[Music] It's uh 5:30 to call the Forest Lake Parks and Recreation Committee meeting to order. First item, roll call. Commissioner Eert here. Oh, hang on one second. Good thing Dave's hearing us. All right. Commissioner Eckert here. Commissioner Matson. Commissioner Morhead here. Commissioner Tyson here. Commissioner Herdina here. Commissioner Gary here. Commissioner Lmark. Uh, next item is pledge of allegiance. To the flag of the stands, one nation under God, indivisible, liberty and justice for all. Uh, next item is approve the agenda. Do I have a motion? Kim moves. I second. Sue seconds. All in favor? I I Okay. Chair, if I can just add, uh, commissioners, make sure you tip your microphones down and then when you do talk, make sure you're talking into them. Yeah. Thanks, Kyle. I was going to mention that. Especially if people are trying to watch on YouTube, you can't hear anything if we're not talking into the microphone. It's a little bit awkward when we're looking at the staff and but we'll make it work. All right, open forum. We've got one speaker. Dane, and I apologize, I won't try to pronounce your last name. Kubach. Kubichek. Okay. So, I'm here to represent Play Creations. We submitted uh one of the projects for the Manor Park project. Um just wanted to say that I'm a member of the local community. My daughter goes to the Forest Lake schools and we play on the parks all the time and we'd love to be a part of making them better. Um, as one of the owners, um, we've decided that because it's local, we would like to give a a pretty decent discount on it to get some new product in the ground, too. So, we are always trying to develop new product and get it out there, add play value to playgrounds, and this is a great opportunity for us to do it. Um, again, like I said, it's local. We can do the installation. we can monitor it, make sure everything is working properly, and we're close by. If there's any, you know, maintenance issues or anything like that, we're able to jump in and take care of it right away. Um, we feel that it also matches the community well, specifically option two, it has a fish theme to it as well as trees and more nature elements, and it fits the community quite well in our opinion. um we would like to be a part of this project and I just wanted to present that as what we could do. It's something that we feel would be a good value to the community at the price point that we can do it for and being local it's, you know, we got a lot of pride in it, too. So that's it. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks for coming out. Thanks for your time putting a proposal together. Yeah, you're welcome. Uh, next item, approve the minutes from our March 19th, 2025 meeting. I would approve the minutes with one exception. Karen was elected to be vice chair. So, we don't have two chairs. It was just listed as chair. Okay. Karen makes a motion with one revision that correct that she is vice chair. Second. Second by Tim. All in favor? I. Next item, Hidden Creek South Concept Plan Review. Uh, city planner Ken Roberts and parks department will be presenting this item. You can let me go. Thank you commissioners for having me this even this this evening to talk about Hidden Creek and Hidden Creek South and some of the parks discussion for this evening. So I'm going to put up a few maps for reference. The part of Force Lake we're speaking of is generally this area. This is Hidden Creek. Oops. Hidden Creek first edition is here. Hidden Creek Second Edition is here. Hidden Creek third will be in here. And the future phases will be down on these two parcels there. And we'll find another map to help show even more good stuff. Get it off there. Wrong map. Hang on. That's cooling camp. We'll talk about that later. One more. All right. This one, this is the uh hidden creek concept plan that's generated the discussion for uh parks and the parks and recreation commission for this evening. Again, Headwaters Parkway is here and has been constructed over to this point now. Then Hidden Creek first goes off to the north and then second, third, and fourth editions will be over here. The this is future phases of Hidden Creek that are being talked about now in the early planning stages. This Hidden Creek uh subdivisions are part of a larger PUD called Headwaters the uh Headarters development that was approved originally in 2006 by the city. It's a 620 acre PUD. goes all the way almost over to Highway 61. Includes the YMCA, the county government center, some of the residential subdivisions all the way along Headarters Parkway over this point. This is just more continuation of that development. This the Hidden Creek phases up here were approved for I believe 125 lots all together residential single family homes. These future phases show another 173 single family homes being proposed. Again, this is at a concept level just to show how streets, lot layouts, and potential park locations could fit in the grand scheme of things. So, the important thing for the commission to remember is that concept plan reviews are non-binding and they're just to provide developers uh feedback about the concept plan, especially as it relates to the comprehensive plan and the city's plans for development uh within the city. And again, they don't construe any legal development rights to a developer or applicant. What it does do though is gives the parks commission plane commission city council chance to see a development plan high level first time provide feedback and that's why we're here this evening because there are some park elements in this plan. The uh Parks and Trails and Lakes Commission reviewed some of this back in 2020 and 2021. And as I understand it, there's a couple of members here that were on the commission at that time. That isn't the map I want. Hang on. I got I got another I have more maps. Here we go. This was a concept plan park concept plan showing some general park locations from that era again 2020 2021. So again, Headerwaters Parkway here looping through the site, uh, first edition, second edition, much of which is developed very close to what this layout is, of not almost identical. And then one park site was identified here in the red circle and a second potential park site was identified here. The city council reviewed that concept plan, this one that I put up back on March 24th of this year, and provided the developer with some comments about the some of the lot sizes and the potential of having lots backing up to Headarters Parkway, such as these, uh the overall density of the project. And so really focusing on land use, zoning, subdivision standards and not so much about parks. And again, that's the role of the parks commission. And of course, that's why we're here this evening. So again, this development is small lots, single family lots, small lots for single family homes. Uh lots of either 65 ft in width or down to 50 feet in width. The 65 foot wide lots at 7500 square feet or 7,000 square feet were approved as part of the headarters PUB and those lots which are shown in red are consistent with that and also consistent with the underlying zoning which is MXR1. The blue the lots with the blue structures are proposed to be smaller at uh 50 or 55 ft in width and they'd be around 6,000 square feet. So those are smaller than again what's currently approved on the books and that would be something the developer and the city will have to work through in future planning efforts as this project moves forward because of the size of the development and backing up a little bit. Parkland dedication is calculated based on the the developable acreage of a site. typically a 10% land donation or a cash donation or a combination of both. And in this case, it appears that there might be between 40 and 50 developable acres. We haven't done the fine math yet, and as I outlined in the report, uh that would be a dedication of between four and five acres. I had written five and six and I was in error on that. But if all if there is not land suitable for that, the alternative is for the developer to make a cash donation. The current fee for that is $2,500 per lot. And in the first phases of the development, the city did collect some money for that uh towards that and to be used for developing parks. couple of things to uh ponder and let me get to another map. We got another parks map here. Okay, I'm going to give a little more reference background information. This is from our 2040 city comprehensive plan out of the parks and recreation chapter. This shows the parks and trails and future neighborhood parks that were outlined in a concept level back when this plan was adopted about about eight years ago, I believe it was. The red circles are general locations of future neighborhood parks. And this one here is very close to or if not representative of the Hidden Creek area. The yellow line is also a trail corridor which um something to keep in mind. This is Headwaters Parkway shown in the general location here going through. So this again having parks and potentially more than one park in this area is consistent with the comprehensive plan that's again on the books for the city. So here's Here's where we get to the fun part. Excuse me. This again is Headarters Parkway coming in from the east from the YMCA pass the school eventually turning south. First edition again goes off to the north and west here. This land here is about 3.17 acres. Has been set aside for park dedication that was set aside as part of the plat for within the first edition. Actually, the first four additions of Hidden Creek, storm water ponding here, probably storm water ponding in this