> Yeah. So the little magic eightball that got taken down cuz that's where that was that's where the storm pond is now. So there'll be something that'll be attached off the building now LED. So it'll be it'll be brighter than you. >> I guess that was one of the other things is that you know the lights of the tower are nice and bright. You know you don't you don't even know have to know there's a rink there to go there's something there that needs light. Whereas again at Belts you know the lights been kind of So even on on some nights that it's been open, you don't really know that it's open because you all you have is a parking light light or something. So I was just wondering if there's any way of improving the lighting over there. >> It'll be improved, but it'll be temporary just like everything else cuz as you as two years ago, we were going to be putting a $500,000 pavilion there with year- round bathrooms and a warming house and all that stuff and then that all got scaled back. So, it may be the best solution is if we're working with Josh, we're going through this master plan through the winter, right? We just stick with what we did last year, put it on the grass, do like we've done every other year, and hopefully through the winter, by spring, >> we know where we want to put the the volleyball court. We know what we want to do with all that. >> Maybe or and talk through location, all that stuff. >> How's that how's that sound? So continue continue as you've been doing and we can we'll have discussion during the winter >> and my discussion right now is for the winter because when you're tracking that have you tracked how many days it could be open because it's water and not ice and you're not putting that in the whole scheme of things. So overall when you say there's 30 or 40 families >> it's still relative tower. I mean, if it's >> But see, we've always been taught tower is hockey and hockey has no trouble finding people to go over there. But belts is always the family neighborhood, family gettogethers. >> No, I get that. I'm just saying if if the the the rinks are wet, you're going to see a drop in usage at tower just the same as you're going to see >> at hockey. I think they make things do when there's water. But families aren't >> I don't know about that. >> Yeah, I would I would say >> doesn't work too well. No, I would say you probably have some kids to be fair to be fair. I mean, >> we've had some really bad winters for that ice rink >> and I just don't want to have that taken away because I think it's an ideal spot for it. >> Well, it brings a bigger question. Do we even have outdoor rinks anymore the way Minnesota winters are? >> Well, that's true, too, buddy. >> So, at least that's I think I think that's actually >> I think that's the discussion to have is >> how many hours how many hours can you use a rink in Minnesota these days outdoors? So, that's another >> big thing. >> So, all right. >> You figure we spend >> So, I know we got a few more big items to get through. So, you think you got enough feedback? You're going to continue as is and >> Yep. We'll uh >> won't change anything. We'll add some temporary lighting off the the building and then wait for further direction in the spring. >> Kyle, you have Arts in the Park. >> Yeah, I know this will >> be real exciting to talk about, right? It's what, September, and we're going to talk about June. Um just you know when it when it comes to planning this type of event right we got to start now um just want to throw out some proposed dates um and talk a little bit about what we're doing. It's yes it is op it's operations but we also you know want to be able to say hey we've had an open discussion about these things. Um you know one of the biggest things is you know booking music. You want to get that done. So, we want to um you know have a discussion about uh updating the agreement with our music contract uh so he can start booking those shows. And um what we'd probably do is try to have this done by or at least updated the best we can um and over to legal. I would assume we'd have to send it to legal um and we'd probably be doing that next month. So we we're already looking at November to likely bring that back to the commission to uh recommend approval to council. So we want to just make sure we have that discussion now and uh just kind of openly discuss. We posted our our event dates. Um we are looking at running over that 4th of July. Um that that day being on I think a >> Saturday now. Um we've had conversation internally. We feel like we can do the Tuesday before and after. Um, but we that that would also mean a little bit delayed start. This past year we started June 2nd or 3rd, the 3rd. So there's a there's a little delay in the start, but it's it's still 11 weeks and that's what we ran this year. Um, there's some vendor rate discussion. Um, and then also maybe a business partnership opportunity that we want to want to pursue as well. So just again open for discussion. We want you guys to have some some discussion around that. Ask us questions and go from there. >> Could I ask why the change in the date? Because we're going to add those two before and after the fourth. Why do we have to start later? >> Um it's it's just overall dates, right? So if if we were to start the same it would be make it a four a 13week series and it's I think historically been a 10 11 12 week series. Um there's every week you add there's substantial cost involved in that. So you look at um flooding out each week if you keep adding weeks versus if you just try to narrow it down. I mean, I think eventually we'd like to try to make it a 10- week series just to make it a nice round and that way you can again have more money to spend each week versus divvy up everything. >> And that brings me to another of the