Thank you all for coming.

Whole group of board members here today were all set to go.

So the first item is another.

Yeah.

We're going to do a roll call.

We'll start with Martin.

Marty Cornack Ward 1.

Park Builderback Ward 4.

Sandy Morgan, Ward 3.

Paul Marino Ward 3.

Rebecca Coons, Ward 5.

Chad Remake Ward 6.

And I'm Gary Newman, the ad-large representative.

The next item of the approval of the minutes.

Anybody have any questions or items that they saw in the minutes?

Finally, second.

Marty Chad, all the tables say aye.

Aye.

Any questions on the order of the agenda?

Seeing none, I guess we'll just roll on to the reopened comment period.

I'll explain our record guidelines for the open comment period.

We have the potential for a 20-minute open comment period.

Each speakers allow it for two minutes until the 20-minute period of exactly.

We can listen to them and take them in consideration as the meetings were moved forward.

But that's not a back and forth at this point.

It's not a public hearing.

Items cannot be discussed.

I don't think any of you brought up this meeting that matters under negotiation and delegation or even the personnel will not be discussed during North County 3.

Kelly, you have the list.

We have all right.

Okay, thank you.

And I know there's uh do you have your full three people or just two?

No.

No, it's just two of us.

Okay.

So we could also have a little more time.

The other one is not very yes, good.

Can you sign him in, please with that?

All right.

All right.

I have Glenn Legland, yes, Morg and David Record.

Okay.

And then Mr.

Most.

Okay.

I don't know about.

All right.

And uh we'll start with the we stick down with our there's three, they have three uh items, three speakers, two here and one not here yet that uh are all related to the sidewalks in the correct question.

What the third speaker had a family emergency situation, so he's not able to join us this evening.

And I've allowed told them previously they can speak together and cover their in their six minutes allowed.

So my name is my name is Glenn Leckband.

I am a resident of ward four and a longtime resident and have lived um enjoyed the park, MLK Junior Park many years.

So what I'm reading is a resolution to keep the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr.

Park free from cell and west sidewalk perimeter concrete sidewalks.

Whereas the Rochuska Parks and Recreation System Plan for community parks apparently requires trail loop, yet values preserving unique landscapes and open spaces.

Our park board commissioners have the authority to make exceptions flexibly to the system plan for good reasons.

Whereas our compact historic and unique MLK Junior Park is already readily accessible and well connected by our city avenues, streets, sidewalks, bike routes, and trails.

Whereas the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr.

Park is appreciated by many people for it's a majestic evergreen and deciduous trees, especially in the southwest area of our park.

Whereas about 10 trees in the northeast area will be removed to implement enhancements in that area, and the majority of highly valued lofty evergreen trees are in the forest like groves in the southwest area of our park, where four trees are currently marked for removal along 15th Avenue Southeast.

Whereas the proposed concrete sidewalks in the south and west sides of our park with marginal pedestrian reaction and safety zones along 2nd Street Southeast will be a hazardous distance close, especially from 15th Avenue Southeast, and will also encroach upon the safety zones of the trees.

Whereas the RPU, full power poles, and hazardous guide wires along the south and west sides of our park are serious safety obstacles to constructing the proposed five-foot-wide concrete sidewalks.

Whereas implementing concrete sidewalks around the enhanced basketball courts, playground, restroom splash pad, and into the shelter will result in more heat islands, more precipitation runoff, and with seasonal extremes and weather will require increased cost to maintain.

Whereas 2nd Street Southeast from 15th Avenue Southeast to the cul-de-sac will soon be upgraded with large storm sewers, but there are no plans in the foreseeable future to upgrade and expand the storm sewers east from 11th Avenue along Center Street to 19th Avenue Southeast.

Northeast from 11th Avenue Southeast along 1st and 2nd Street Southeast to 15th Avenue Southeast.

Our MA LK Junior Park will continue to be prone to storm sewer overflow and sun flooding.

Whereas not a small group, but rather about 200 households representing a broad cross section of the Rochester community have been personally asked what they think and are strongly encouraging of keeping the south and west sides of our park free from implementing the perimeter proposed five foot wide concrete sidewalks.

Whereas our park is so well maintained and neatly mowed that people of all abilities already enjoy walking, disc golfing, and maneuvering well within with wheelchairs, walkers and strollers.

Whereas the proposed sidewalks will attract high speed scooters and create safety issues.

It may be wise to keep and maintain the gentle slopes and natural beauty of the Southwest area for people and pets to continue enjoying in the leisurely and peaceful way for future years.

Whereas it is the best interest of Rochester and area, the common good, favorable public relations, wise financial stewardship, and for the sake of keeping our park beautiful, be it resolved that our MLK Junior Park be kept free from perimeter concrete sidewalks on the south and west sides.

Thank you for the time.

Excuse me, Mr.

David Rinker.

Look forward to being here today, but yeah, family emergency.

So I will read on his behalf.

Thank you, Park Board Commissioners, for considering our petition with written reasons.

One, protect walkers, strollers, wheelchairs from impact of hard surfaces and high speed traffic.

Two, prevent congestion from high speed scooters and bicycles.

Three, respect safety zones for people and pets.

Four, avoid hazardous power poles and guy wires.

Five, preserve lofty evergreen trees.

Six, be good stewards of compact, historic and unique park.

Seven, value beauty and peace.

Regarding our petition, please consider we recently learned that the MLK Junior Park is designated a Rochester Community Park.

Therefore, only about one-fifth of the petitions are in the East Side neighborhood.

We would have we could have obtained many more than the 110 names and addresses.

Many people agree with the petition, but are uncomfortable signing any petition.

We have full eyes and weather prevented us from receiving even more names.

Many of the signers of the petition, including David Renker, reading this, are avid this golfers from other neighborhoods throughout Rochester and area.

There is strong support throughout Rochester to keep the MLK Junior Park free from South and West Side Perimeter concrete sidewalks.

We respectfully present our petition for our park board commissioners to be encouraged to vote in favor of the connected resolution.

And I have the petitions here.

Thank you.

And we also have the weather.

Yes, we can okay.

Thank you.

Well, maybe you're gonna read twice because I can't separate those.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you, all of this all the other.

Yeah, what is that?

Yeah, my name is John Molt.

I'm a board member of the East Side Neighborhood Association.

And we did submit our resolution that our neighborhood board gave vote on, and I'm sure you have it in the pack in, but just want to reiterate and say it in person that um we're very excited about the park improvements.

We're very excited about the amenities that this park already has.

Park is enjoyed by thousands, not just in the neighborhood, but it is community-wide park.

And I'm sure that's why some of these improvements are planned.

However, a portion of the proposal to be over a section of parks green space along southwest borders should be rejected according to our board.

And so the feedback we've gotten from our neighbors.

Converting green space into concrete is contrary to climate resiliency guidelines that the city has adopted, paving over green space.

Reveal is bad public policy.

It implies heat, exacerbates stormwater problems, runoff, and other impacts.

Converts park space enjoyed by all into single use paved space.

And that single use, we believe, is redundant considering the connection the park has and pathway on the north side.

In addition to that, no documents show that there's community demand for that kind of connection through that part of the park.

Since we do have the trail portion on the north side of the park going east-west.