area. This line is the dividing line, if you will, between phases and future phases of Hidden Creek. So what they are proposing now is to dedicate some land adjacent to the land that's already already been set aside for the park and have one community park neighborhood park of about six acres I believe in total size and and that's consistent with the earlier plan that was done in 2000. that's generally consistent with this map here showing a neighborhood park, community park in this general area. So, as a as a concept, staff is generally okay with that, but we need to point out a few things to think about with this. Uh, Headwaters Parkway is designed and will be a collector street, which will have a higher volume of traffic than a neighborhood street. Uh, city engineers raised a concern that having driveway and parking immediately accessing Edwaters Parkway is not the best idea in his opinion. We recommend having some kind of parking and access to the park off one of the side streets or the neighborhood streets and keeping minimizing the number of intersections and potential conflict points on Headarters Parkway. In addition, there will be a center median, which would require potentially people to go up to the intersection, do a U-turn, and go back. And that's not the safest plan either. In addition, because the Headwaters Parkway and its design, uh, in staff's opinion, we touch about this on the report, it makes sense to try to have some kind of a community park somewhere on this side, if you will, south and east of Headarters Parkway. We, as a city, are expecting the land to the east here and the land to the south will eventually develop. there. One's a farm and others, I believe, farm fields. We don't have a timeline on that. We don't have any specific plans, but if I was to guess, I would say within 3 to 5 years, there will be more development happening in this area. Assuming this all goes in the next two or three years. And because of that, there will be potentially five, six, 700 homes, I'm guessing, in this area south and east of Headarters Parkway. So, the staff's opinion that good planning would be to have some kind of a again a community neighborhood park four, five, six acres generally in this area where all the different subdivisions would contribute to it somehow and that would serve the those folks south and east of Headarters Parkway and then this park area can serve those to the north and west. So that's one of our talking points for this. The park design itself which was submitted for again high level concept plan review is shown. I talked on the access and the parking. It shows the play area. It shows sand volleyball open lawn for play a pavilion trails connecting to the neighborhood and headers parkway trail. Uh some of these uses especially the sand volleyball I don't believe fit the city's long-term plan. But again, this is an introduction concept plan, good for discussion, uh that kind of thing. So, one thing that the staff is looking for from the commission tonight is what type of uses do you think would be best to have in this park? We don't need necessarily a final list, but at least start thinking about it and maybe give to staff your top two, three, four kinds of uses that you think would be most appropriate or most beneficial in this park and we'll take that and as a project moves forward. The other thing to point out is this is showing storm water ponding in the park area. And the city code says that land dedicated for public use essentially has to be high and dry ground. Storm water ponding cannot count towards the acreage. It can be an amenity. It could be nice to look at, but as far as an acreage count, whatever is encompassed by the water won't count. And that might mean that some of the park dedication in this phases, these phases, future phases will have to be made up through the cash donation or dedication of the time of the plan. Uh so again we're at concept level planning for this whole subdivision. The next steps for the developer will be to take feedback. They've already received feedback from the plan commission, received from the council, and now the parks and rec commission will provide some feedback especially about the park elements, the trails uh within the subdivision, future subdivision. The developer will take all that information back, process what they think will work, and then work towards preparing official preliminary plat applications and park plans. that will get further review. Again, none of these comments are binding or binding to the developer divine binding to the city is to provide feedback. So, with that, uh, I will stop. I will take your questions. Otherwise, Mr. Dobs is here representing the development team. If you have, I'm sure he has a few words he'd like to share with you. Uh, I can take your questions first. Whatever's best for the commission at this point. Okay, just so to summarize, can I there sounds like there's three areas you need comments on. It's the driveway, it's the parking, it's the parking along headwaters, the idea of a separate park, and the third one is uses in that park and the park layout. Especially the latter two. Yes, the latter two. Okay. Yeah. And if there if there any other park or trail related items, okay, now's the time. Uh would the commission want to hear from Mr. Do for I have a quick question for Go ahead, Jim. Um, so the that open lawn area roughly how big is that? I mean, whether it be something a person, you know, you could have soccer or football or something out there. I'm gonna just eyeballing it that this whole piece is 3.1 acres. So that might be an acre, acre and a half. Okay. Right. be good to hear the entire thing, I think. Okay. Welcome, Mr. Dobs. Thank you, Ken. Can you put the overall concept back up, the green one, please, with the two circles on it? My name is John Dobs, and uh I have uh been talking about this parkland and this project back when there used to be a park board back in the day. So, I'm really glad you guys are here because um one of the things that went on early and I I I sent a memo to the staff, but unfortunately I was really jammed up and I didn't get it here until pretty late, so I don't know if it actually made it to your guys' desk or not, but um uh when we did this originally and we did the project, No, I'm sorry, Ken. The green one that had the upper and lower part, right? The whole pro whole area basically. What? I'm sorry, John. The first one. This one. That one. Thank you. So when we have when we were doing the original Hidden Creek subdivision, which is the dark streets on that drawing, there's 125 lots is what ended up getting approved. And the park commission both I came to work for Paul Bergman uh in 2020. uh he had been in front of the park board before that and what we heard what we were directed to do was have about a threeacre park in the center and our goal back then uh from the planning commission from the existing staff at the time and also from some of the residents when we were at the park board meetings was to try to not only set aside some land but actually build the park like now. Not six years from now, not 20 years from now. Do it now. And there was one park meeting that I was at in particular where there was residents. There was pictures of a field with maybe a one jungle gym and maybe a teeter totter in it. And so the the dialogue that was going on between the staff and uh the residents was, you know, we have these parks that are basically just fields and not a lot of activity in them. Um so out of that we started to kind of put together this concept. Well, the Hidden Creek project as a whole um became somewhat problematic for a variety of reasons. Had nothing to do with park. So, what I'm here to do is actually try to pick up the dialogue from back then. So, the concept that we've shown is just that. Um we put up volleyball because I was given a list of things that I think was a survey. I think there was a survey done that was uh um for the city of Forest Lake where there were categories of recreational active or passive uses that were underserved. So, we just grabbed a volleyball court. Um whether it was a soccer field or whatever it is, we're we're not really we don't really have an opinion about that. Um our goal and our ask is actually to get some direction of what the space should be, what the program materials are, and our goal is to build it now, not and so um my main ask is to see if the park board is on board with that idea. Um in the second phase um we dedicated $92,500. We're getting ready to dedicate $120,000 in the next phase. Land we've already dedicated is 3.1 acre that Ken pointed out earlier. 