vendor rates. I don't know if any of the other commissioners have had any calls, but I've had two. It went out to the vendors as a proposed amount. Um, but it hadn't come here first. Just to clarify, we just we opened up the 2026 application for the vendors and we just want just people to to know there's a proposal out there. So, it's um it's best practice to get an application out to those as early as possible. So, we we get all the vendors that that want to be there. Um there's something to be said about you get, you know, more better vendors when you put it out early enough for them to plan >> and that's fine. But how how much are you saying on each vendor would we be raising the rates? >> So >> what >> the >> I know >> the food truck was 550. This year we proposed it to go to 650. The general vendor was 200. We proposed to go to 250. The food market was 100. We proposed to go to 250. Um staff doesn't really see a difference in in the whether you're a general vendor or food other than just the the bylaws that they have to follow. Um you know a vendor is a vendor down there. um understanding that some people maybe don't make as much as others, but you know, we don't really see the difference of if you're selling um woodwork or homemade bread, it's it's this it's a spot, right? It's a spot at the event. >> The vendor, excuse me, the vendors that went up $150. Um supposedly the reason was that we want to have bigger bands and that would be on the backs of the vendors again to have that additional raise in money. That's a big jump from what they were paying to what they'd have to pay. And the couple that have only talked to me have said, you know, that's you don't make enough money to put up a and then you've added liability back in again. >> There's no there's no added liability to the to the vendors. That's food truck related. >> Okay. that they'll have to provide. We we did some researching into that more with our city attorneys and got the blessing to say they don't need to have their their separate liability. >> So they they misread that then because they thought that they >> it's a food truck in vendor app. So I mean there's Yeah, there's >> Kyle. This is this rate is you're these rates are for all 11 events, >> correct? >> So you're talking >> $22 a night. >> $22 an event a night. >> Okay. Um there is options to add, you know, um like this business booth to add a 3-day, 5day option. Obviously, that's just more staff time to organize. Um but, uh we can certainly go down that road. I'm not opposed to it. It's just again, it's it's you're probably looking at having to bring on somebody else to help with organization of it just because it's going to be a lot of moving parts. about why are you looking at making it fewer weeks? >> I guess >> I was guess I was just thinking, you know, again with Karen I think people look forward to the the start of of Arts in the Park. >> So is as quick in June as a person can start it. I would think you know >> taking the break around the July 4th because that's what they were saying. They're going to do the two weeks around July 4th in lie of starting early. >> Yeah. So this year there's this year's there's not a change, but I think you're referring to in the future. So I I would say it's just again looking it's just similar to to belts, right? You're looking at your your visitors um working with our music contractor Woody McBride. Uh I usually check in with him each week to give me an estimated um you know attendance and it's always those first two three weeks are very they're they're pretty well attended but they're very low compared to what we see throughout the summer. So there's just a June 3rd school is still going on, right? And then that first week people are coming out of school. It's vacation time. It's figuring out the summer plans, the camps, and there's just a lot of added things happening. So I think there's just a what happens if we we push it back um into June, but then obviously you have so far to go back into August and then if you do have the Fourth of July land on a Wednesday, you're probably not running. So that would be again if you did that 10 week, you start at the middle of June, you get your oneweek break there around the 4th and then you still are ending at the end of August. >> Could it be a compromise? You had said they they'd have two at fourth of July that they that's what they did this year, but it's technically only always been one. So could we add one week back to the front and then only have because they're used to a break on the 4th of July? It could be either the before or after, but it would let them start a little earlier, go back to the pattern they've been used to. I don't know, maybe a compromise. >> You make the decisions. >> You tell us what to do. >> Well, I'm just wondering what they think because >> I guess Yeah, we're going to talk. >> I would I would look at going back to say June 8th. I June 16th seems like a long way. >> When does school end this next year? And if the fourth lands on a Saturday, just do the Tuesday before and Tuesday after because people look forward to it even. >> Exactly. >> And that's our plan right now. Yeah. >> If we added if we added the week, that's adding another week on and then you're going to have to um charge vendors accordingly and then plan for another entertainment cost. So, >> another little question. >> What I think was that they had like 2,000 people there for corn, >> you know, >> over Yep. And you know, it seemed when I was down there, you know, throughout the summer, you know, it see it's the crowds seemed to be larger than they were like last year. So, it it seems to be growing. You know, it helped to run the vendors down the sidewalks a little bit further and things like that. I mean, there's there appear to be more vendors