This transcript appears to be from a **Park Board** meeting. Based on the context provided, the primary speaker representing city staff is **Eric Johnson** (Community Development Director), while the meeting is chaired by **Jim Nelson**. Other participants include **Mike** (a representative for the baseball association) and **Jenna** (a board member). [0:05] Jim Nelson: And we'll start off with a roll call. And Gene—I think Gene was going to try to attend via Zoom but I don't know if he's in or not. Here? Yeah. Dwight and Jenna and Jim Nelson here. Is this your first time here? So these were for uh, the crew to know what your relationship is now with the board. Sure. The city council um... [1:04] Jim Nelson: In public. I need the approval of the minutes. [1:08] Jenna: I'll make a motion to approve. [1:10] Andy Hjelle: I'll second. [1:12] Jim Nelson: So uh, everybody in favor? All right. Anybody not anything? Okay, then those are approved for December 20th. And start off with: is there any public discussion? If not, I think just under the Fickner Park update, Mike, if you wanted to add anything at that point, that'd probably be a good point for you then at least. But um, maybe I'll just jump into continuing business if I could, Eric? [1:49] Eric Johnson: Sure. So um, obviously last Park Board meeting in December, at that point there was Bryce Hanson from soccer was there along with our consultant, the city engineer, as well as Luke Saito from SAS. And at that point they presented um, the plan for Fickner Park. And at that point, we're envisioning that a proposal is going to come forward from the city engineer to put together construction documents for the park based on what we called the base plan. That was the uh, the new field in the corner that would have an artificial turf, the redo of Field 2 which is right now where softball used to play, and then Field 3 and 4 would stay the same. And then there were some different uh, basically amenity-based improvements to the park—basketball court, skate park, playground, new concession stand, restrooms, etc., that way, and parking. [2:36] Eric Johnson: At least at that meeting, there is some discussion that: should this be slowed down because there might be an opportunity for other fundraising opportunities, whether through baseball or some maybe discussions with soccer that way? At least at the time at Park Board, there seemed to be a support that uh, that we did indeed slow the project down and not go forward on a um, basically a January proposal from the city engineer. [3:21] Eric Johnson: After that, the city had a meeting with members of baseball and uh, once again soccer was there as well. That was back on January 6th. So it's quite a bit of discussion that happened at that meeting. Uh, plans were shared and some more uh, discussions back and forth. Does it make sense that maybe soccer is at least part of an additional field if monies became available? What came out of that meeting was um, it seemed to make sense from at least those shareholders that yes, we try to slow this project down, give baseball a chance to do some potential fundraising, and then with the goal of essentially realizing what I call a "hybrid plan" that has the two full-size fields out there—the brand new Field 2 and just keeping Field 4 as it is. That would basically just be the um, have a cloverleaf type of design. We would not do the courts that had been talked about once under the donor plan that was on the north side of the park, but just concentrate everything on the south side. [4:52] Eric Johnson: So um, we as staff were just discussing this again this morning and that is our continued at least consensus that: yes indeed, you know, let's let's slow this down a number of months. This is perhaps now going to be a 2024 project that once again baseball can have a chance to potentially do some fundraising at their end. Um, then just get together, you know, after a certain point and say, "We have X number of dollars available, how does that fit into the 3.8 million that the city has? Can we realize this hybrid plan or do we just stay with the base plan?" So at least this gives, you know, the different user groups some time to kind of work at it, maybe work together between yourselves and soccer potentially. You know, that's more the conversation between your two groups. But once again, we're right now it's appearing that this is not going to be a '23 project; it would be a '24 project. This gives the user groups more time to potentially once again fundraise and just work with the city. So I guess Mike, is that—I'm sorry, kind of your—like I said, because I know there's a lot of discussions after that meeting on the sixth. I don't know if you were part of those? [6:10] Mike (Baseball Rep): Uh through the wall and all of those fundraise... yeah, I think once again that by turning this into a '24 project, like you said, a chance to explore some more opportunities or partnerships and and then hopefully add to at least the 3.8 that's available through the recreation initiative. So um, I think this as this kind of moves forward over the next few months just gives some updates to Park Board as to kind of where we stand on things. But as of right now, um, there is not a proposal going forward for a '23 construction at this time. [7:33] Jenna: Questions? I was just going to say I appreciate that and