3.14 I think. Future phases collectively uh without any land, just fees would be another $462,500 in today's fees. I've been involved with Capstone in a couple different projects in other parts of the city where we have done just this, built the park right now. And so what we did was we took the idea of how much land and how much money the project was going to uh generate and between the park board and the park staff and the development group figure out and I don't work for Capstone. I represent the land owners up in Ramsey where we're doing this but um I am actually I have a degree in landscape architecture from the University of Minnesota. of my background. But um the idea would be to take the money and some land with guidance from you guys about what programming should be in there and build it and build it now either this year or early next uh for all of it. So take the money for the future phases, the money that's already existing and put it into the neighborhood park. Um we did this in uh the north side of Riverstone subdivision in Ramsey and I'm happy to give you the address how to do that. Um, it was dedicated to the land owners, a family farm that had been there for hundred years. They programmed about an acre and a half of space. Really cool jungle gym, sand. Kids are there all the time. Uh, the park equipment collectively is about 350,000 bucks. And I mean, it's cool. It's really nice. And um, they did it on the south side as well. Got the park board involved, found some grant. They actually have a treehouse park on the south side and there's kids there all the time. So from a marketing and from a development point of view, not just a design point of view, which is mostly what I've been talking about, but from a neighborhood point of view, the idea of having a park in the center was always about having a heart of the neighborhood and trying to figure out where people can actually go. Um, parking lots, we're not opposed to that. They cost money. The project's going to generate x number of dollars in fees, and I just showed you the math um, in today's dollars. I don't know what the park fees will be next year or the year after. Um, and uh, just as a side note, um, there really isn't a trail system or or trail fee or and you get no credit for doing it, but you know, we've dedicated extra ride of way and uh, Headwaters Parkway to put and we're going to end up building the trail along it, paying for all of that. That's some acreage. We dedicated some previous acreage. I gave the staff a graphic today of what is dry ground versus what is pond ground. So, we're not asking for park credit for it keeps coming up, but just on the record. We're only asking for credit for dry ground. Um, but I think more importantly is is depending on the program space uh that the park board sees and the staff sees. I think what's really important isn't necessarily is it 10% acreage. It's how much land do you need to build what you want to build. Right? If it's four ball fields, well, that's X acreage. If it's a playground and a pavilion and uh I've heard sledding hills, I've heard all kinds of things. Um those are different geometric shapes that require different acreage. Um we've just kind of shown concepts of where it could be and how it could be, but it'd be great to get some feedback. And the concept that Ken pointed out earlier, we're going to work our way through this summer. Um so the south side of this project is going to become real. um the fourth phase, which we're going to put the third phase in this year, which is up on the north, and then work our way down towards the park and connect back to Headwaters Parkway. This whole area is going to get built up in 25 and 26. So, yeah, we're not wedded to program stuff, but we're very wedded to the idea of building it now and using the fees for now. So, we'd really I would really like if we could is get the park board to either say yes, we want to support that idea or no, we don't want to support that idea. Um, that would be very helpful to us and then perhaps to staff as well. Okay. Thank you, commissioners. The the handout that you had at your what Mr. Dobson sent over today, so I made sure they all had a copy. Excuse me. One question. What would be the drawback of doing both sections now? Of doing I'm sorry, what? Doing the full park right now? Is there any drawback at all? My my typical experience up until recently is is that um recently, I mean the last 5 years. I've been doing this since the early 90s. Um is you kind of donate some land and donate your fees and then the city kind of works their way through it. the idea of uh of us doing it now. Um the drawbacks I guess for us is is that we're paying for um park program materials, whatever that is, jungle gyms or ball fields or soccer fields or whatever it is, um upfront on the assumption we're going to do all the rest of it. Um the benefit though is is that the neighborhood park gets built and the people have a neighborhood park, right? I mean, so yeah, I guess the downside, if I put myself in your guys shoes, would be you're picking fees that are yet to come and allocating them. You're allocating fees that have already been paid into the system. I guess that would be the downside because that's kind of the ask. Um, I think just program space, parking lot, pavilion, jungle gyms, even with nothing but a ball field there or a soccer field that was just graded out and you're hundreds of thousands of dollars into it. Um, so the money in my memo, I try to do the math on the money and that's kind of a fixed thing, right? Thank you. I'm sorry. Did I answer your question? Yes, you did. Thank you. Good question, Sue. I guess for for staff, what has been done in the past? Has things been done like this right away or is it typically wait till the development happens and the city develops the park? Uh it'll go both directions. It's they've had some that get developed with and then some have held on to the money and then developed, you know, and it's the one thing to remember when they give park dedication money. It doesn't mean that that money has to go into that specific area and that specific park. It goes to the system. So when Mr. jobs and concrete development gave that money to park dedication. It's not sitting in a bank waiting for him to use it on this park and it would be the decision of the commission to say we want to use that money but it's not earmarked for Hidden Creek Park. Karen, I have a question on that because I thought I remembered back when that if indeed that an area needed a park and the developers came in that the park had to be there that we couldn't use it over in Bixby or Camp or something that the developer came in developer came in and wanted to see what he was going to be getting and once so that's new to me if if they don't have to do that. I just assumed and would think legally that if it's for that development that we'd have to use it for that development. Park dedication goes to the park system for development of the park system. Wow. That was the only time I heard that is and uh was when um they didn't need that a park in that area that we could then designate it. H just every day you learn something new. You can you can take dollars instead of instead of land, right? if you don't want to park in that area. But if you take dollars, that money can go to anything in improvements of capital equipment in the park system. It can't go for maintenance. So if a teeter totter broke at Cedar Park, we can't take dedication money and spend it at to fix that. But you could take money in one development and pay for something at Belts or pay for something at Lakeside. It's not earmarked. That money coming in is not earmarked for a specific area or project. You're talking about general park fees, correct? Yeah. You've been here for Were you here when Paul did Somefield? No. Okay. Um Yeah. No, this is a an ask. We're asking for the direction to be that. Um Yeah. Yeah. I think that's how I understand it as well. But what we're trying to do is funnel the money from the neighborhood into the neighborhood park and ask you to tell us how to program it and then we'll build it. So you don't have to do it and you don't have to be responsible for it. You have to maintain it, but you don't have to build it. It's uh Go ahead. Just just one other thing too. I remember back that we wanted to have more of a neighborhood park rather than individual little spotty parks because it's very hard to maintain those all little spots. And so if we had an area that we could combine and put a park in the middle of, that was always, as I remembered, a really good idea. And I understand um I I can only tell you what I heard from the park board in 21 and 20 and they told us directly that they wanted the park right there. They wanted at least three acres and one of the dialogues was how to get it built. So I I've done this public hearing before. So and excuse me and Karen and Tim, you were on the commission back then. Yeah. Yeah. I remember that conversation about being there. Oh, that's right. I think I just I'm surprised that that that John couldn't say, "Okay, this is the park money and it's got to go and end up at Bixby or Fenway rather than here." It's a city policy decision. the the developer doesn't have a decision to tell the city where that money goes. He is he's he's here asking you to dedicate money to to that, but it's not you can't use it as assumption that the 120,000 you put in the 98,000 he put in already are going to just automatically goes to this part. I just want to clarify that. I'm not saying that you do or don't have to do that. I just want to make sure that you know that that's your decision to make. It's not just assume that that money coming in has to go to this park. So when you're adding up all these numbers plus four through eight, don't have it in your mind that this all has to go to this this park. So if somebody wanted to make a donation to the the parks of Forest Lake they're going to write a check for $100,000. They can't specify a park. It just has to go into the slush fund. Well, first of all, it's not a slush fun and Second of all, it would be a donation. It wouldn't be a developer fee. That's in But I mean, I'm just saying if if if you were if you if I said, "Okay, I I want to dedicate money to a park." Yep. I'm going to write a check for $100,000. If I said, you know, I want to go to a particular park, I'm not guaranteed that. You are because you're donating it. You're It's not a fee. It's not a a fee on the fee schedule written in code. that donation is completely different. If if I can add too um you know there's