there this year. So, I mean, as long as the thing is growing and you're not losing people, I would think you'd kind of take advantage of it. and you know add add as many weeks in there as you could. >> We only have so many dollars to spend though. So every week you add you have to get another band. You have to staff it. You have to figure out and you have to adjust rates. You know it >> like I said you guys can make that decision. >> I think take it the week before July. >> It's a it's a moving target. You you won't you won't get it right. Right. You're not going to get everything right. Right. the the idea is keeping it 11 weeks for just we we understand the budget based off of that. We're we're trying to rightsize I guess what we feel is the appropriate fees and that was all kind of based off the 11 weeks but again um that's why I mean that's why we're having this discussion right for that feedback. >> Yeah. I don't I don't know. One interesting feedback I got from um again the two vendors, you know, we have those large crowds for Johnny Cash were so excited and thrilled. Those people when they come, they sit down for the concert and the two vendors had said, "You just watch." And I never I never paid attention to that until they mentioned it. Those people that come for those big events, the corn, they sit there and they don't move. And so the vendors don't really get advantage from having the large crowd. I never thought of that before, but looking at especially the Johnny Cash, we had such a good group. They were entertained and they were there for the entertainment and I so I you know, we want to have big bands, but I think we also have to adjust the difference between how much a vendor can can make and how much can be put upon them, how much the city is willing to put into a huge event like that for every Tuesday because it certainly brings in a lot of happy people. So let's let's go through these things one by one so we can get direction. So on event dates, what is the board's commission's desire for direction to staff stick with these proposing June 16th 11 weeks or would somebody like to make a change to that? >> I I propose just leave it as is. >> June 16th. >> Okay. Anybody else? >> 11 weeks. >> I mean I I like June 8th. >> I do too. >> Okay. >> And then taking a break one week. one week at the 4th of July. >> Well, have you ever looked at having sponsors like someone that could sponsor the music or someone could sponsor >> force force like Ford sponsored $15,000 this past year? >> I think we got to stick with 11 dates is the date. >> Yeah. >> So, >> well, I mean, if you're doing the July weekend, you've got a lot of people coming into the city >> because you got American Legion putting up the >> Yeah. on both sides of that. Right. So, if you're going to have that foot traffic anyways, having it >> an arts in a park during that Fourth of July week instead of taking the week off, it gives that much opportunity >> to those vendors to have that traffic. >> So, you support the 16th start then? >> Yeah, I would agree. >> Okay. >> So, we got a consensus the 16th start of the 11 weeks. >> You should take a vote. >> Okay. >> You you guys can kind of do a vote amongst yourselves, but it's not going to be like an official. >> Right. >> Right. So yeah, feel free to >> hear Tim and Tim and Karen and support the ETH. You too, Melissa. >> That would be June 9th. >> June 9th. >> Yep. >> All right. I think it's splitting hairs. I think the 16th is good for this year with the way Fourth of July is fall. Okay. Personally, >> it's worth the 16th. >> So then I think if you have the Melissa, Sue, Aaron, and I say the 16th is fine and go right through the fourth. Don't take a week off. Okay. Okay. uh contracts. I think music that's your, you know, you're going to get as good bands. It's a catch 22, Karen. If they don't have good bands, nobody shows up, >> right? >> Or if they show up and then they don't really support the vendors. I think we we've got >> How about >> I don't think we should worry about that. I think Woody does a great job of choosing. >> Correct. >> Correct. So vendor rates. Uh any comments on the proposed rates? >> Why 150% increase on food? So the the food market when >> when I came in last year, I didn't have I mean I didn't have a ton of experience with this type of event. Um looking at So we did raise the general vendor fees um up last year. Um so 2024 I believe they were 150. We bumped them to 200 um just because we knew that was well below you know the norm I guess across for events like this. Um, and then the the so we didn't touch the food market just because we weren't sure. But then doing more research, seeing the event happen, talking to more people that run these events, just say a vendor's a vendor. Um, certainly you want to have that category difference because you're going to have cottage bylaws that they're going to have to follow. So you want to know who's coming into your event and who's going to have to follow those for that who applies it to or who it applies to. Um, but it's just it's really a skipped it last year because we weren't sure doing more research. It's a vendor is a vendor. Your price is your price. >> I'm just curious because if we're I mean the next agenda item is to look at the farmers market here at city hall. I mean, if I'm going up in price there, am I not going to do food at Arts in the Park and just try to push for the farmers market? If I'm a vendor trying to sell food, like farm goods, >> I think um just a quick example to share, we had like a vendor, they were new to Arts in the Park, they sold granola. Um she now has a drop site in Forest Lake once a month because of all the customers that came through. So, it's not always about what do you make back at Arts in the Park. It's about the connections