not your hearing Mike but you know, it's soccer and baseball we've now heard of, but if it was a plan for a bigger... like is there a city staff that's designated to like collaborate who like might be a contact with the tennis? I mean like, because we specifically reached out to um baseball after our meeting and that—like have they been pulled in at all if that was part of that bigger plan? [8:19] Eric Johnson: You know, there's been some uh, discussions Outreach. Joel Wicklund, who was in here a little bit ago, he's the uh, City Communications Director and he's had some initial discussions with at least just some people interested in pickleball. Okay, that you know, this—I think that as part of this he was going to reach out to them again just saying, "You know, this is a potential timeline. Once again, here's a chance maybe we can coalesce," as Mike said as well, and maybe work together in something bigger for the community. [8:19] Jenna: Yeah, it'd be interesting to get them all together and see. One of my concerns is: how much is this inflation going to— [8:19] Eric Johnson: That's—that's the risk we're going to run. So it's, you know, the hope is that we stay steady or if it's the fundraising outweighs any potential overruns that we could see with inflation that way. So that—that it will be a risk that we run on this by pushing it a year down the road. [8:59] Jim Nelson: Getting soccer to offer any money up front? There was loose discussions, but there's nothing signed. And now—and so that is because I missed that meeting but um, you and I talked later about it and I know there was some overlap with possibilities of fields being designed to work for both baseball and soccer. [9:07] Eric Johnson: That's a part of the discussions and it could go forward whether they really want to try and do their exactly. So um, like I said, the city is talking with some different other partners as well right now for fundraising. Uh, we'll know more in the next couple weeks and I think the goal is then to sit down with baseball. And right now we've told the city engineer to get a price for what I call the hybrid plan and to um, say that, "Okay, this price is X, we have T, you know, can the user groups work together to make up that Delta for a '24 project?" [9:52] Jim Nelson: And uh, and you know, I shared some concerns about points. In terms of one is, um, I like the delay that you're suggesting to be able to work through this stuff. And I also had concerns with the idea of—I don't remember how much the discussion went on with the whole group—in terms of the idea of one of the baseball fields being turfed and then being set up so the soccer could play on the same field and they have the striping and that sort of thing. My concern with that was associated with how those seasons cross? How would that work? Trying to have both of them growing and have more going on. Soccer wants to have more things to do with tournaments; baseball's growing over time. [10:38] Jim Nelson: Yeah, and part of why we were improving the field was just to be able to handle it earlier seasons and handle more. And part of my thought had been is: did we explore the idea if we're going to improve a soccer field and have um turf, then we can talk about it and give another year to consider it helps be able to do that? Could we talk about having turf on a field over at Stebner near where soccer fields already are rather than trying to do something that combines baseball and soccer and then where you have to work through the overlap of the seasons, which I see is possibly problematic? You'd have to hear more discussions on it. I just wanted to share I brought that up with Eric. This is one of my thoughts concerning... I'm glad that I like the idea of going off for 2024 and give us more time for consideration with that sort of thing. [11:24] Mike (Baseball Rep): Another problem with sharing the field, too. If Rose Road is wet and the girls want to play their practice over here, who's going to have control of baseball, softball, and soccer? Who's going to have the dominant... well... [13:35] Jim Nelson: Consideration of just how do we want to manage that, and I like that. So I guess to answer your question, Jim, is yeah, there would have to be a lot of coordination between the groups. I mean right now, yes, I said it is a city park; the baseball is the prime user group there. You know, the way it's set up is that, you know, for sure soccer and baseball would need to communicate. Um, softball is set up at Rose, so if there was an issue, they would need to reach out to baseball and the same—we had a tournament coming up this weekend looking for some practice time, "How does it work with your schedule?" So we're going to have to really try to work together between the user groups that way. But at least from hearing from soccer, they—at least the things that they're requesting, to introduce what I heard you say didn't seem all that outrageous. [14:22] Jenna: Has soccer ever discussed like when they heard that there's possibly going to be a true field, like the coordination of our tested soccer and softball, like to the girls... that's best. [15:04] Eric Johnson: Yeah, the the way it—the field will be designed is, you know, if either younger age group or softball wants to use it, I mean there's the ability to have portable fences etc. to do that. Yeah, and you know