consideration of development right so when you guys had talked about this maybe three years ago there might not have been prediction of further development coming on so um that conversation just weigh that in too is that this was the development over here and maybe there wasn't a vision of development coming this way so now you have uh and again this is just to to think about um you have multiple phases you have the busy the um headarters Parkway to consider. So now by putting one large park that's obviously going to be the attraction. So now you just have to make sure you're vetting out and thinking now you have more phase potentially. Um we believe it's going to happen. Do you go to um neighborhood parks or and what you were referencing Karen uh was the difference of a neighborhood park and a community park. A community park is your big fenway, right? um your neighborhood parks are are your smaller parks where it's not necessarily drawing people from everywhere. Right? So that's I think the thing to consider too is you're more more so saying are you going to keep going with the plan from several years ago and try to develop a big park or do we want to see um this current 3.17 acres get developed as a a neighborhood 3 acre park and can certainly have the playgrounds and maybe a gazebo but that's going to be later on. But the thing that you're thinking about is do you build one large park here or do we take some of that dedication fund, put it into the three acres, make a nice playground for a neighborhood park and then plan to grow more parks as the development comes in. It's just and that's to Dave's point. We don't have to think about all the collective fees coming in with the park dedication doesn't all have to be spent on this just one park. That's that's what Dave's trying to say is that it can be you you develop this three acre park and then know that there's more development and maybe another opportunity for another park to come and and the things that were just to kind of consider again pros and cons is you have that busy headwaters parkway coming in. Do we want people going from this potential new development crossing to this really big attractive park or do we want neighborhood parks that suit the needs of the neighborhoods? So Kyle, I are you are you saying that the option it's a the three acres and this is showing the six acres. So that's so the three acres is done, right? That's already I I believe from my understanding the phase one the three acres already dedicated. So, I think what we're really focusing on is is to to let uh the developer know tonight, do we want to see a combo of the current 3 acres with the new development pan plans of bringing another three acres to make a sixacre park or do we want to see them put another park somewhere else and not make one big park? So, we're we're really talking about do we want to have this new development park acorage combine with the existing three acres that are there and and that's that's what we're really trying to focus on tonight to to give uh the developer feedback to go back and start with the concept plan. Well, all due respect, I I would disagree with that. I the five acres is only in it's it's almost 6 point and a quarter, but when you take the ponds out, it's just 4.98. So, call it five acres. three of which has already been dedicated. The volleyball courts, the gazeos, the pavilion, um a playground areas doesn't take up much space and open space is a concept at best. Um if somebody was really attached to having two soccer fields back to back, uh I was here one night when the um what is it? Not tennis. What's the other one? Pickle. Yeah, there's like a really active group, right? There there's 80 people in here one night and they're all advocating for it. We aren't weighing in on the program use. But whether it's three acres or it's five acres, that's not what I'm here for. I'm actually advocating for the idea of you have a chance to do something different and actually get a park built now. Um and whether that's three acres or that's four acres, I think that idea comes out of the program that you decide that is best. And um so um you know, and I don't disagree. I'm not in any way arguing that factually that they're saying anything incorrect. They're not. I'm advoc I'm advocating for a different vision of it. And uh so with all due respect, um if I could get some idea of what the park board thinks would be a good use and the park staff could give us some feedback on what program use is, I'll come back and do a proposal for the park. And like for real based on the money that we the gent generates, we've got months of entitlements for the land south. So it's not like I'm looking for answers tonight and I don't know that the staff needs them either. Um but I don't want to speak for them, but it's not like this has to get decided tonight. You're taking concept comments from us. So yeah, totally right. All right. So just so we can keep order, Dave, you had a comment. I just want to add one thing to what what Kyle said and then kind of bounce off Mr. jobs is you also have another option of saying, "Yes, we want this concept plan of this park, but instead of the $462,000 in cash, we want another chunk of land on east side of the parkway where Ken was kind of talking about the four quadrants of future development where you kind of plan out a future park that four different properties may combine into one big one and make another similar size park just one on each side of the parkway. So I I think that's option number three, right? It's option number one, what Mr. Dobs is providing. Option number two is, you know, deciding we only want those acreage in a park on the other side or option three of saying yes, we like what you have here, this concept of this size park, but we'd like to get some chunk of land on that other side, you know, phase eight or so down in that corner. Dave or Ken is Is phases four to eight is it's the same property owner going to be the same developer? Yes, it'll be eight will be kind of on the east side. Four is the one directly south or will be connected to that park concept and then five, six, seven, eight are on the east side of the parkway. Yeah, this is saying Mr. Dobs is working with the land owner to if they haven't purchased it, they're working towards working a deal to get this going and then next two, three years. What what what do you have you typically look at as far as radius of having these neighborhood parks so that kids can be served? My my pat answer is it depends. There's so many variables, but Dave can speak to it further. But I think the biggest point here is about number of homes, number of residents, and is it a good idea to have one larger park where people are crossing Headwaters Parkway? I think staff thinks no. But what does that mean for over here? Well, as we talked about, is there a way to get a second three, four, five acre park somewhere to and so and I would assume both parks will have different elements, different features, but we're not there yet. We're trying to really hone in on does this idea make sense both from an acreage standpoint, maybe not so much the uses, and then as Dave said some of these other elements, but I think Kyle, you want me to put that on the table? Well, if you want to just hand me the court, I'll plug in because I have a couple different things. I got How many homes are currently completed and then how many are planned for the future phases? 125 are already approved. preliminary plat the north side of headarters and then the southside concept is somewhere between 170 to 175 and are are any of those occupied currently in the neighborhood? The north neighborhood has 30 maybe residents 40 30 homes that are probably occupied I guess at this point something like that. Dave, how fast is the design speed of headwaters? Speed limit? 45ish 45. Yeah. So, and and we don't even and nobody I'm not suggesting again I know that concepts and I learned this when I was in school. I get that when you put pretty pictures on the wall people kind of focus on the pretty picture whether it's three acres and two acres or two acres and an acre and a half on the other side to Dave's point and uh city attorney's concerned about safety, city planner concerned about safety, Ken is as well. So, we all are I mean whether it's this park or it's on the other side, our main uh goal is to get feedback and build it. Now, um that's our that's my big ask. I mean, how and where I'm not really entrenched to Karen? Well, I kind of agree with two things because I I agree that keeping it away from the Headwaters Parkway is is probably a good thing to think about, but I'm still in favor of a larger park and to me that makes no sense to put in that. I was just out in that area because I was looking at a house out there and I just see the potential of a and I call them neighborhood parks. I don't mean a swing in a you know, I mean a nice neighborhood park. maybe not as big as belts or or whatever, but comb combining a couple of the areas and making it one spot for everybody to go. So, I don't know how you put that together where I want the larger park, but if I can put in an area where it's not so close to the headarters. I don't know, headarters connect to because I in this map I can't really tell, but is it an option for the city to reduce speed limit coming through that area? Here, here's I put the map up. So, it starts at 61 goes past the Y and the government center. This is Fenway. There's a roundabout. Eventually, it's going to go out all the way over to Elmrest to the border. The final route, final design hasn't been decided yet. There