you're making there. So, um I think there's a lot of vendors that will say we want to be at Arts in the Park because there's 1500 people that walk through, right? >> I mean, we're looking at $250, but and it's it's 2250 every time. So, I know that as a vendor, I've sold many things and you go into any uh any to get a booth at a vendor place that has that many people walking through. To your point, some of them aren't going around and and looking at the vendors, Karen, but they're still coming there and seeing them. There's still the opportunity for them to be walking around. So, for $22 to have that space, that's still an amazing deal. I just >> You're thinking $22 an event. I mean, a Tuesday >> each day. Yeah. each day. Each time this is for all the events in total. >> Oh, so it's not per >> It's not per night. Oh, 11 weeks. >> I was wondering how how they make money. >> It's well $22 a night. >> It's well below the >> They've reserved their spot for the entire >> Well, that's the other problem. I was just going to bring up, you know, as well as I >> as I do that, excuse me. I was there every Tuesday and the vendors that are still unhappy with being moved from their spot that they've been in. And I think that's that's something that maybe the commission doesn't understand or or know that's happening. >> But that's an operational issue, Karen. That's not a policy issue for us. >> But it isn't a direction to our >> So can I can I share something chair? >> Sure. >> So we we sent out a survey to all the all the vendors. They've all had a chance over a week to respond. We've only gotten 20 response as of now. And we're averaging about 75% on the satisfied, very satisfied. Um and that includes with booth location. How satisfied were you at your booth location? Um right now we have a 75 70% saying um satisfied, very satisfied. So while there are yep, there are four people that are dissatisfied or very dissatisfied. You're talking 20% versus 75%. So there's going to be people that aren't happy, but the general body speaking, all the questions that we're asking, we're at about a 70 to 75% satisfied or very satisfied >> when they when they put in their application next year, can they request to be in a different location? I mean I mean not that you get there may be the best location and everybody wants it, right? But I mean as far as how you located them next to each other or you take any recommendations like that when you're taking the application. >> So we last year the the application did include a request for a booth. This year I I removed that request. Um it's it's that's again that's a really hard thing right you give if I give five people a booth they want >> but then that six person wants something that I can't give them. >> Yeah. >> How do I now explain that I well I can't give you that. So, it's across the board to say it's a fair chance for everybody um at this point. So, we don't have to explain to group why, you know, you're not getting your spot, but they got their spot. So, that's there's a there's a difficulty thing there. Um we've we've talked to some event people that will put a price dollar on a spot. You think this spot's good? Well, it's going to cost an extra hundred bucks. I don't know that we want to do that right now. Um, but certainly that's what people are doing to fix that to say, "Hey, if you want that front corner spot, that's a premier spot. You're going to pay more for it." So then there's just no question of why did they get that spot. >> So the condition again that I just ask for some consideration for these people that are out there that there's a difference if someone's been there for every single Tuesday since it started to someone coming in brand new. So, I can understand the difference and I I just hope that we can somehow work into that that whether it be a 5year, a 10 year or a 20 year that they've been there, that that's an answer to why they're still in that same place. And if everybody else stays coming, you gradually get your spot. >> That's a that's just another thing to track, right? How do you track that? Who tracks that? Where does that stay? Does that um where does it get recorded? So that way if you know that that's another complicated coordination of keeping that information. >> So going back to the rates, let's make a call on that. Are we comfortable with the proposed rates for 2026? >> Y. >> Okay. >> Everybody's comfortable with that? >> Not me. >> Karen's Karen's not. Okay. And then the business partnership. I know you last year you had a significant partnership with Ford and you're going to be exploring other ones there, Kyle. So good work on that. All right. Uh, farmers market. Let's jump into that. >> Do you want to give me the HDMI plug? Um, again, just really similar to the Arts in the Park. Um, memo. We just went over the, uh, farmers market. We, we said we'd bring back some proposals for the commission to review. Um, and uh, I did attach the map and I don't know if everyone can see that, but we just did a layout of uh, what we're kind of thinking here at city hall, the proposals for Saturday mornings. Um, feel like it's a great open lot to use, right? Um, there's a you look at Arts in the Park, it's a great park. Um, would love to run it there, but there's a lot of other things going on in the park on the weekends anyways. So to have just a wide open space to bring people, you're right off of 61. Um easy access for people to find whether they're coming into town that aren't here. Um it's just kind of our our general proposal there. So again, um there's there's farmer markets that start in May and there's people that have flowers and plants that that come, but most people are, I think, after vegetables and stuff like that. And I think we had a couple vegetable people, our corn food truck and our veggie