when soccer came forward and some of the discussion, you know, there may be the opportunity, like I said, to turn this into a multi-purpose field—multi-use field—but there's a number of steps we'd have to go through and at least by pushing this back to a '24 project that it gives us time to try to flesh some of those things out. Do you need anything from the board? Is this more of an update for everyone? And thanks for coming too, Mike. It helped getting your and baseball's perspective that way. [15:51] Jenna: So is there any other questions on Fickner? Um, I actually had one more question: has it cleared up with um, like has the baseball association been able to see um, you know, like the haha is—is going out and finding their sources of extra money? And I know that there was some confusion when I talked about—Morgan—about like whether the city was going to allow you guys to seek your own support. I mean, there was some misunderstanding. Did that get hashed out at the January 6th meeting? [16:40] Mike (Baseball Rep): All miscommunications, yeah. Okay... awesome. [17:18] Eric Johnson: Okay, okay. And like I said, in the next two to three weeks, I think the city is going to have a little bit better understanding on: is there another potential donor out there that could help this project? And then at that point, once again sit down with with baseball and said, "You know, hey we're in great shape, we're building," or "No, there's still a delta of this." [17:18] Jenna: Oh, so there is one in the works? That's what you're saying? But there's a discussion coming up? Okay. [17:56] Eric Johnson: Yeah. So uh, what I handed out to everyone here is um—I'll just kind of do a little bit of a recap. So the city received monies through the American Rescue—what's the P again? It's ARPA. American Rescue Plan Act. But it's ARPA. And so as part of that, the city has designated $150,000 towards King Creek Park. So we've been talking quite a bit as Park Board: you know, what could we potentially do? At one point, there's some talk maybe there's a dog park and that's kind of fell by the wayside. And at least when we were down at King Creek Park, I'm going to say gosh, back in October, we started talking about um, what happens if we have some sort of more of a shade structure over that existing concrete that's down there in the park, and some more park furniture, playground, etc. that way. [18:42] Eric Johnson: So what I've done is um, there's three sheets—they're actually four sheets. The the first one is a cost estimate showing how, you know, monies of $150,000 could be designated. And then there are three different sheets. Uh, the first one is an overall park plan that has um, basically that concrete pad area in the upper right-hand corner. And then we have a potential playground uh, kind of located just to the south of the parking lot. And I show how um our trail system then could connect to what's been built so far, and then it just kind of continues to extend to the south and the west that way. [20:14] Eric Johnson: So I'll go to the sheet now that's labeled the—actually the same but it's the um the pad area. So what we're showing is a 20 by 20 foot shade structure um, set a couple trash receptacles, a couple uh picnic tables, and a bench in that area, as well as a bike rack. It's similar to what we have over at Stebner Park with the kind of those little rest areas that we've set up over there. So that same type of idea would be uh placed over here. The idea of the shade structure: um, not a lot of trees down there and the one tree that we had was taken down as part of the trail. So the shade structure could just help uh provide a little bit more um—I said a little bit more atmosphere associated with that. Um, we looked to match that same picnic table, trash receptacle, uh bike rack style that we've already done over there at Stebner. And then I have a image of a shade structure generally what we'd probably see over at least half that pad there. [21:08] Jenna: I've never been to King Creek. Are you able to scroll down on this map and just do a little bit of the aerial? Yep, thanks. [21:08] Eric Johnson: So King Creek Park, okay, is—and scrolls a little bit south of Morris Thomas which is right here, and then off of Okerstrom Road. Okerstrom Road dead-ends into—I'll turn a couple of these layers off so it's easier to see—dead-ends into the park. So down there right now there's an existing uh baseball field, there is a kind of a large open turf area, uh gravel parking lot. And the work that the city did back in actually '21-'22 was the construction of the accessible trail running from the park all the way up to Morris Thomas—that's this section right through here. So it's envisioned as part of the park's overall trail system that King Creek can be a kind of a trailhead, okay? In all of our parks, we try to have a um at least restrooms of some sort, whether the porta-potty variety or actual hard building type ones, and playgrounds. So King Creek has never had the playground. So now with this available monies, we've got the opportunity to uh hopefully realize some of those things. [22:39] Eric Johnson: So the um the play area plan shows that it would be located generally right in this open area right here. It's a 40 by 70 play area with a structure and a swing set that'd be proposed. I'm speaking quite a bit to a um a provider of