may and this is 190th gets down here. So, there will be some major road connections eventually getting south and west. So maybe to keep to focus, we're talking about whether it's a we want a bigger park or a couple smaller parks is get commission thoughts on that. Karen certainly just suggested a preference for a bigger park. I favor the larger prefers a larger park. Well, I guess my I have a question for John. Is it in your experience with with these developments are are you seeing a trend or do you see you know that it's more successful to have two small parks in in a development this size or is it better to have a big one? My experience has been that good design brings people to everything. Whether it's a bigger park with program spaces that make sense from your guys point of view and from the staff's point of view for the residents of Forest Lake or it's a small pocket park, good design and good materials bring people. Um, I mean, I'll get you guys the address. You drive out to Ramsey. You drive out to this subdivision and on the south end uh Mark Youngblood their uh park director planner and Ramsay had this vision. There is literally tree houses and trees that they save. There are kids in this thing all the time. And um and then the one on the north is the same thing. And so if you throw a and I I'm for effect um dramatizing it a bit, but if you know if you put a teeter totter out there and a and a swing, that's one thing. If you do a jungle gym with a safe place where um and they've got cool places to play and they can use their imagination, kids will come from all over, you know. So, that's my been my experience. And uh whether that's a small pock two small pocket parks and and I'm not I'm not advocating one big one or two small ones, but good design. I don't I don't think a a fi this is a five to six acre park here that's shown in concept and you could probably get another five to six acre park you know connecting those dots so you would have two really you won't have one massive park you'd have two really nice size parks and the one thing always remember you're never going to get land back so if you make this decision say we want to take the cash and this and we walk away from that which we you can completely do, but you cannot ever get land back. Once land goes away, you're never going to get parkland. So, something always to out of and it's and it's tough, right? You have you have to think about the future. You have to think about the next 400 homes that are going to be going around this whole area and think of where are two good spots for parks. I mean, obviously, I wouldn't think that this one park is going to serve 700 homes, right? You know, when you add it all together. So, it's that's the part you you you gota you got to think of and it's a and it's a tough deal because you nothing else is ghost platted around it. You can't visualize that there's going to be a whole lot of development here. It's just that's the part you got away of yes a big park would be nice but if you don't take any more land or ask you know recommend that we look at other options then that goes away. might sue I uh assume that this development is going to be more so growing families, kids and strollers. Um, very much so. From what I've seen in various neighborhoods, those smaller parks are easy to get to in the stroller. You don't have to pack the kids up in the car. You can walk through the area, get to the park. And right now there's no park other than Fenway in that area. Um I'm kind of in favor of the smaller one and then as the development gets growing it find space for another one that's in proximity to those families. This is my thought. And if I Don I put up on the map if I may. This is the Fenway fields near the hockey rink and then Dave pointed out there's a little pocket park right here called Evil Eagle right here, but otherwise there is no fields right there. Yeah, Dave pointed out summerfields up here. So, but a larger park, this is probably 40 or more acres, I'm guessing. I don't have the numbers, but that's you don't I don't I'm going to speak from what I know. You don't need another 40 acres in this area. Could you use five or six or eight in a couple different places? If you if you think you take this all the way down eventually to 190th again 10 12 years. So can it be clear the developer is proposing this picture here of six acres? Yes. Is there the ability in the future when the phases four to eight come in that you we could also then ask for another park? Yes. Okay. So, and I think part of the direction for tonight would be to if you're ready to make that decision, you want one larger one on the west or the two of smaller sizes, five, six, whatever. We don't even need necessarily an exact number, but just something for planning purposes going forward. Would a would a helpful feedback be that the commission would like to see two parks? one one located one located here and one located in divisions four to eight. And I think the second thing Mr. Dobs is asking for is is the city ready and is the park commission ready to have them move forward with developing and improving this park in the near future. So let's get first that first question. Uh commission members what's your thoughts on that? One of the feedback would be that we would like to see two parks u for these divisions one through eight. I guess u yeah see when you said pocket park that's that's what confused me before because I was thinking a pocket park next to a neighborhood park next to a community park. So the neighborhood parks are what we're talking about. They'd be bigger than a pocket park. Um, I'm not visualizing how much bigger. Quite a bit, I would hope. And if that was Manor. Yeah. What's Man, that's a pocket park. That would be a neighborhood park. Okay. Really? It's just so tiny you can almost put your arms around it. I was just out there. Okay. So then, uh, the dragon park, what's that consider? That would that would probably be that would fall in line of more of a a community park with you got more amenities there. Okay. What's an example of a pocket park? So, a pocket park would be I believe it's Is it bay? It's bay, right? Yep. Bay where it's it's tucked back there. It's it's just a swing. Yep. That's that's a mini park. A pocket park. Mini park. Yeah, we use mini mini park would be the the term that we would use. It's Bridal Pass. Bridal Pass. Um that would be that would be more of like a neighborhood neighborhood park because it's it's just a open space up top and park is like right in the middle of the community. And the nice part about being right in the middle middle of the community instead of spread out with smaller ones is you get all the kids in the same area. I like that too because I get you get neighbors to know each other. You get and I would like the the the bottom whatever it's made out of would be conducive to strollers and whatever. Yeah. Um and I I just like the togetherness of it. So, um, but my I can go along with whatever you decide, but I'm with him on let's do it. So, let's lived with Belts Park for 8 10 years and people asking me every day, when's it coming? When's it coming? So, we can so we can get some keep getting feedback though if let's keep focused on we want one park or two parks, one large park or we want to have two parks in in this development plan. Two parks for me. Two for me. Okay. So we don't need do we need to make motions Dave at all or just you've got that that gets enough feedback feedback that for the developer feedback that for staff if you want so I think the consensus is the park submission like to see two parks designed in this area. Okay. And then the second question then is about this park in particular are you sorry this well the other question is the timing of it right. Okay. So would it be one if you go two parks would it be one park now because it's servicing the northern you know homes in the community and the phases that are going in right now and then the south one on the south side. Can I make a suggestion if that's possible? Sure. Um I'll do two different concepts. You've seen one. I'll do another one with a bigger and a middle park and come back and we can pick it up from there. you guys. I mean, right now verbally, and it's my fault that I didn't get this earlier and get a little bit further down the trail. I'm sorry I've been busy. Uh, which isn't an excuse. It's just the way it is. Um, but I'll come back and give you guys something drawing wise. I'll get to staff ahead of time. They can comment. Um, and maybe that helps you guys make a Thank you. I'd be happy to do that. Come back at the next meeting. You know, I I would my comment on the timing of is I mean, this is the parks commission. advocates for parks, right? So, I don't think anybody here say is let's wait on building it. I think we all want to get it built. At the same time have to respect the city budget and your other plans that we we're just learning about. So, I mean, as in general concept, I don't think we would ever say let's delay building a park. No. Right. But you need to as staff to tell us what's makes sense as timing given all the other finances and demands you have on that. Did you not say he was going to build it? Well, using that part of it that you said you would be building it with the park dedication fees, but there may be other plans for that already that the city has that we're not aware of. And you have to keep in mind if if you're asking for two parks that would that's going to buy down what he would be paying in park dedication because that would offset with land. So those dollars that John gave you aren't the numbers