stand for Arts in the Park and they didn't show up till almost the end of June, July cuz they didn't have anything. So I think this is just the safe route and then most people run it through run it through as long as you can. You might have to cancel your October weeks and that's fine just depending on weather and and how many uh people still have products, but that's the proposal right now. >> Happy to report. I love the idea. Karen's on board. >> Thank you, Karen. >> Be there to help. >> What kind of a cost is going to be >> incurred by the city to put this on? It just looks like you got to put up some barriers and >> it's >> there's not much to it. >> It's going to be We feel like it's going to be minimal. You know, promotions, right? We're going to want to promote it. Um I have the idea of maybe working Karen may or may not like this but uh with like the Rotary they've expressed interest of maybe they'll be on site on Saturdays and and help you know where you're not using necessarily city staff. Certainly we might have to be on call or something or there for the first couple weeks but once it runs just like arts in the park people get in a rhythm and figure out where they go and set up where they park and all those um items. So I I mean we do think it's going to I mean it's going to be some resource but uh marketing promotion you might say 500 to 750 bucks or something to really pump it out minimum. >> And are you going to charge for those those spaces as well? like and will it be just a yearly like this summer for when however many times you come what are they coming at you >> right right now we feel like we wouldn't want to charge um to get it kicked off and moving um you know maybe maybe you have those food trucks that can kind of help supplement some costs we'll we'll explore that to see if they pay a a small fee to be there um but we really feel that uh um you know for the first couple years it's justifiable to not charge just to try to get the vendors there, get it going. It's a risk for everybody, right? Um but uh but that's kind of the thought right now. >> What are the hours >> we would it would probably be like 8 to noon. Forgot to put that in there. Sorry. But 8 8 to noon is is the the idea right now. >> Yep. Standard morning, Saturday market time. You beat the heat, I think, is the the goal. >> Right. And I you mentioned I wouldn't be happy about Rotary and I will be if the commission is asked first if they have time because I would like the community to get to know all of the commissioners and that's a good way for them when and maybe they don't want to help. You know, I'm just lonely and and have nothing else to do in my life. But so if they if they don't and we don't have enough people >> grant uh you know we can't but I just would like you know the commission to be invited first to fill the spots and if they can't we'll work on getting more. >> I I think my my opinion is we want the commission out and about right that's why we have these types of events too. We want you guys there. Um, my vision would be we wouldn't want you tied to a responsibility necessarily. If you wanted to stop by and help, but more just to be there, be a face, walk and talk around or if you get tied down to a spot, um, it just seems like you're a worker there, right? But always want there to be an open open door policy on we want you guys there. We want you to be present if you want to be and you can be. >> So, I think you got positive feedback on the farmers market, Kyle, and looking forward to it. Sounds >> uh Dave public works building steering committee. >> So, um as you're most of you probably aware, they're they're going through a a schematic design now for the new public works facility. Um it's quite a big building and quite a big dollar sign. Um that'll be quite impactful for the city. Um it was brought up by city council that they would like to form a steering committee to have members from different parts of u city functions uh to be part of this to have um weigh in to be able to come back and report back of you know what's going on with this project um since I mean really it's probably the biggest project the city has ever had um just in far of dollars. Um, so, uh, they wanted they wanted one representative from the parks and recreation, uh, commission. It was, uh, brought up that, uh, Commissioner, uh, Tissson would be a great, um, person for for this role. Um, we're not recommending that. We're just saying that that was brought up, but it's up to this uh, this board who would they would like to have uh, on this committee. It would involve um some time to time meetings with um city staff and the architect and um contractor. Um I mean that that's really the roundabout. If you have any other questions about kind of what that would be if you've ever been on a steering committee or not, but it's it's more or less providing input um kind of knowing what's going on with the facility. And then you know you would be re representing parks and recck too because there's proposed trails a possible dog park you know all these other kind of amenities that you know that's why we want that voice from parks and recreation as well. >> I don't think there'd be a better representation >> if he would be willing to do it that'd be great. >> Thanks. Does Don want to do it? >> Yeah. These are fun. >> You're already on one. You might as well be on another one, right? >> If he didn't want to be, he's he's volunteered. >> Yeah, we kind of >> sounds like Karen's making the motion that's needed then. >> Yep. Do I have to make a motion to have >> This one has to come. If you make a motion, recommend, then we'll we can bring that back to council that this one has been recommended by this >> here in the staff report. >> Oh, >> you can just fill my name in then. And >> so