park equipment this afternoon and they're going to be kind of giving some a little bit better costing and some potential plan ideas that uh hopefully I can share with the board here uh whether in February or in March. Is this envisioned that this could be a late summer, early fall project here down at King Creek? [23:25] Jenna: Is that a field used for anything specifically, not to the left of the trail? [23:25] Eric Johnson: Well, it is hoped that working with baseball that this would become an active field for baseball. [23:25] Jenna: What about like that yard? I'm just just curious like why the play structure would be down there versus like where it appears there's— [24:11] Eric Johnson: There's uh right now this is a little bit of a grade change. It's a little lower, okay, than the actual walkway. And honestly, this is like the only place in our city—of our city parks—that's not a uh not actual use, not a field per se, that it says it's open green space, okay. And so once upon a time we said, "Is this a dog park? What is this?" At the end of the day, it's a scrape type of place if you want to throw a frisbee or or do whatever in there. So um that's at least kind of a thought or rationale why looking at this area for the play area—that we still could connect it by a trail and then be close to the parking that way as well for people. [24:58] Jenna: Can you see that from the shelter? Shelter—that's what I was wondering. If you're having a picnic and the kids are down there playing, it doesn't look very visible. [24:58] Eric Johnson: Yeah, that's—might be not... some of the sight lines might be a little tight that way. And they said it's—it's not set in stone that this has to be where that location is. [24:58] Jenna: Yeah, I didn't know that the grade would change. Like I said, I've never been there. [24:58] Eric Johnson: But the city actually is able to mow that and you know we we do mow this. Um, what you're seeing here—ah, I apologize. This area through here, this is a lot of spoils that came out of the trail construction. Um, we had 10-12 feet of muck and it had to go somewhere, and so this is where it ended up. As a result, this is essentially a berm that's created right there, okay. Like right now this parking lot is probably four or five feet higher, I want to say, than this lower field area. My understanding with the history is once upon a time there had been tennis courts in here and uh that have long since gone away. Uh, once upon a time the city flooded this for an open skate area; once again has not been done for a long time. Oh, interesting history. [25:45] Jim Nelson: So um, he went halfway up the field—might be a place to potentially sort of the baseball field. If kids are playing baseball, the parents did that younger kids could watch the playground and potentially um... we would have to figure out if we located it somewhere in here that we don't want to bisect that space so much, but you know it is an open space right now that is true. So and then you have to worry about walkways—that'll be an additional cost. Probably some different would have to—would add to it a little bit that way. [26:31] Eric Johnson: So um like I said, right now at least with the manufacturer or the provider, uh they're going to give me some more solid costs. You know, what—what does it cost for installation? What are these other pieces cost? So at least I said the the cost estimate that I have on here: you know, the bench, trash receptacle, picnic table um swing, overhead structure. Those are all hard costs that I've received from an actual provider for that. The um the price structure they talk about—the particular one that's shown here—that's anywhere from $40,000 to $60,000. But that number we want to make sure includes the installation, includes any sort of boundary around it or border, resilient material—you know whether it's wood chips and whatever—any accessible uh type of um resilient surface as well. So that's why at least I have about a $35,000 just installation cost; that's at least to try to cover some of those things as well. [28:07] Jenna: Sure, I think if—but that's our clues to say where it is. I think it would be beneficial to have like water conventions. [28:07] Eric Johnson: Yep, and that's what I talked about with the the provider today as well. And especially, you know, with that trail coming off there, they have a couple benches right in that area and then he'd even talked about, you know, is there some sort of like a small shade structure or something that way as well? So some things that he's going to look into. He knows what our budget is and then to try to work with it within that to realize these things. [28:07] Jim Nelson: The trail system? I'm sorry... you know, that'd be interesting. I think once upon a time there had been a drinking—I think on the exterior of that building. Yeah, there was. So what it would take to get that up and running, we'd have to see. So um right now it's just used for storage. Once upon a time, uh the city kept the snowmobile in there for grooming purposes that we used to groom back there for cross-country skiing. And then the um the Snowmobile Association—I want to say three plus years ago—uh the city basically allowed this to be a trailhead for snowmobiles and as part of that they do some grooming in that area for not only for snowmobiles but for cross-country skiing