if you're asking for more acreage on the other side. So I think John has a good point. Bring back another concept of Yeah. And and for the group too to think about do you want it all within that phase or do you like that concept of trying to grab from four different quadrants from other developers to have all that partial land and then partial cash to then come up with a design that maybe in these two parks you can add all different kinds of amenities right within walking distance of each other. Okay. Hey D, I have a question. So the map you got up now. So let's say I'm standing in the middle of that red circle. Yep. How far is it to? Oh, about a mile maybe. And then mile and a half into the arena. A mile. Same thing. Eagle Eagle Bluff Park is maybe a half mile walk. Summerfields maybe 3/4 of a mile. Okay. So, appreciate are there sidewalks like be able to take sidewalks all the way? They're all connected by sidewalks andor trails. It's all pedestrian connected all the way through the neighborhood to the north. So, I mean, if it's a neighborhood to park, a majority of your traffic should be people walking. Correct. Sure. It should be. So, as far as the parking being right off of unless you put in pickle ball, of course, then you know people are going to drive to and and that's a whole another that's a whole another thing to consider. If you make it a big community park, then you do have to think about parking. You have to think about access of all people coming from everywhere. So, you're in that weird spot that you you want a nice size park and have amenities, but you almost don't want to try to draw the entire city there with some some crazy stuff. You know, it's and if you do, then you're going to have to say, "Okay, well, if there's 50 cars parked here, where are they going to park? They can't park on the Hutter Parkway. Are they going to park in the neighborhoods?" And it's all those things that kind of domino as you you think about stuff. And I I wasn't thinking, you know, of a lakeside or a belts or anything, but bigger than a pocket park by sure. And if you're using Manor as a neighborhood park, bigger than that one, bigger than that neighborhood one, I it's so small. But yeah, I'm just I'm just hoping that when he comes back, you'll have a design that's big enough for for a variety of an area to come to, but not one that's going to draw pickle ball people. Um, so somewhere in between. I don't know if that's possible, but and I'm and I'm not one I'm a fiscally responsible person, but I'm not one saying we can't do this now because we might have to do something later. Um I want to make sure that we're doing the best that we can now and then we will handle the the next rather than say, well, we might not have that, so maybe we shouldn't do this. No, I I don't like I I think that's great direction. And I think the commission favoring two parks have give John a chance to come back with some kind of concept staff to kind of work on that idea of maybe a quadrant kind of park. We don't really have to think about amenities right now. I think that that's the biggest hurdle that you you guys provided us was we kind of want two parks kind of this size. Is that kind of the general idea? two parks five to six acres in size and then figure out amenities and how that all works. Thank you Dave. Appreciate Mr. Dobs to you coming back with something and also if you could get the address of the park that you mentioned we'll go look at that and I agree with you that pictures and stuff too. Quality quality parks attract we'll bring people. Absolutely. So appreciate your effort towards that. Yeah. Okay. All right. staff's got enough direction. Okay, thank you. See you soon. Look forward to it. Um I'm just I know we've got the AT&T rep here, so we just want to try to respect time and uh take I guess we're up next. Colin Camp Park AT&T proposal. So, um, as mentioned in in the the staff report here, uh, ent AT&T has proposed to, um, I believe it's it's add a tower to it's not brand new. It's brand it's a brand new. It's not necessarily removing anything, but it's a brand new tower down at Cooling Camp. Um, right now it's it's really just more so asking this commission is um are you willing to consider this tower being in Cooling Camp Park? We don't uh there was some designs um and and examples in the staff report. We're not necessarily looking to say it's going to go here or it's going to go there. It's just is this commission okay with um the conversation around the tower being added to cooling camp? Um and just kind of weighing out some pros and cons there. So really that's that's that's it there. You know, Brian's here um to answer any questions that we might have um just right off the top, but but again it's just to give direction that this commission is willing to um entertain conversations of of a tower coming to that park. And then do they pay a fee? Yes, there there would be a lease, you know, I don't know if it's really a negotiation, but it would definitely be a discussion of looking at uh the going rates for that, but there there would be lease discussions that would that would take place further down the road. Kyle, for the audience that's probably going to watch that watching this, could you pull I know there was a visual of what it would look like. You want me to drive now? You got it. I mean, I Bri Brian did provide a couple images um of the site plan concept again of where it could go. Um did provide some visuals of of what it may look like um from ground level two. Does the parks commission know where Cooling Camp Park is? Yes. Yes. I know some of the members are new and I just didn't want to assume anything. I think in this day and age, these cell phone towers are just almost ubiquitous to the the urban structure. I mean, this is and and this tower would be at maximum 100 ft tall. Okay. I have no problem with it. If I lived out there, I'd be praying for it. Uh so I if I guess what you're looking for is from the commission a recommendation to the city council com or comments. I think more just general support or not. They okay if if it's going to move forward, the next steps will be go to the council again for preliminary idea feedback. If the council looks supportive, then the applicant would have to go through the formal zoning review, submit applications and site plans and all that. We didn't want them to get too far down the road if everybody was going to say, "Oh, hell no. We don't want it." Appreciate that. It is right next to also the fire siren that's right there. Correct. Yeah, there's currently the the the siren already down at Google camp. Um so the idea would be a discussion of combining the two together. Erin, um what were the improvements that residents had suggested for that park? Is that something that can be part of the deal made with AT&T to put that tower in? the if you're asking um you know as far as the benefit of coming down there. Yeah, that that would be a discussion to have during that process of we would we would discuss what are some opportunities down at the park. You would look at maybe park users who's down there already. Um you know as far as what could benefit park users down there. Okay. was recall seen in the notes from the thumb drive that we had that there were some resident suggestions for improvement of that park. That would all be discussed. That could be one of those check the box, get that done certainly. So, does any member have a any strong opposition to a tower going there? No, I'm in support of it. Okay, good. AT&T. So, you want to hear from the better? Where is the applicant? Can we get a credit on our monthly bill? Thank Thank you. Consensus general support. Correct. Thank you. Would would you have any recommendations or concerns of coloring or trying to camouflage camouflage it or do you have no recommendation at all? Just No, you're fine with it being there. It's pretty open park. I mean, it's what people go there play baseball or kickball or whatever. I don't think that's going to be an eyesore that I just assume that it's way too far away from the field. That's another thing. They kind of have it nice and tucked back out of the actual players. I just know they'll council will probably ask if you had any issues with the color of the pole or it standing up. So then at least they can report no. Thank you. Red, white, and blue would be cute. I was involved with one in the St. valley and it actually because it was going to be in the forest it it looks like a pine tree and I've had people stand 20 feet from it and they can't tell it's up to it's unbeliev it's unbelievable what you can do and this was in Afton but they don't this is where this where this is located Dave great question but I everybody's in this day and age is so used to these towers and it's a public safety issue so okay good thank you Next item. Thank you. Thanks, Brian. Thank you. Next item is concessions operations agreement. So in in um the staff report, we just talk about we have a an agreement with FLAW on the use of Fenway Fields. And within that um the general agreement there is FLAW does provide concessions out at Fenway Fields and within their agreement it talks about a concessions agreement uh as a separate than field use. We haven't had I think that was recommended within the last two years to have the concession agreement but there hasn't been one. So this is just a pretty straightforward agreement. flaw has read through. Um they've agreed to the terms um and and are in support of it. It's it's a it's just a pretty cut and dry whose responsibilities are what. Um and then and just clarifies the the payment for for the