Karen's making the motion in your staff report. We'll keep it simple and air in a second. in. All in favor? >> I >> Okay. All right. Thank you. >> CIP Dave Park CIP. >> So, I just regurgitated this memo from in August and we kind of decided that um the commission wanted to take some time to to look at those spreadsheets that I I handed out. Um hoping you took some time to look at that. Um really just willing to entertain some some questions. I mean I and really our biggest thing is supporting if we want to support or not support those projects that are coming up in 2026. Those would be the most important ones. Um as a commission we haven't really dove into CIP and why they are where they are and long-term that may move around with this park's master plan as well. There may be stuff added, there may be stuff moved in different years, but just because of age, um Bay View Park would be the one proposed for 2026 as Manor was last year. So Bay View. Um and then the other really big ticket item would be um that irrigation at Castlewood. And I think even city staff has has some questions on whether or not that should go and maybe some more time should be be spent on on that project itself. Just looking into um different options or you know what that golf course needs. I know if you talk to Henry uh who presented here in I believe May or June, he may argue that while it's horrible that he has to go and hand turn on sprinklers, golf cart passs are more important to him that golfers can be out after the rain or in the spring and the fall. So maybe even aligning with for some golf as well and making sure our priorities line up with theirs and you know that irrigation is old. It's original. It's from 80s. So I mean it's it's on borrowed time but it's also a massive expense. It's a very massive expense. >> It's not going to get any cheaper. A but >> correct. >> So on page two I had a question. >> Yep. >> There's all there are a little check marks and then it says $158,000 below that. But I don't know where that $150,000 comes from. doesn't come from the page before my question. >> Huh? >> Dave's bonus. >> You know what? But I I think I wonder if that if I add up all the rest and if that's So it might be tying in capital equipment in there. >> Okay. >> I believe >> from somewhere but it just isn't shown on that. >> Yeah, I can clarify that but it I I way I'm looking I think there's a a mower and some other parks things that get technically not in parks. They'll get repaid through the general fund and it's a math just like Lakeside Park. You see $500,000 for the veterans memorial on page one. That's grant dollars and vets memorial dollars. So you have to show it as expense, but you look on the revenue side, it cancels itself out. >> Comes back. >> Yeah. And that was another and thank you for mentioning the capital the um mowers and things because does any of this reflect having to purchase the the mowers and for the baseball fields that we just talked about earlier? >> Yep. So there's a there's a separate fund the this is we call this the 203 fund the park fund and then there's a 401 fund that's okay capital equipment. That's where we buy fire trucks, police cars, dump trucks, mowers, all that other equipment comes out of there. So, >> okay, >> that is that is in that that fund. >> Okay, >> Dave, I I sent gave you Kyle some feedback on Bay View and um there's no doubt that that part, you know, like you say, it's 20 years old and he's upgraded. question is is do you hold off and wait till the master plan is updated? Decide if that's the right priority or not it's one of those pocket parks, right? That is >> Yeah, that one's about an acre. So, right now it has a playground, half little over half basketball court and a parking lot in it and a trail that goes through the middle. Um it it's and I I know in the the master plan they list the deficiencies off of what it what people would like and then we can we can wait kind of like we did with Manor and try to bid it out again in in April. It's just Manor right now is sitting there and it probably won't get installed until October and then you don't see it. It's Yeah, >> that'll be the shame of manner is it's going to get installed and it'll be, you know, end of October by the time it's finally finished off with the mulch and all that. And, you know, it's great it'll be done and be ready for next spring, but you don't get to kind of Yeah. >> You know, >> it's an extra winter of wear and tear already. >> Y >> and even and with saying that though, it's some of these things just got to get done. We can't just this plan isn't going to be suddenly everything's going to have a completely figured out. Joshua, I guess you can help us here. >> Yeah. Can I I'll just mention one thing quick. Thank you. Um, so the master plan will be overview like the overall park system. It's not necessarily going to get into each individual park, >> right? >> So there is going to be a little bit of a let's let's call it a rubber band in terms of things that have to get done or that have been in place for camera. what I had for files was Bay View in 2010 for playground equipment. So, it's, you know, it's old hunts from others. But, um, some of those things if they're safety issue or getting into things or it's health, you know, health and safety of the public or just need to be updated >> because things have changed, >> don't let the overall plan hold this commission and this body up from making decisions that you need to make. Thanks. >> Yeah. So Dave, I would I I would support moving I mean I sent that to you an email support moving ahead with the that Bay View. The golf course is that irrigation system is I think as we've talked is just some more analysis is needed out there and I think there's some policy decisions the council is going to need to