We'll also have increased bike amenities on Center Street following this year's construction project.

Paving that portion not only adds to the cost of this project initially, but it will add continued cost to maintain clear, clean, and eventually repair a paved portion of the park.

I think it would be for everyone's benefit to reconsider that.

Excellent.

Thank you for your time.

Okay.

All right.

Um we'll move on to is the monthly report.

Are there any questions that any of you have on by game that should start with migrate reports?

I'm like called ended.

Uh yeah.

Unless you're on the sign up.

If there's no objections, we'll give you Jamaican the other speakers.

Okay.

Sorry.

So my name is Mike Deggerstrom, and I'm reading a letter on behalf of the Zebro Valley Audubon Society or ZAS.

Uh we've been a local environmental advocacy group that served the area for around the last 50 years.

Rochester is rapidly growing and projected to continue this trend for many years to come.

With that growth comes an opportunity to build more parks.

We're advocating for designs that add quality life habitat.

The downward trends in so many species are alarming.

The 70% are what they were 50 years ago.

According to KTC's KTC's uh 2025 reporting, voting line numbers are down 22% since year 2000.

False statement is that eight species are functionally extinct in Minnesota in that time frame, meaning they can no longer pollinate certain flowering plants.

This results in declining biodiversity, leaving additional species at risk from climate change, uh pesticide use, residential and commercial development, and other factors.

Having healthy habitats available to residents as to their overall physical and mental health, pollinating insects are essential for growing many of our healthiest foods.

We offer the following specific recommendations at pollinator plots to and other natural areas near playground so kids can actually interact directly with nature.

Let them see bees, butterflies, and dragon flies at dusk, let them see fireflies emerge.

Many of these uh selection offer a variety of berries and other fruits that provide the ideal food source for migrating birds.

If the city can demand uh greater demand for these shrub and tree species, they should become more readily available for resident residents on their own properties.

Uh so much of the turf grass in our parks goes unused by residents.

We suggest starting beneath many of the trees, converting these areas to natural spaces where leaves are left to provide homes for overwintering insects.

This approach also leads to healthier trees.

In addition to parks, we have to decide the need to create wildlife corridors between parks and other natural areas.

So welcome the opportunity to discuss these and other recommendations further and look forward to working with the city on these important issues.

Thank you.

Okay.

Can you give us like your name for so we've got it on our list here?

So it's Mike Hegger's job.

Um I've got nine, ten copies here.

I can pass along.

All right, thank you.

Thanks.

Okay.

And that takes the back our item 5A, which is departing our reaches are monthly reports.

Um I think any board members have any questions on anything in the monthly reports.

Uh so uh I I didn't realize that may appeal to that bad trade with that been known for a long time.

Uh yes, it's been in a uh point where we've been very careful about the investments we make to focus on the best of what's there, and say um they uh that's reflected in the leaks, and then the um statement is not an arrangement at all.

Um they have they have uh expressed for some time that they wanted to move on to uh understanding they want to stay in Rochester, they're they're looking at uh commonly known.

I'm not sharing any inside information, but they're looking at uh we uh funded facility.

That's our yeah, okay.

Thanks.

Any other questions on the monthly reports or are there any items you'd like to mention from that photos?

Um probably it would be a good uh opportunity to share the updates on digital accessibility.

Um we uh we're going through changes in our website and all of our public facing uh online access to everything to email the website and registration software.

Uh and this is uh been uh mandated by the US Department of Justice, and this agenda that uh we're working through today was kind of our first attempt at meeting all those requirements.

I want to thank Kelly who put a lot of time into this.

Uh we all went through some frustration on this, but uh if you notice a different look and different type documents, less PDFs in in our um agenda packet, and that's uh the reason behind that, and we'll continue to see changes as we move ahead.

The deadline was uh end of April, and that has now been extended.

I think we now have another year, but we are um uh moving forward and without you know, we're not gonna reserve our efforts and you know the deadline next year.

We'll continue to work on this.

And uh Jeff D part of that process as well, doing a lot of work on this and representing our department.

All right, that mentioned it affects all the city departments, not just part of it.

Mike, did you have a comment?

I do want to add, so this is one activity from an AD accessibility standpoint.

I would tell you that we also get why it's on our parks for the accessibility for visible uh conditions as well.

So the conversation is wrong.

We look at also basically so I just like to echo the appreciation for Kelly's work on it, and as much as at first say was like wait, it's not accessible.

That's ironic.

It's like, well, if it's not accessible to me, that's because it's not accessible to everybody.

And so that's just the feeling that other people that don't have that have accessibility needs would be a question here.

Just following up on the accessibility.

So with our new chairs that we have that people can take out and go on the trails.

Is that town is a favor to us, or does that not matter?

We're looking just physically at what they can do on and off the trails.

That's a great question.

I think that the answer to that is just multi multi-factorial.

I think one answer is we've got to make our park accessible as possible.

That's changing parking lot, chicken's adding sidewalks, etc.

Then in our more natural areas, but we bought those chairs a few years ago if that was really good.

Alternative in those other rural parks to get access.

So it's an enhancement for the community.

Yeah, again, benefit overall.

It doesn't do anything specific with the department, but it's a good thing for you.

Any other questions on the monthly reports?

We'll move on.

We don't have the items of old business.

We're down to the monthly approval of the bill.

Item 78 monthly build.

Are there any questions on any items in there?

What followers are anything I point out?

Not seeing any questions while they doesn't need to bring anything else up.

Is there a motion to approve the bill that is presented?

Oops.

Please, I got it.

And second favorite say hi.

The financial performance year debate.

The report we've just received and file.

I think mostly becomes important in December when we get the final numbers.

There are any questions on that.

We'll just receive and file that financial proponents report.

The next item is the consenting number.

Items eight A through A.

Yeah.

And the board can usually do this approve these all in block.

Are there items that people would like to uh pull out for specific discussion?

Yeah, I just pull up just the content.

All right.

C all right.

Any others you want to pull?

If you want some discussion on any of those items, we can provide it.

I just want to add.

A F that's already okay.

All right.

So is there a motion to approve items 8A, A B, A D, A E?

Uh Sum of Second.

Marty and Mark, all in favor, say aye.

I those are passed unanimously.

We'll go back to item AC, which is the Disc Golf uh memorandum of understanding, Chair.

Um, I'm relatively in support of this.

Um, I wanted to ask um more questions really about associations and memorandums of understanding.

Um, do we we had pulled a group of like 63 67 organizations that we had looked at?

Do we have memorandums of understanding with all of them?

We do not have it.

Depends on the type of arrangement we have with them.

There generally is an agreement with all of the uh groups we work with.

Now some some exceptions to that in many cases are our arrangement for those that use our facilities, it is a rental.

That's the extent of the the uh partnership.

Um that could be fields, it could be within the facility.

So it's we don't have a one-size-fit-all document to cover all of our um program partnerships.

Uh yeah, and uh yeah, and if you know, there's as we brought before the board before, some bring capital to the table, and and it's a different type of arrangement uh to uh or that agreement type of agreement.

Some are program partners uh just here to assist us, some are our volunteer groups.

So it's um does RAPA have a master plan and why are some held to have agreements with us that require a master plan and others don't.

I'm not sure if that's a requirement.

Um well, I'm just curious if their memorandum of understanding is being applied uniformly.