use and uh and again FLA has they've read through it, they've agreed to it, they're ready for it to be signed off by city council. So just looking for um you know a a uh recommendation from commission. Any questions or somebody you want to make a motion that we recommend city council approval? Tim moves it. Karen seconds. All in favor? I I Okay. Oh, we finally got to the fun item. No, it's not there. Playground equipment. uh Dave and Kyle again. This was uh 203 pages of our agenda and I know we all went through it very carefully. Crazy. And then we got so confused we went back and through it again. Got more confused. So joking aside, this is an important project. So uh appreciate you Dave walking us through what uh commission needs to input we need to give you tonight. Yep. Just a just a little background. Uh if you've looked through your your thumb drives, that tenure CIP was developed in between when the the park commission no longer existed in between now. And what staff did is basically at a bare level just said, "Okay, we should replace parks every or playground equipment every 25 years, excuse me." So that just for your reference, that's how these parks are kind of slotted on that 10 year cip. It's not not or it's in there at certain years for those reasons. And that's why Manor Park came up in 2025 because it was was installed in 2000. And if you were out there, you can tell that it is 25 years old. It is it is worn down. And also that's kind of why we picked that year. They say between 20 and 30 years. And just by looking at the ages of the the parks, playgrounds we have that we we chose that that year to kind of set our our CIP. Just a little background on that. Um so uh you probably read through the memo and the like you said the 200 200 pages. Um in 2025 or 2025 the the city council allocated $125,000 to Manor Park. Um, I kind of broke down starting at 125 and broke down what the city would like to do for amenities and what we can take take care of to do everything except for the playground equipment. So, it included um all the removals, adding a new border, um installing drain tile, um installation of new fabric and rubber mulch. Um new rubber mulch is about $70,000. We have found a distributor that recycles rubber mulch that takes them from old playgrounds and will install a new ones. They're perfectly fine. It's just people that maybe went from rubber mulch to port in place mulch. So, it's the same, but we see about a 20 to $30,000 savings on that. Um includes putting the trail in, um installation of trees, which would happen in 2026, and um installation of ground mount benches. A lot of that stuff was in the the park's plan of deficiencies at that park. No benches in the playgrounds, uh needing new surfacing, uh access from the road to the playground, etc. Right now, it's just a grass trail kind of going out there. Uh bike racks, all that stuff will kind of be added as amenities. So, adding that all up, we got to $75,000. So, an RFP was sent out to um six different uh playground vendors uh telling them they had $75,000 to spend. We wanted a two age 2 through five piece a 5 through 12 piece swing set because that was another deficiency at that playground that it didn't have. Um as you can see, we got the responses back with cost with uh 2D images. There's some 3D images. Uh people submitted poster boards. Uh so we got a whole bunch of stuff. Um I I attached after the actual report kind of the important three pages of each thing that was submitted and the other 200 pages is if you really want to do a deep dive look at different angles, different options, all that. It's a lot, but I just wanted to make sure you saw what we got in and if you really wanted to look at everything, it was available to you. But really, if you've looked at it all, those first 10 pages or so that show option one with the cost, the 2D and 3D are the ones that you kind of really have to hone in. So, tonight really uh what I'm looking for is obviously discussion, but I need I'm looking for two recommendations. Number one, recommending to the city council that uh we spend that not to exceed $125,000 on Manor Park to do this project. And then also a recommendation of of what playground that we should purchase for this park. And I've kind of color coded it in that motion that you pick a green color, a purple color, and a red color just so we make sure we name the right vendor, the right option, and the right dollar amount. But otherwise, I up for uh up for discussion. Uh Dana is still here if you have any questions on the the play at ones. Otherwise, um feel free to discuss. I guess just to add, public works and probably parks and recck don't have a firm recommendation. I mean, they're all great parks. They're all within the price range. They all would look great at this. They all have everything that was asked for as far as amenities. Uh we're looking at I mean, this is your fun You get to you get to pick what's going to get to go in there. So, um I guess our recommendation is any one of them would be a great pick. Dave, all six aren't represented here though, correct? They are not. Only only a few. I think three of them only two of them submitted poster boards or is there three? Three separate. Yeah, that wasn't a part that wasn't requirement of the RFP. We may ask that in future RFPs. Uh just uh some just asked if we wanted wanted that and we're not going to turn them down if they wanted to make a bigger size. I uh just the fact that uh Mr. Kubichek spoke earlier and has sat here for an hour and a half just about uh I'd be okay if he wanted to give an overview of what his especially the fish option. Okay. and and tell us uh talk about it if the rest of the commission members okay with that. This is not Yeah. So, I'll let Brady here. He can explain some too. But for us, the fish option is really nice because like I mentioned before, it's a lot of new product for us as a company. It's stuff we've built a lot of similar items, but it's some new product that we're trying to get out there in the market. And like I said before, as local, it gives us the opportunity to get it built for a lower cost, then go out and monitor it, make sure that everything is performing to the standards that we wanted it to. And it's it's unique in the fact that it is nature themed and it's a fish. You know, Forest Lake is got lakes and parks and trees everywhere. This kind of ties into it. Um, I was involved separately too in the the Lakeside Park project back at a former company and it's similar to that in that it's nature themed and you know it's it's a a good fit to the community. The other options are really good too. This one we just wanted to push a little bit harder because of that fish aspect. It is a new product. It's a little bit more modern. It's kind of a geometric shape. Um, you can see in the renderings if you have access to those on Yes, we do. Thank you. A little bit more of a modern look to it than some of the other stuff that we've seen and we're able to incorporate the other nature elements throughout it. What do you what do the kids do with the fish? I was just going to ask so that one uh Brady might be able to explain it better, but I believe it's a crawl through and they can climb over it. Um, it's a good visual aspect to it, you know, to draw kids in and they can climb through. It's linked functionally linked to the other components as well. So, use as a little obstacle course, part of the obstacle course. You want to add? Yeah, it's basically just a giant uh tunnel system that they can also climb over the back up onto the tail, take pictures. It's a big picture icon kind of is what we were thinking for it. Um it's it's one of those central key pieces in a playground that everybody's going to talk about for the next five, 10 years. Um, but then on top of it, you know, like you said, some of our newer T2 stuff, we tried to blend the nature with what you typically see in most parks, which it's that pipe and play. But, you know, personally, as a kid, I would never have liked the pipe and play, but when I saw a tree or something that I could actually go climb in nature, that's what I wanted to do. And I feel like Play Creations products are very good about that. We really like to try and blend the nature to the modern modernity. Yeah. And again, it's similar in some ways to like the Lakeside Park and the Dragon Park as well. I was involved in that back in the day with Theme Concepts, former company. And they do draw kids. You know, people talk about them. They like to go there, play on them, get pictures. It's kind of cool stuff. And it's a local thing. Like I said, we're kind of proud to get local parks in and we don't get a ton of opportunities to do that. So, this would be a good opportunity for us. I also didn't realize that there were no benches at the park, but that is something we can very easily add. And we make them themed to look like giant logs. So, it's like a half split log that has a fetch back that the kids rest on. And they can also be kind of implemented into the play, too, if you want to. Um, but at the same time, we can put them off to the edge if need be. Yep. Would that fit into your proposal? Yeah. Um, right now, if you look at the circle, there are these like little uh square rectangles up in the top left, bottom left, and far right corner. Those are play panels and those are just kind of meant for any kid to just come up and start interacting with them. They're ideally mechanical, but I could easily swap those out and put a bench in those places because those are really good spot for parents to kind of be able to see the whole park from those