make on that for that that golf course. But >> how >> do we know how the talks are coming between forsome and the city? >> So we've had our uh legal review and their legal is just finishing up review. It just got in a weird part of time where our legal took a little while and then theirs did. So I would I would hope by the October meeting we'd be able to have a recommendation to council to extend that that um contract with for usually it's like May by the time we you know it's expires in December and it takes us till May if we get the agreement. So if we can get it done two months early that'd be fantastic. >> Perfect. So, I guess what what what I hear is full support for uh doing a a reconstruction at Bay View. Um and then some head is on um Casswood may need may still need to be done, but probably not in 26. We might need to spend a little more time on that. Then I' I'd like to >> with Bay View then I'd like to probably in October kind of at least give a background what's there and get some feedback from uh the commission of maybe kind of give you an idea of what's what are amenities around it location where other parks are just to try to pick the commission's brain of what you'd like to see there and then Kyle and myself and Kevin Warner our parks foreman would start trying to lay out a park what you know and try to get a layout done November, December, and then, you know, then put that out for RFP and hopefully January, February, and hopefully get construction going right away in the spring instead of >> See, Dave, is there anything, you know, like we're working on on the golf course for that irrigation system, you know, does the PGA or, you know, organizations like this have money set aside or grants are, you know, set up for, >> you know, improving community golf courses or >> for the youth like like in like in hockey you've got ice castles. You go ice castles, help build arenas and whatever else. >> Is there anything out there? >> To be honest with you, I don't know if I've ever looked into it. Um, it's a great idea. I think it's worth worth looking into. Kyle may have looked on it in the past. There's there's like recreation grants out there >> that and what's helpful is when we have these conversations with those plans laid out as staff can prepare, right? So, we would like to say, you know, grants typically they're they're done in the early in the year and they're going to be for a two-year window or something. So, when we know that we we don't want to apply for the grant, then also not have support of the project, right? So we know that we have support of a project. Then we're going to start saying what's out there? What can we apply for that would fall into this window of time that we can go grab. So that's the importance of having these things laid out in early on discussions is it allows us time to go seek those out. So that I mean there's recreation grants out there. Um and we just once we know we can count on that project. I guess that that was I was kind of thinking if you had like you know PGA or LPGA or whatever that would you know trying to encourage people to get in involved in the sport and then this is you know ways we have of of you know supporting you know local golf courses you know or or even if there's you know irrigation people that have experimental equipment you know, can we do something along those lines? And, you know, I mean, just kind of thinking outside the box for because it is a huge huge amount of money, but you know, if there's if there was something out there that you could do that you're not thinking about, you know, then save some dough that way. >> I think we all are a little um shell shocked from the backlash of the building being built, right? That decision got made and then that was just a whole throw down and you know, Not everybody golfs and that whole thing. So I think if we can come back with there are these grants that we're looking at. There are things that we can do to supplement some of that. It's not going to be on the backs of the taxpayers completely that it's you know what I'm saying. >> It helps us in that delivery to >> the naysayers >> and that is our still our own recreational program that we have that's making money. So they sent their August reports and they're $30,000 ahead of last year at this time. >> So it's >> with I mean the clubhouse was contentious but that is really >> story that needs to be told >> has jumped jumped what they're doing there. >> Yep. So them making money, would they have any money towards the >> So what happens per the contract? They're guaranteed $50,000 to make money and then anything after 50 we split 50/50. So if we make if they make $100,000, the city would get a check from Forsome for $25,000. So last year we got a check for 10,000. >> Okay. >> All right. So, let's uh meet us a quarter to 4. Uh >> staff updates. Any staff updates we haven't covered? >> Um just uh I guess I don't know. I don't know if it's good news, per se. It it's not, but we had some vandalism out at Fenway Park. So, I don't know if that word got out, but there was just some folks that decided to drive out there on those multi-use fields, um do some damage, run over some irrigation heads. So, that's a major bummer. Um, you know, I guess if you hear anything out there being talked about, you know, let us know if anyone has a lead on anything, but it is kind of a bummer and a setback. Those fields um were just I mean, they're looking just unreal. So, kind of a bummer, but um it could be a lot worse, but there's still some damage out there. >> Cameras out there? >> Not yet. >> Is that like based off of this recent event? Is that something you discussed or >> so FLPD um are putting flock cameras out? Probably heard about the license plate readers and all that stuff. They're putting one