Any of them wrap as a um just uh outlier that I know I was told that they needed a um master plan, and then one was never brought or done.

And to my knowledge that we pass, and then we're holding other organizations to these robust planning processes, and it's not fair, and I'm not sure if that's because they brought money to the table or why that is, and so I actually have no problem with the Disco memorandum of understanding.

Mine is more looking out for them that things are being applied fairly and consistently.

And yes, this is a broken record that hopefully some of you will pick up at some point when I leave.

Um, but um, because I'm almost done with my terms.

Um you're so excited.

Look at that smile.

No, I know.

Um, and I just think that it's unfair to pass a memorandum of understanding when we don't know if it's being applied equally.

Um, I'm fully supportive of Disco, fully supportive of having a memorandum of understanding.

I'm concerned that we are not applying them fairly and evenly, because in practice at times it seems we haven't, and some of them absolutely make sense.

The agreement we have with 125 Live or the seniors, you know, the aquatics and all those, yeah, they're gonna need different stuff.

You're you're completely right.

Um, I'm just beaten my same little soapbox a little bit.

Well, I I think in the case of RAPA, we did uh talk to them about their long-term plans just to make sure that what we were the agreement we were entering met those objectives and would not interfere for other activities at the courts.

And we we held that uh uh you know, knowing that you just can't build a facility and not have public access to it.

That was part of that, and it turned out to be uh a really good arrangement.

And I I think backing up, you know, we look at how we offer programs with you know, we have limited capacity to uh to activate parks and and facilities and uh courts, and you name it.

So uh we rely heavily on these arrangements, and uh no, they're not all universal or uh their similarities, but uh each one has a different dimension, different demands of the user groups that they're impacting.

And so uh uh we work with our city attorney to uh work through these uh agreements.

Uh uh it's based on uh demands in the community and and direction we receive from the board.

And so um that's like you had a comment if I may uh um I think Paul hit the nail on the head, it's really a matter of scope of what people are asking for.

So we want to scale it differently.

Two examples.

You talk about RAPA and the pickleball association.

Um they are focused on getting pickable across the community, not just in our system at all.

So we work with us because we ought one particular part to make that one happen.

The counter to that is RASP, and they have a broader-based multi-part desire to utilize our park system for their mount biking and skiing, etc.

And the mount bike was explosive as to what they wanted to do.

So we asked for that master plan to verify is there demand in it in our parks portal activities, and if so, where are those locations desired?

That's why we asked for the master plan in that regard.

Uh, pickleball, we already had good information on it, but survey standpoint of what the demand is.

So there's a distinction there.

I I disagree because the poll call study did include mountain biking, so there is that.

And then also with pickleball, it isn't there is an agreement in regards to cook park, but what about the sports complex?

What about the malt that use pickleball courts?

The when they presented to us many years ago, the feedback that was told to me was that they need to do a master plan because their vision is bigger and their sport is growing.

And now I'm hearing, no, it's just about one park, so that's all we need.

And that's okay.

I get that that might be completely true.

Things change on a day-to-day basis, needs change.

I'm advocating that we continue to push forward for more transparency and continuity.

And if there's a reason for it, that's great.

But when I'm told as a park board that my response to a RAPA member should be, well, you guys need to do the master planning when they come to me with requesting more park stuff, and then all of a sudden that doesn't happen.

It makes me feel like I'm hearing one thing from staff and then I'm hearing another thing.

And I'm sure there's miscommunication in there, and I'm not in those conversations.

I'm willing to cede that.

I'm saying there's an appearance of disproportionate um application, and that we all have biases in what we think should be done and what we think the scope of the memorandum of agreement or the rental fee or whatever should be.

And I would like to see us continue to strive for more transparency and clarity around what those are because we all have biases based on what the sport is, what the swimming is.

I mean, that's been a contentious issue with the swim club and 125 live over the years.

It's not a sole thing.

So seeing them little organizations encumbered with financial burden is not always fair, and I don't know why it's done to some organizations and others, it's not.

Is the only example RAPA?

Or do you get, you know, because what information do we have?

Some of these organizations, it depends on what point they are their evolution of this how far this how fast they're growing.

Um, you know, we've got lots of agreements.

I don't I don't I don't share the thing that we're biased if that were to cause more people more work.

I don't think the RAPA people ever objected, for instance, with regard to doing investor plan.

It was tough on RASP to do it.

Yeah.

And if it wasn't tough, why they why didn't they do it?

Like it's an easy list for RAP, but why don't they have one?

Because it certainly involves more than one card.

I'm I don't I'm in favor of RAPA too.

I just want there to be more clarity and transparency.

And I I agree with Chad.

I think there needs to be a trigger point.

If you're asking for certain groups to do uh master plans, is there a trigger point?

Is it financial involvement from that organization?

What is it?

But that way everybody understands and knowledge that's asking for is to have clarity to know when and why these are happening, and we should.

I mean, it should be known to every group out there at what point does a master plan.

And not just the master plan, everything else.

Yeah, at what point does an organization get to borrow money from the city and pay it back interest interest free?

And does every organization know that that's an option for it?

And I think that's where that should all be clear by so everybody else that is.

I'll kind of back up a little bit more of like the other thing that I hear you saying, and is uh I feel is is a risk when we enter into these various different customized memorandum, understanding memorandum, whatever.

Um is trying to find the right words to describe it.

It's like the shift of a stakeholder to like joint owner.

I'll I'll bring up the the track since I was very intimately involved in that.

It was very um concerning for us to take on that risk.

Um, because it was something we were interested in, but concerning to take that that with on.

But what comes to my mind now is so the track club invested um in the city property.

If we as a park board were determined to make any change in the future, do they as a stakeholder have an elevated option to contest that argue against that?

So I feel like we have a slippery slope of ownership versus communal ownership.

I'm I'm probably not labeling that correctly, but hopefully I'm you know, sharing a little bit of like some of those differences that perhaps you're also kind of expressing too.

It's like there's differences here, and then when we get into community service, community use, that's where it gets really challenging.

Um, so I agree.

I think there's a lot to monitor here.

It isn't just about RASC, it's a it is about the appearance of inpropriety, and I would think that Legal would have some bugs about that, because the appearance of inpropriety can create as many problems as actual inpropriety.

Right.

I think that's what I was trying to suggest to RAPA when they were here is that um some of the language and the proprietary use probably potentially put them in a situation which they came across as not inviting.

Um I can think of stories of folks and individuals out using um oh the mountain bike trails on the south side of town.

I can't think of the parking right now.

I'm sorry.

Thank you.

Game haven't um of you know, there's ownership there because there's so much time and effort put into by that community, but when another community members come in and use it in a perceived miss way, like or on like desirable way, um, there's a lot of conflict um that arises from that because we have elevated their ownership status through some of these partnerships.

So I just am suggesting like they're not bad, but I think they are they're worth monitoring because of some of the challenge that that may come up and inadvertent um issues as we built that.

And I honestly think we're probably it's about writing down what's in people's heads.

I think that we are making the best decisions we can.

I think that staff are doing that.

I think it's about taking the time to create a criteria that really encompasses it and makes it consistent.

That's and that's easier said than done.

Yes, especially with the number of partners that we have.