points. Dave, would public works be putting any typical parks benches out there like outside the play area? Uh, we would put them inside the play area. We ground mount them inside the container just so they're not in the grass. Okay. That that was that was the original plan of that we just ground mount benches inside inside the container. So, I mean, I'm assuming it would add cost to this. So, we'd have to figure out how how to offset that, you know. So, we could check. I know the activity panels have a considerable cost to them as well. And those ones, the benches we do fully in house. They're another theme product. They're the GFRC item. So I I think the cost would be very minimal if any different. We could certainly check into that but there is room in those areas for it and if it's really important I mean there is those three spots for for benches. Maybe that's an aspect we missed but um certainly could be it was it was always originally just public works is going to install ground but okay there is themed ones and it would this is the one they would like to go with. I mean that's something we could also discuss. Sure. Yeah. If you need, we can provide some concept images of the log benches. We've got plenty of those. So, yeah. But overall, we just feel it's it's a really cool park and it fits the community well. Yeah. No, thank you for your time in this. Sure. Any other questions or Karen, do you have No, before you came, I was in love with the fish. Oh, good. We had 17 pictures of all these things and of course they're all nice. But what I liked about that was were you working with theme concept concepts with the dragon part? See, that was a huge different thing. And those people were so wonderful to work for. So, if you worked for them and they didn't fire you, that's a good sign. But besides that, I like the the way that it's spread out. You know, some of these play areas, you're all on that one thing, and I would get pretty tired if I didn't like the kid on the other side of that thing. But here, you're spread out. Um, let's see. I had another Oh, local. I'm a shop local person. I love that concept. Yeah. And um the other the only problem you came up the very end there. I love those little square things because I know kids like to go over and monkey with them. But the one bench over do we need two benches? We can work out the details. To me the idea today is that you're here. You're local. We've seen work that you've done before in another company. Y we've got something brand new to offer. So that's that's my thought on it. Great. I got a good question. Aaron question. So, when we're looking at these, so for example, the option three for play, I like that design better, but it doesn't have the fish, but the fish is when I'm looking at the line items is a $10,000 addition cuz he's so cute. So, I mean, is that like an option to say, "Hey, yeah, three, but we would like to have the fish somewhere there as an added line item." I mean, for us, it certainly is. I mean, the fish is probably one of the items that we reduce the price on the most because we want to get it out there. Like, I'll be open with you. We want to get these new products out there and this is a great opportunity to cover a lot of that cost for us as well as get something out there for a lower cost. You know, if we put the retail price on all this, it would not be in the budget of what we were asked for. But option three certainly has a more spread out design. I think we played around with that a little bit. We we could fit it, but we'd have to remove the far bottom left tower that has the monkey bars on it. That would be the only space to fit it. But that was also trying to match your guys original square footage requirement or the hex uh design of the playground. So, if you wanted to increase the size of the playground just a little bit, but that's also more uh surfacing as well in terms of cost. We could very easily fit it into the option. It would definitely increase the price a bit, but um it was hard to fit it in there without removing some of the other uh key plate pieces. Yeah, I think we ran into a little bit of a space issue on the outer edge there. We're trying to keep it within the square footage and it was I don't remember how much it was over, but it was a little bit over. So, that's not a huge deal as far as the costs go for adding that. I mean, it could certainly be put in this area to replace that system and still be linked into the other items. These are like balance things. Uh Tim or Sue, do you have any comments, questions? Um I'm good with either option uh or the fish option. I like the fish option. There's no slide there though, right? Um not off of the fish um itself. That's a real big deal. But that's why I like the the three. Yeah, because just kids walking up to a park looks like more to go to. Oh, yeah. We can definitely like take one of the climbers out, swap. We can take multiple climbers out and put two slides in there if you really want to. Slides are a little bit cheaper actually for us to climb. It's just personally I thought slides don't offer tons of play value because it's usually only one kid can go down at a time whereas some of our climbers you have multiple kids usually climb at a time, but we can easily swap them. Maybe maybe that would be an idea. The fish one climber and one um thing here. One slide, one climber and one fish. So, so Dave and Kyle, I think what we're hearing is gravitating to option two with uh I apologize with uh with play it uh but substitute a climber substitute a slide for a climber. Uh, another potential option too is depends on how I work it because I'm the designer, but I could potentially fit a slide off the back of the fish, which makes the fish both a tunnel and also the reason to climb on top of the fish to go down the slide. It'd be a pretty low slide. It'd be a very low slide. other friendly slides. What I think the I think everybody likes the uniqueness of the fish, especially you mentioned that people take pictures in front of it and let's not uh let's not make it a fish that has a disease. Yeah. Right. Keep it a nice healthy Minnesota fish. No worries. Well, just just to say too, everything we build is custom. Like we don't you know, these companies make a nice product too, but everything we build is kind of unique. So, we are able to change it pretty pretty easily. Um, the pipe and place stuff is a little more standard for us, but it's still customizable. So, if there's any suggestions for changes, we're more than happy to, you know, revise the drawings and see what else fits in there to to make it a better fit for the community. And one final thing I forgot to mention, one of those play panels is actually a scavenger hunt and there are little critters and crawlers that we hide all around the playground for the kids to go and find. Kind of like the lakeside park if you've seen, you know, they've got the scavenger hunt and there's different critters. So, Uh members, uh so would somebody like to make the first motion of and I'm trying to pull that up is is to support the full project of 125,000 for the I got to keep scrolling back [Music] here. Okay. Uh we need a first motion to for the city council to approve the Manor Park project not to exceed the 2025 funded amount of 125,000. Somebody like to make that motion. Uh Tim Aaron second. Aaron second. All in favor? I I Okay. The next would be recommendation city council approve purchasing option option two. Option two from with the fish. play it with the addition of a slide. I'd make that motion. Second. I'll second. Okay. All in favor? I You can amend that motion to say not to exceed $75,000. Yeah. I wonder I wondered when he said 125. Well, you'll figure it out. So, let's uh Should we just make a new motion? Just be easiest. Okay. A new same motion and add not to exceed 75,000. Okay, with Tim making it and Aaron second. Okay. All right. All in favor? I I will now smile when it's done when I go down manner instead of thinking this is a small dumbl looking park. Thanks guys. It was great work on this. Uh and as Karen said, uh having a local firm uh do this and you showing up uh says a lot of the what you'll the quality that you'll put into the project. So, thank you. you live here. So, yeah. No, we're happy to to be a part of it. Hopefully, it all works out this park in the ground. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you everybody. Easter by the Lake staff update. Easter by the Lake is like tomorrow, isn't it? Yeah. Just wanted to provide that uh the chamber and and the city do partner on this event. Um and it's going to be down on Saturday at Lakeside Park. Um believe it starts they do an Easter egg hunt at started at 12:30. So just to kind of put it out there that there is an event around the corner. So um feel free to to join yourself or or spread the word that they're doing that. I think they get pretty good um you know marketing out there for it too. So it's it's uh should be fun. But that is coming up just around the corner. And no snow this year. That'd be great. Yeah. No snow. Well, there's still a few days left. Okay. Uh, parks and rec commissioner updates. Anybody have anything for the group? No. The city cleanup is the 26th. Yeah, that sounds right. Okay. With Good Samaritans. Encourage Yeah. encourage anyone who wants to come. They'll get a t-shirt if they haven't had one. There's prizes and a lunch afterwards. So, bring your family and friends. Uh, anything else for Dave or Kyle? All right. Somebody want to make a motion to adjurnn? Tim. Aaron. Second. All in favor? I. All right. Thank you. Be such a good genius. [Music]