will be at Fenway Fields, but it's just not up yet. They they're putting around there'll be one at Lakeside, one at Fenway Fields, and another I believe 15 or so around around the city. Uh depending how that goes, we may add more cameras and parks or public spaces. Right. the the one at Lakeside will be phenomenal for Fourth of July and Arts in the Park. They can they can see a p person's face at 1500 feet. They can zoom in. >> And so I think that'll cut down on issues and vandalism and all that stuff in these places. When the word gets out that you step foot in there, they're going to know exactly who you are. So, >> um, I had a Belts Park grand reopening got postponed from September 11th to Tuesday, September 30th. So, I'll send out a an email note to everybody about that. It's all the details are the same. Um, it's just going to be that date change. So, you guys are obviously invited and we would like you out there. That's a really big deal for the community, but I'll get you guys an email um this week yet. Just sharing those details, spread that word. Um it's really shaving up like the park. I mean, they were putting the base layer that that's what the holdup was, right? The base layers couldn't get down. So, they for sure had one layer down. I think they even had another um today that I saw yesterday. So, that we should be good to go for that. Um >> perfect weather. 80°ree weather. It was perfect timing to put that surfacing down. So that time actually timed out perfectly for that. >> Um hometown holiday, we are I would say almost full-fledged planning for that. There's a lot of details that are repeat, but uh that's a chamber and city partnered event. So I will work closely with the chamber to get these details finalized as we approach. That's the first Friday in December. So December 5th, um that's our tree lighting ceremony. So, another event that you might want to mark off. We're Yeah, looking forward to it. It'll be another fun year for that. Um, and then lastly, we'll be posting warming house attendant positions very soon. So, just something else to maybe help spread the word a little bit and just uh uh like I said, we really want it's we talked last year, our goal is seven days a week, right? We want staff out there for those warming houses. We uh public works staff during the day um you know during the week they they can have those things kind of eyes eyes open and open up pretty early but then those evening times we we want to have those staff seven days a week which we did last year at both tower and and belts. >> How old do they have to be? >> Um I think ideally 16 can drive right. That's the the biggest probably hurdle is making sure we have somebody that can get there and not rely on somebody else driving them. Um I don't >> I was just gonna say I would reach out to the Forest Lakes Malards. Um >> Oh yeah. >> Because part of their program with the with the players is community service. So if you're looking to fill spots at an ice rink, that might be a perfect example for a community service for one of the junior players. >> That's a great idea. Thank you. That's all I have for staff updates. Hey >> Dave, anything? >> Cal didn't mention that he made the paper at the groundbreaking for uh the vets memorial. So, make sure you take a p look at that picture that they're moving right along. They got utilities in and they're they're starting to uh put that together. So, that that should be planned to be all all in except for that center sculpture um by October 31st. So, they're they're moving pretty quickly on that. >> All right. Parks and Recck Commissioner updates. Anybody have anything? Aaron? Karen? >> I'd just like to another um say again how unhappy I am with that little hole in the belt beautiful Belts Park and I know he's been out looking Kyle's been out looking for ideas and some ideas are like some kind of grass that's supposed to make me happier or something. But I don't know if we there's any way that we can get rid of that. I mean it is the base of our beautiful park. We will get you the watershed district phone number. >> Oh, I love that because they're going to tell them about the little lies and everything that are happy. But I don't know if there's anything we can do, but certainly has something has to be done. It can't just lay in there with that. >> They can't. Who you can think of it is as a as a little skating rink. A junior skating rink. >> No. >> All right. >> Good try, Tim. All right. Sue, anything? >> I have nothing. >> Okay, Tim. All right, Melissa, >> I did have one thing. I was over uh friends near cooling camp and there are outside of the two fields they have a like a pitcher warm up that wood that's like sticks up this far over the ground and um you know they're there during the winter and see that a bunch of kids they you know lay their snowmobiles around there and now with the fences up there Steve the husband is really afraid that somebody's going to hit that and like And so he just wonders, is there any way to put something up in the winter time that just says this is a obstacle that you will not want to hit with a snowmobile and they shouldn't be riding their snows through there, but they do. >> Yeah, we can put up either some even just uh driveway markers or something like that around it just to let people know that there's something there. >> There's something there. Yeah, he just asked about that. Then they would also ask if we would consider only putting um weed stuff out in the fall and not in the spring because the herand's nest near there. And if you do it in the fall, it does just as good a job and the baby herand will be happy and safe. [Laughter] >> Okay. >> Nothing else. We have a motion to adjurnn. So move >> Tim >> makes second by Melissa. All in favor? >> I All right. >> Lot of ground. [Music]