I will say our staff would be a lot larger if we didn't have all the partnership agreements that we have with all these organizations, it's a tremendous savings to everybody we had and that's why we need to take care of them.

My my concern was I I know for a fact that RAS it was a heavy look.

And set them back on the timeline quite a bit.

Um and so um the other part of it, the other side of it is if we if this is not done right, we can get into equity issue.

Um someone from a uh a different um nationality or race or whatever might have a preference for some services, and so being able to treat everyone as equal as we can avoid equity issues.

I think this was probably a topic that deserved more discussion at a meeting and let the staff do some research and provide us some information on the different types of agreements that we do have.

Paul, just uh party draw along those lines.

Uh, these agreements don't come to you because we are withholding resources.

Uh no, and and that is what drives a lot of this.

We would not have the curved park renovations but for RAPA.

And uh we wouldn't have the many of the programs we've just discussed without those those partnerships.

Um it's an evolving process.

I think we've gotten a lot better about uh being successful and getting capital funding to address issues that we've had to rely on partners in in the past for uh but like I said, it's it's still an evolving process for RAPA that started in it it was uh brought to the board, it was brought to council, and so it was all as far as transparency.

Uh there were three or four public meetings where uh agreement came together.

It would seem to me that with the discussion you folks are having right now and being the new kid on the block, that if this is a major issue and feeling, then have a study group that we go through, drill down and suggest and not take up, and I don't mean this in a derogatory way, time of the board at the meeting, because I think it's inappropriate.

I do think it's appropriate if this is a really hardfelt issue of the board for us to then have a study meeting, go through all these different agreements and if Chad's talking about transparency, well, what does that mean?

And if we're not being transparent, how would you propose doing it?

And I don't mean just him doing that, I mean all of us doing that.

And just for clarity, RAPA's just an experience that I've had on the board.

This came up all mostly where I came out of it, was from the one two five life swim club stuff.

That's when I started to say we need more transparency, and nothing to do with RASC, and then had nothing to do with RAPA.

But you just happen to be well, is this an issue?

If it is, then someone put forth a motion that we have a study meeting.

Well, that's the session, therefore, yeah.

I think for for now I'm my suggestion would be send back to staff and set up for its own topic on a subsequent meeting where we gather some information.

We have agreements with every kind of organization in the city, baseball, basketball.

I mean, it's we have lots lots of agreements.

And the staff have made good strides and identified like a certain level of organization, have presented some stuff to us already.

I continue to feel like it would be great to have a better criteria.

Yeah, I think the value is ruling down services can be provided.

Okay.

So we'll put that on the docket for an upcoming funding session meeting.

That'd be acceptable for the board.

Okay.

All right.

Um take the motion.

Yeah, we're still talking about it.

We still have to approve item E C, which is the memorandum of understanding with Rochester, which is called Can I make a motion to um adopt that agreement or to pass that agreement without the requirement of a um master planning effort, at least at this point.

That amendments might have so kind of real briefly not because again, I agree with having the conversation earlier for the board meetings.

Um the reason for master planning is a well in the partisan plan, there's a process to go through to justify new facilities.

The master planning process where we have to last do that justified so that we're not planning on doing the wall was in our master plan personal plan already, so that was not required for a part for a new master plan for that particular use.

We have new uses, a new disk golf work or a new model plan.

This provides that information for us board members for you board members to make a decision on it.

Is it cost effective?

Does it make sense?

Is it in the best so they can make those decisions going forward?

That's what that master planning does.

Again, want to find this at this point in time and come back in a future day before any work takes place.

That's an option we have.

But if you process that I have to go forward with you had discussions with the Disc Health Association.

So since I drafted the agreement and Drew is you know the head of that organization here, I think the intent of that statement wasn't to put a financial burden on them.

We modeled RASC's agreement, and the intent was more to have union there so we had flexibility to bring ideas forward and to expand discalled facilities more equipment equitably across the city.

So that was, I mean, I don't have a problem personally with taking it out and Mike does.

But that's why it was put in there.

It wasn't to put a financial burden on the group.

Yeah, I don't we don't view that as an additional burden on us at the same time.

Uh, you know, that if it's in there, there should probably be a timeline on why it should be done.

And I'm hearing that hasn't always happened elsewhere.

So if it's in there, I'd like to be held accountable to getting it done in a year or two years and given some leeway to do that and some ideally some resources to help us do that.

But otherwise, I'd rather have it out if other organizations are being allowed to not do that.

I I get the there is a difference there.

There is, and I don't think you guys are doing it to encumber anyone.

I just want transparency.

And I think even the definition of what constitutes a master plan that's questionable, like the level of planning.

It's pretty vague in the remember the RAS strong open button.

I know they didn't.

That might have been partly on them.

So I'm not even considering that, but I don't care.

I'll make the motion.

I made my motion.

So you made the amendment.

I got no second.

But I but you guys can make a motion to ask the way it is.

Yes, and we need to pass it.

Is there another motion?

Say it again.

Yeah, I mean then you're looking forward to the if you want a motion on the floor, you can't just start amending it when I'm submitting an amendment.

No, I did it for well, the first thing would be whether there's a second to chat.

I made a motion to accept it the way it's written.

No, no, to accept it taking omitting the master planning requirement.

Why don't we put it on the floor if you want to do that?

Well, all you need is a second somebody that's a second.

Oh no, no, no, it can be voted.

Oh, wait.

The only way you can put this on the floor is to put it on the floor as written.

Then you can go for an amendment.

Am I correct?

No, I I I recrossed the city attorney's efforts.

I think Mr.

Raymaker's motion is appropriate and it's got a second, so it's um right for additional discussion and then a vote.

Um, I would just note so that the record is clear.

We're specifically talking about item A1 in the agreement, which references a master plan.

And I believe Mr.

Raymaker's motion was to remove any reference to a master plan.

All other provisions of A1 still apply, with the exception of the master plan requirement.

Thank you.

Would that be accurate?

Oh, yeah.

I seconded it.

So nice.

Uh quick question though.

I just need further clarification that it's just needed by park staff.

It isn't valuable, the master plan in this situation.

I'd like to hear some opinion on that.

I I was falling a little bit, but I I don't know if I quite understood.

Is it valuable to have this master plan?

And then to also tie that back to um, you know, uh the request there by our stakeholder of like can I jump in on it?

Uh sorry, no.

That kind of I would say yes, it's valuable.

The question is timing.

So if in fact the association looks at our stuff and says great, no problem.

We're making some minor tweaks here and there in our system in our current courses, no problem.

You start saying I want to expand the course by 18 holes or nine holes, I want to make a new course someplace else.

I want to do explosive things that are broader than what we currently have available to us.

That's a new facility that we need to have a planning document for that says here's why we're doing them.

So if the first step doesn't happen, the master plan is not needed, but if we're looking at modifying the courses and making them bigger or new ones, then we should have.

The master plan's not needed, but if we're looking at modifying the courses and making them bigger or new ones that we should have.

And we have uh what the requirements and criteria for a master plan are.

Is he even aware of what he would is or is not being fun buried with so the master plan can vary based on what the desires are again if it's modifying holes, expanding it by whatever, and they can show the demonstrated use and need by it and how physically lay out, maybe a very small master plan.

My question on that is so I'm a new organization and I want to request something.

Do I get documentation from uh part staff as to what the minimum requirements in the master plan would be?

How do I do it?

Generally speaking, yes, we give samples of what we have in the past for different activities.

Um do them as you come forward, and they need to provide us documentation about why they want us to provide that going forward because there's a staff possible at nothing else, staff cost time and effort to do that work or monetary contribution.

So we lay out what's the need scenario, what's the ongoing asset preservation?

What is the ongoing using cost operations?

We ask for all those things as part of that process, which is what the master planning process does.

Where's it at?

What's the expansion plan?

Where do you want to go?

Um, so you have to share that information.

So you can hand them a document that says here's what you need.

We share the set and ask samples that we've been agreeable with.

So again, it's an evolution from 2016.

We said this one works, this one doesn't work.

So here's some samples that we drop on.

Yes.

So any other questions.

Thank you.

No, okay.

All right, then we're ready to vote.

All in favor of Chad's original motion, which says take out the master plan.

Say aye.

Those opposed say nay.

Four in favor.

How do you vote?

I voted uh naked.

Yeah.

So it passes four to three.

Okay.

All right.

Mr.

Chair, I you voted nay.

I voted.

I think we had an A here, Mr.

Miller.

You were I okay.

Yeah.

Can we just go just so the record is extremely clear when it's close?

I we need to do a roll clear.

Yeah, hi.

Aye.

Hi, nay.

Okay.

It was approved four to three.

Oh, our next item is item number eight at the quotes and bids on the remember the doctor, Martin Luther being part.

And I think it would be helpful to Jeff and the staff.

Maybe we need some comments on what are the main points and the memorandum you've said validates here.

There can be other questions on the other thing that we're approving as well, but that seems to be the main point.

Yeah, so the the memo that I put forward for you folks was um basically, yeah, just an attempt to kind of clarify you know why we were proposing what we were in in the project, in this case the sidewalks, but uh what we were basing um those decisions on, which was a number of documents uh from our uh city unified development code to our active transportation plan to our park system plan, um and the um uh uh Minnesota Scorp, which is the um uh document that the grant that we were awarded is based on um meeting the criteria from that plan as well.

So those were the main things in terms of you know, proposing what we were proposing, including those sidewalks and um, and there was some other information there just to to kind of uh hopefully give some clarity.

I know there's a lot of lot of information in there, but also just to clarify that there would be three trees, so that the whole tree aspect um of the discussion, there'd be trip three trees removed due to these uh the sidewalks in question um their construction, uh a fourth tree, which is actually growing right next to uh utility pool that needs to be removed anyway.

But um Jeff, who was just here um gave us some recommendations also on how to minimize impact to the trees, and so basically that was relatively simple.

Three um three items.

in question um their construction uh a fourth tree which is actually growing right next to a utility pool that needs to be removed anyway but um jeff who was just here um gave us some recommendations also on how to minimize impact to the trees and so basically that was relatively simple three um three items one was to obviously move the sidewalks as far away from the trees as we can um and you know minimize impact from that standpoint uh to where we can excuse me uh have the sidewalk be built higher than the existing grade so that we're minimizing the amount of cut that we're doing uh for the sidewalk and the base um the third oh it was the tree protection fencing so which is you know something we we would do anyway but um you know putting tree protection fence around those the the trees in not just the sidewalk areas but in all the areas where we're gonna be planning for construction so that's kind of the the gist of it um without going into a lot of a lot of detail yeah I have a question about you've secured a million and a half dollars and grant money for the site and the granting agencies they also have some of the similar provisions that we have in our code regarding yeah accessibility yeah in fact that's one of the main reasons well not one of the main reasons one of several reasons that we included the sidewalk in our application was because they are looking for um you know accessibility for not just certain people or certain people of certain abilities um they're looking for accessibility for as many um people as possible and whether that's uh a demograph a demographic whether it's youth to adults to seniors or those with um you know ambulatory disabilities or challenges um so you know those are the kind of things that the scorp is is providing as kind of criteria uh not only for the application but also for how they judge those applications so if we if you choose not to do the sidewalks we're we're in a bit of a bind um you know so I'm not exactly sure how that gets handled to be honest.

Well I guess that's the sentence that concerned me the most and that's as such our grant requires you follow through up the project elements that we represented in our application.

So I really don't see that there's a lot of uh there's potentially some risk and maybe some problems if we don't perceive the way we've structured the grant today it's gonna be a wonderful park I mean it's got that did a tremendous job of get a million and a half dollars to the fixed up a park as they've done on so many other sites now the last few years um I think uh behooves us to to move ahead the way that we have to any other comments had a couple well having raised a child with severe disability and require a wheelchair to me not having sidewalks is non negotiable um and the bed in the park would be inaccessible other ways um I am uh now 70 years old and very active but I hope to be able to go with that part when I'm 90 years old but with a walker or scooter or whatever I need to get in there.

So to me not having sidewalks um uh would have been a huge problem uh I did have one specific question uh in the handout um there's a photograph number four shows the um sidewalks at the corner yeah what was it microsoft okay on page 83 number four two yeah two three four um I was wondering why you have the sidewalk that goes to uh it must be second street why it doesn't align with the sidewalk coming towards it from the north uh from the north meeting from the south here well they don't match they don't they don't they don't oh I see interesting yeah 88 yeah and nobody negotiating stuff with a wheelchair or a um or walker having to do that when it doesn't look like we needed to do yeah there's no reason in particular in fact I'd have to look at the plan to see that actually may not be the case in the plan but if it if it is

Well, they don't match.

Oh, I see that.

You have no AD or pad any other.

Yeah, and nobody negotiating stuff with a wheelchair or a walker having to do that.

When it doesn't look like we needed to.

Yeah, there's no reason in particular.

In fact, I'd have to look at the plan to see that actually may not be the case in the plan, but if it if it is, then we'll make that adjustment.

I think it was whoever, you know, the person who put this together for us probably just wasn't aware of.

Okay.

You know, the exact location.

I mean, I know you went to Great Lights to mitigate the uh all the other concerns on the trees and stuff like that.

But yeah, any other questions?

No.

Yeah, I just got a couple because I represent the area and Martin Loser King Park is relatively new.

Years ago was referred to as e-spark.

So and the amenities to net park were next to nothing.

I understand the grant process and I understand the length that it's this has been going on.

This has been a couple year process.

This is not new.

Unfortunately, what happens in many cases, neighbors don't actively start looking at the cards that come out that say we're going to have a meeting that talked about these.

We had a number of meetings over at uh center around you center street, the apartment complex.

And the thing that I see is, and I understand how grants I spent a lot of time doing grant work on council and going through all this.

But my question is, do we think do we number one think we have enough money to pull off all the activities that are we're looking at?

I mean, I think there's others that are higher priority when you start looking at the splash pad, you start looking at the additional bathrooms, the shelters, the basketball court, those are things that we're going to get more utilization out of the sidewalks.

So my question is is if there is a money issue.

And we prioritize this, so the sidewalks, particularly the one on the south side would be the last one that we would put in.

I mean, I'm I understand, like I say, I've gone through this, I've heard and listened to the neighbors, but that area is relatively low populated, except for the disc golfers.

I understand safety issues with people being forced to walk down the streets and the difficulty and the danger of that.

But my only question is if there's priority options because of cost.

Um, I mean, currently we don't have cost issues.

We're under budget, and that includes a 10% contingency.

So we're but after we're done with the bidding, because we're talking about authorized quotes and bids for various work.

The bids are the bids are done.

Everything is done.

Yep, the adding is in the what you have uh in the packet is the the numbers that wouldn't change unless we run into some unforeseen.

And I guess that's what my thing is is just the numbers are the project costs are shown at 2.975, and right now it looks like we've got funding of 3.136.

We have about 150,000.

That sounds good.

So I've seen those disappear quickly.

So my question, my only comment is that I would like to see is go move ahead with those sidewalks toward the end to make sure that we do have the money to do that.

Otherwise, I'd ask them to be delayed.

Did you have a question?

Um the question is it's like um, especially with that north-south sidewalk piece.

Um looks like a lot of compromises being made.

I'm even hearing of a more shallower sidewalk uh depth as well.

Um can you speak a little bit too about when you heard about some of these um concerns and then um maybe any of the adjustments made to the plan based off of those so the the sidewalk section will be the way it always we always do it.

So it's just the the height at which we put it at is you know, we're gonna be doing more filling than we are cutting, so that we're cutting into less roots, but the the one that you know the sidewalks are not going to be compromised by uh you know less depth on a base or the concrete itself.

So um, you know, I I think that the modifications or the uh uh accommodations we've made for the trees are common sense and um not something that to me uh compromise the project at all.

Um yeah I I don't um I'm not sure if that's getting to your question or not but did you make adjustments to the plan after hearing community feedback and what were those?

Yeah so I think I think some of the adjustments were um the kind of meandering style or layout um of the sidewalk so you know you'll see in the plans that it it hugs the curve in some areas than you know where the trees are closer where the trees are farther away or there's not any trees we jump out and have a boulevard of grass in between curve and sidewalk and um you know the yeah the tree fencing would be something that would be the would be done anyway.

So that that really wasn't uh necessarily a compromise but um um these are things we do a lot uh lots of our projects matches this will be the company that we're considering about trees trees are we've got a horror staff that makes us well aware the trees are important to us yeah every project that comes through downtown they look those projects and they try to save trees where they can our projects themselves they come back and say they push us and say can we save more trees so we're already looking at ways to save trees as much as possible through against I want to be angering or modifying the project or doing things like that.

So this is a common facility.

Yeah I think that's just more um just making sure that the community was heard um adjustments made considered um because obviously that's an important part I you know recognize as well too is like oftentimes we have to make these compromises to try to do um some of those things and they're in direct conflict with each other which you know in this case the grant funding um you know that would be a huge negative to a community um you know so we have two potential negatives here in conflict um and so I think that's what I'm trying to to illustrate is is and get to is that if the community was heard and while not um doing exactly as as requested uh still heard and and considered and uh compromises considered as well and implemented when possible.

Yeah I think if uh if Jeff could even talk because how many meetings did we have the neighbors in neighborhoods there were multiple multiple along the different routes uh one when they took input from the neighborhoods yeah I saw that lesson and then uh yeah also after the plants were designed and one of the things I think is the compromise was was the meandering sidewalks where the initial plants showed it pretty much going straight through and being a straight path and taking everything and this is this was a compromise to the man read sidewalks but there was multitude of informational sessions and input sessions that were given by Jeff um both the when the project first started and after they had uh we're ready to submit the plans I think I get to limit a lot of sidewalks in my life though I recognize the meandering path right away as a compromise and it was from where it was initially but yeah I mean back and per does not usually where you'd want it to be in a park but I got why you would choose that so um again trying to to ensure that those things are considered and thought about and so I appreciate that I did see an exhaustive list of like you know engagement um and that's always very important as well.

Yeah just so it is the implication that if we don't need the sidewalks we would lose the ground um is that kind of the bottom line I I think that I don't know I think it's an unknown we've never had to go back and request or change something to the um degree that um that we needed to go back and ask for you know uh a modification or ask if it's okay or you know I I really don't maybe Mike has more experience with that than I do but um it wouldn't it would at a minimum it wouldn't be a good look for us so I mean there's there's definite points um for me it's less about the trees because it is just three you know the fourth one was gonna have to come out anyway but the upkeep I mean first of all the cost to put it in concrete is crazy and the upkeep for sidewalks is ridiculous and then they move all the time and then you have to fix them all and you know and the cost for that moving forward so there's there's those future costs associated with it as well.

And also, um, I mean the accessibility does seem to be functional, although not ideal.

It does seem functional.

I spend a lot of time there, my sons like soccer on the other side of the street.

And you know, the people they they you they utilize the sidewalk on the other side, um, or they go around on the north side and come around.

Um and I feel like it allows the disc golf more of that experience because there's not a giant sidewalk they can trip on if they are running around.

Um, so there are those things to consider.

I do feel like if obviously if it jeopardizes the grant completely, then that should be you know, kind of figured out if it's even possible to do it without sidewalks without jeopardizing the grant.

So whether it's we do one of the sidewalks and that's sufficient to do the grant, or we do you know, whatever the minimum is that we can do that we are approving, or you know, so I feel like it's important to establish if we could even get the grant and continue to have the grant if we said no, because it's no good us saying no tonight and then losing the grant unknowingly.

Like that's not an educated um way to do it for us as the board to vote on something when we don't know if we could be potentially voting off the grant money.

So I don't know if there's a way to find that out.

I think there's other things at play, and the city has all kinds of other policies and studies that have been done with the uniform development code, which is you know, on one of the pages that's in there, and it says we enter great sidewalks, bicycle roots, and new development and redevelopment.

There's an active transportation plan that says you got to provide equitable freedom of anyone walking and bicycling primary modes of transportation.

We've got the Rochester Parks and Recreation System plan that says we're supposed to make sure our projects are have uh well connected uh neighborhoods.

There's a lot of other provisions in there.

I understand I understand that, but that I mean there's been no community request for it, they don't want it, and they're actively voting not to have it.

So I think it's important for people who are owners to have learning person that might my experience with uh a child with severe disability that can only get around in a power wheelchair.

There are so many obstacles, and you spend half your life trying to remove those obstacles, and so we were excluded.

We felt excluded because there were so many obstacles.

So now you're telling me I had a child in a wheelchair that's south west corner of that car.

I'm excluded from it's very uh disheartening.

And we have a solution.

We've got a grant for it.

The staff has done as much mitigation as they possibly can.

And so uh to vote against sidewalks is telling me that my son he's passed away, but someone like my son would be excluded from the that corner part, and that hurts me.

I mean, seriously, it gives me pain.

Like the other kind of so just a couple things here on the sidewalk screens for a second.

Um the ongoing maintenance is a cost to the city of Roger Guess we mean that's a sidewalk.

We got over 50 miles of sidewalk for trails that we our department maintains, our staff maintain.

Um more feet or a thousand more feet.

Not gonna make a deal of each difference to be honest with you.

There's also a what's called a sidewalk district program is now in place for the city register, and every popular sidewalk next to them case of this fund as part of the fund.

The public works department goes by it annually reviews sidewalks and makes those changes and makes those modifications at no additional cost to the homeowner property that would include us.

So we pay in annually to this fund and it gets taken for your automatically.

That's part of our budget that we pay for.

That includes the parts.

I didn't know that incredibly includes your parking or something.

Oh, that's just for homeowners.

No, I think we pay a lot of money towards that program.

Again, it gets us in that regard.

Um the need for the sidewalk, I'll just say uh the UDC calls it up for sidewalk along redevelopment activities and redevelopment.

We have to submit for purpose in this process.

That's a permit requirement.

So you can say, yes, we don't want sidewalk there, but the the UDC says you shall have sidewalk there, we will put sidewalk in.

That's the requirement as we go forward with Sydney as site plan for redevelopment of a park.

I mean, then it sounds like it's basically decided already.

Well, I'll I'll I'll make a point of something having they've been in this position of you know public feedback.

Um oftentimes the loudest voices aren't necessarily the ones that are representative of the community.

And so I have to rely on the skill of like, well, what are they they really saying?

Um, you know, and what I hear from this community and this particular group as you know, environmental concerns, um tree concerns.

And what I was asking here is were those considered, were there compromises?

And the answer is yes, is because while one group sees us as a negative, um, there certainly is others that we've heard of as well as used as positive.

So what's the balance here?

Do we risk losing losing a grant?

I mean, yeah, yeah, what loses the grant?

That's a totally and that's a total game changer.

You're asking a great question, is do we like what would happen if we would say let's try to listen to this community?

Um, so that's the question really is is that the risk that we wanted to take.

In my opinion, um, no, you know, we gained so much more for community, especially an underserved community, um, by tapping into this grant.

Um and I think that that's appropriate.

And especially considering that there weren't a lot of modifications made that the sidewalk had existed in some in the original plans, if I understood that correctly.

Um, you know, again, other community members saw it, perceived it, um, didn't have a complaint about it.

So, in my eyes, those those two balance each other out.

Um, and those are things that I think you're kind of getting at, but um, I would bring forward as like while we hear these folks here today, um, I acknowledge and I still hear them as well, uh, but I also want to acknowledge that there's plenty of balance with this as well.

And it's not it's not worth risking a negative impact to the rest of the community with the splash plaid with the basketball courts with everything else that could occur as a result of it.

So that's my opinion.

Um, and that's why I'm going to be voting to support to move forward as it is.

I would say important.

I think to file that we have three different plans in the city with three different major things, even if our development code, the active transportation plan, and our own system plan, and all three will call out for you know making sure I think that people can uh access uh facilities.

So I think I think that's as a very important point of how we can go answer on cohorts.

Yeah, just one other thing.

When you talk about engagement, you have to remember that all of those I didn't mention engagement, somebody I did.

It was me.

Sorry, I'm the one.

Okay, well, when you when you talk about engagement, you have to realize that all those other plans have their own engagement with them and the active engage uh active transportation planning.

There's information in there that what they heard is that people wanted more walkable, more accessible, easier to get to parks.

And so that's another element to this.

I think that that does lend um kind of support for those other plans is and were there maybe some people that didn't agree with that in those plans, you know, perhaps, but the majority there what they felt was you know, we need to be making our parks more accessible, more uh easier to get to, more walkable, safer.

Um, so uh just something else to keep in mind.

Yeah, just uh one last thing to kind of answer Rebecca's question about could we lose grants?

I mean, if the fact is look at the new park up in up in northwest that we really have nothing to do with that, Chad has been asking for for some time, and you've had the state legislature talking about withdrawing money.

Do you mean so at least Southeast, yeah, excuse me.

I'm getting old.

I'm 1600.

I just wanted to clarify, thank you.

Sorry, yeah.

I know I'm staying ahead.

I'm age and quicker impressive.

But but the fact is when you see the climate of our legislatures today, you never know what they're going to do or how they're going to take something.

The fact is when this project was done over southeast, you live southeast.

Yeah.

But it's way away from me.

I'm closer to northwest when I ended that project.

But when you turn it on and you look, the fact is they re applied, they received the money, and now they're being told they might lose it.

Yeah.

Go back to when it was on council when Jerry was still city assistant administrator.

We did a one percent or half cent sales tax.

And we put our requests in, and we had community group decide what projects we were going to take to the state to get the money.

And when we turn took that in our community, each city council member had one person on.

The mayor had a person on the council president had a people on.

And that was decided by the community.

One to the legislature, and the legislature decided to cut money from the 125.

That's a part of what should have been there when it was also asked for and went to the state.

And the state made those decisions.

So when you're wondering, can it happen very easily?

And we're watching some of this take place now.

And with the environment, is it worth the risk?

And even if they don't, and we were to go back and ask for more money for another project.

Yeah.

Would and Jeff is correct to going, would they if it's the same people to look back right what we did and how we did it?

And did we did we while we what they felt good faith was what they had approved?

Well, that's my question.

Is can we even like we don't know if we're gonna leave it?

I think nonetheless comfortable voting until we even know that we're gonna lose it or not lose it.

But then we start to miss timelines and we gotta keep things moving.

And is it even an option because of all the other codes that are applied?

Which it doesn't sound like it is.

I mean, I'm a tree guy.

I put 25 grand toward all the trees and ward six last time we had money, but like to me, it's just I it would have been nice to make a call and say what happens if this does happen and be more informed, I guess.

But like I also know you don't want to poke that bear.

Exactly either.

So I I don't know that there's a good I don't think there is because it sounds like all the other ones are already when you look at the other policies.

Yeah, those policies are already three trees or 1.5 million dollar for any other requests or I'll call for the question.

Okay.

Anybody want to make a motion?

I move that we approve.

I hope there's I'll second it.

All in favor stay aye.

Aye.

Motion passed unanimously.

Okay, thank you, folks.

Um all right, next item is the uh new business, which is an update from the Rack Def or uh Park Foundation on the fundraising, they'll quickly go in on what they do was really I will say this for some of you who worked on the board, most of you were active in some of you are on the foundation board back in those days.

Um years ago, um this board was advised that the Silver Lake pool was in tough shape and was probably going to be removed and not replaced for quite a while.

Our board passed a resolution the council that asked if we could work with them to see if they could develop a funding package that would allow us to replace the silver lake pool with the was a new pool.

And uh the council agreed and the city administrator and her staff got together a good financing plan and said we'd come up with the funds for a new uh building at the silver lake pool in the new pool.

But they did say at the end of that, uh there was there wouldn't be any funding for amenities like there are at Soldiers Field.

And so at that point, all started talking to the people from the Manchester Foundation who have been contributors of good leaders in providing funding for several help uh some amenities at some splash pads and others, and uh they decided that they were up for a challenge, and we'll let them talk about what they set for a goal for themselves and where they're at in the process because uh they're hoping to provide enough funding to provide at least three amenities, and they ask our staff what are three of the most popular ones and still affordable uh down at the uh at currently at uh social field one, and so there's a three pieces of a wrapper at RAMs they're talking about.

Tori, you want to introduce hello.

I'm the co-chair of the parts foundation uh board, and we've been and I guess the work that we kicked us off.

I'm gonna say like late last year, and are working towards raising a hundred thousand dollars for the free amenities.

There's a climate, there will be a climbing wall, gospel requests and uh Zippline uh installed at Silver Lake Wall.

Um we've been very active in grants um and applying to grants from different businesses, both kind of more mostly local.

Um working with businesses.

Um we're and then I would say in the last six weeks or so we kind of extended that out to the uh community as a whole for more like individual contributions right now.

We're uh just over 70,000 raised of the hundred thousand dollar goal.

Um we still have some, I would say big asks out there to a few that were hopeful.

Um overall, we've like identified obviously about 180,000 earlier than asked.

Um so we've not quite 50 percent win rate right now.

I um but yeah, we're we're excited.

Uh like we we want to get over that finish line, but letting you know where we are in that raising in general on those uh amenities.

I guess by far your largest.

Yes, the very double what we did.

And the our biggest project in the past was the um flash pad, which we raised like just under 35,000.

So this is like a big leap, and um had a lot of good support from the community.

Um anyone has any questions.

What do you think you might achieve the circuit?

Well, I mean so we signed an agreement that was actually actually both out three years.

Um our goal is to like get to 100,000 um this summer.

Um it's kind of difficult to have unrays for something that's already installed.

Yeah, it's going to be installed.

Um we do have a really amazing um there's an anonymous donor who is matching any individual gifts right now, up to $10,000.

Um, so that's a really wonderful like opportunity.

Um I did show us over like I shared up a little bit over email um with y'all, but um yeah, we've done that we've done news organizations, a bunch of different Facebook posts.

Um, but I would say like the businesses has been more like individual work with the chamber, with the downtown alliance, uh several neighborhood associations.

So that's where we are in our in our fundraising, and um we'll be like getting kind of uh phase with like getting the plaque up and celebrations uh for all those who've supported us.

And there will be, I guess so y'all aren't surprised there will be we did like made an agreement to have some banners up, so there are some banners for um different donors at the pool as well.

Okay, any questions for them?

Thank you for all your hard work family.

We were group of Zulk Getters on the we sold a couple of them off that they're here for it.

But thank you very much.

So your friends in the neighborhood no day donation too large or too small.

Yeah, so I mean all of our completely adorable.

We have a like a wonderful splash maker.

I might have might have been on my phone, but I was maybe checking out the website.

All right, okay, thank you very much for that.

Okay, uh uh, we're down to other business the park board meeting agenda planner.

We best know how to give you this discussion relating to our agreement, and we'll get that scheduled sometime.

We'll let Paul come up with some thoughts on that.

Anyway, other items.

I had a couple of questions that have come up this week.

Um one was we had a meeting and the high school coffee um incoming families, and they they indicated that the ref center is basically unavailable for like most of the fall.

With the exception of like one day a week.

There are reason why the rec center's unavailable.

Of course, this is the one meeting that Ben's not here.

Uh I I can look into that.

Um, I don't have some information to give you.

I normally have some maintenance schedule.

Um yeah, other than that, I I'm not giving you that actor information.

And then um the other one was there was a note about tennis courts at the quarry hill park, um, the back side of Quarry Hill.

Um off of what is that?

It's the west side of Quarry Hill.

Thank you.

The wide street um by the baseball fields and um the tennis court being in disrepair and then an idea to repair one and then turn the other into a pickleball court.

So that was one feedback that came through to me.

We'll take a look at it.

There's children that every spring with the heat and changes, it just slides around.

It's not a it's not a typical court.

Um that cost lots of jobs over here.

Okay.

Anything else?

So the the one question about tolerators and that got me thinking.

So if you ride on the Zumba River South Trail towards Mayowwood, where the blue bells and the uh uh falls shoe anemone and everything else is looking at the trout level that's just going gangbusters.

Um Bear Creek Trail, they have one tiny patch or three little tiny patches where we get blood run.

But there's other until the uh Danes rocket come in late May.

There's really nothing there.

Do is it possible to reintroduce the native uh wildflowers into those uh areas in the city?

The answer is yes, but I'll tell you it's a lot of effort.

And right now we've got a natural area management plant that guides our improvements in certain parks or the heights parking for those parts.

We've been briefly set.

Uh yeah, yeah.

Uh department grant uh reviewing that park and modifying it for natives and getting clocked around the bases out of it.

Um but there's a process we identified for our each where we want to focus our records.

So yes, there's a possibility there, but again, we're focusing on specific areas.

Okay.

Yeah, get rid of the basics of that.

Oh, yeah, there's there's line there.

Yeah, well, they've got they've done a good job of getting rid of the uh throwing out of there, but there's still kind of one more comment about that.

We do have lots of volunteers.

Autobond is one of them.

Um, but prairie smoke, etc.

They they collect seeds, they help distribute seeds.

We share seeds at our bank, they go like on our properties are shared across the beneficial areas.

And I gave up those volunteers.

There's no master plan by the way.

Those volunteers doing that.

We have lots of assistance that we have right now.

So I can no, I like that.

I love that one.

All right, thank you.

Uh like you have one last thing.

I I do have it though.

A new topic for more discussion.

Okay.

Um, I'm sorry, I wasn't referring to any thing we talked about.

I just forgot to share that in a video.

Sure.

Our friends at Open County, uh, parks and trails wanting to park commission.

They want to have a meeting with us uh at least once a year.

And it's been planned for.

We had one, I think, since Paul's been here.

I think two since I've been here, so not very common.

Um but get together with you two boards together and have some conversations.

Uh they're embarking on some master plotting efforts uh and trick for park and trails that we've been invited to participate in.

So again, they want to meet with you and have some conversations.

So um if you're okay, we're gonna go ahead and process that and get a board meeting together where they meet Tuesdays also, I believe, at 5 30.

So we'll probably merge some times together and find all the bits.

Perfect.

That's great.

All right, it's a great idea.

Sounds good.

Okay, I'm back to the hockey question.

Okay.

Uh you said rec center, but did I hear that correctly?

So he said is the Rochester Youth Fall uh the ROI, whatever the fall league.

Um is normally done at the Recenter.

And he said they're they got they were able to secure, I think, one ice time a week or one or two, and I just think I'll get that to be rebounded.

That may be domino effect from the um arena is going to be uh least some construction activity in September.

And uh that's I'm hearing that from the rec center, so I I'm not sure how it's impacting these hockey schedule, but I'm sure it is.

I just not regular season yet, obviously, but they they have a lot of things that they offer for fall in preparation before trial season.

So there's no way they can bring up one of the other grand three is up early.

Or they are going to be up in September.

Yes, four, I guess four are not up at all.

Four won't be up at all.

I'm not sure what rings they're gonna be worked on, but um might be better when they get the building the horse then, but that's not gonna have ice in it.

No, no, no.

I mean, but you move the things.

Okay, yes.

I think it's time for uh market.

Yeah, just just to let everybody know they're moving along really well on overcooke part.

They were they're putting the base back in.

Okay.

So it was they were up in sand in every day and leveling it up.

So that's that's moved really fast.

All right.

It's still a two-mount process by this, but I think that construction together sit for about 30 days with outro saying that.

All right, it may look finished, but it won't be finished.

It just looks they're moving.

That's good.

That's good.

There's people actually doing things on leaning on shuffles.

I like that.

Okay.

Is there a motion to observe all there a second?

Yeah.

Thank you.

All favor say aye.

Thank you all.

There's more than things like that.