as well. And you ride right from the parking lot to the current snowmobile trails? [28:54] Eric Johnson: Uh I believe you can. At least they have different agreements. But—but I mean it's right now they essentially would park in this lot and then start heading south towards Duluth and Proctor. [29:41] Jim Nelson: Okay, I just didn't know if there was like a power line or what it is already there that exists. Like if the snowmobile trail comes out— [28:54] Eric Johnson: Yeah, they have some trails through the woods and they also uh they have an agreement with the property owner to the south of them. I think at that point they get down to the St. Louis River Road and there's the power line corridor down there. [29:41] Jim Nelson: You're asking about power? Like there was part of that building at one point and the building got vandalized. You know, quite a while back when I first came on the board. That even then it had been four or five years before, but they'd stripped all the copper out of the building and—and it's we never went back after that in terms of bringing back up there with power and lights and that sort of thing. [29:41] Eric Johnson: Okay. And one thing the city in this again is looking more into the future at some of these trailheads is: is there a way to design a um—I won't say vandal-proof but—then a resistant type of restrooms? If you've ever been up to the McQuaid Safe Harbor, um there's something similar to that. It's—it's basically it's a concrete building, stainless steel. But we were talking about if we do something like that as an outhouse or as like—no, actually it's like a permanent building for a restroom. And what we would do is essentially, you want to become a member, pay ten dollars and you get your key card and it's tied to your name, whatever. So to get into the restroom you get in, then we know who's going in and out of this building if there is a vandalism issue that way, in theory. So I mean that's, you know, great world scenario that we'd love to work towards at some of these trailheads that way. So we'd actually have a restroom at that point hopefully has actually some potable water and um kind of look that way. [31:14] Jim Nelson: Yeah, so I mean once upon a time there had been—I think there's had been restrooms in that building, too, but the same thing: it just either use or vandalism. [31:14] Jenna: I love the idea of making this a better trailhead because I mean I think going—I don't know what direction but going down from where we're looking—there's just vast green, you know. So I mean having a chance for people to start from there and then also the multi-season uses. I mean, I'm gonna have to take a drive back there and see what's there. [31:14] Eric Johnson: It is—it really is a hidden gem. It's um first time I was down there I never knew it existed. And you come in and the topography starts going down and it opens up. It's beautiful. There's an artesian well down there that um people will bring jugs to fill up with water. There must be current hiking trails, as I would imagine. Yep, there's some exactly through there as well. There's uh on the hills there's—I think they're using for cross-country skiing—trails that are on off to the left here on the map. It's up on the hills and there's a long uh corridor—I think it's a sewer corridor—it goes downwards. The trail will go somewhere along that headed south of all our greens on the trail come true and uh then we are also talking about no limit... [32:00] Jim Nelson: And I don't know where this is, but we were talking about the idea of something like um trying to think of other activities to put in that area to make, you know, more heavily used area. So one thing I help evangelism if it's more important active? Yeah, right. And try to make it so much more useful with things like the playground and the place to sit in the shade on the trail. So I'm trying to turn it into more heavily used so that it's not just a remote place people can come and vandalize. [32:46] Jenna: Was the dog park a liability or public nuisance issue? What was the determination of that? [32:46] Eric Johnson: It was probably all those things. A lot of those things above. It's projects are easier when we have a community champion and the dog park has never really gained any traction, okay. And the problem is like I've gone to a number of dog parks and the best we could realize down here was maybe an acre. In the greater scheme of things, that's not very large for a dog park. And so—and honestly the cost, just with the fencing and everything... I mean we would have used a vast majority of this $150,000 just for fencing. [33:31] Jenna: Yeah, I think we're very fortunate as a community to have bigger lot sizes, so we don't have a lot of apartment buildings in Hermantown, so it's probably the interest part of that. [33:31] Jim Nelson: But another thought we had looked into it is because it's close to the creek—um using for fisheries—we've had fisheries projects done on that by DNR. Was the relationship between um dog feces and the slope over to the creek and that sort of things? Where would you put it and is there a problem with DNR with the water pollution, that sort of thing? [33:31] Eric Johnson: So we hadn't gotten into that—we didn't get that far. It was one of the concerns. [34:17] Jim Nelson: I like the frisbee golf idea and the playground. [34:17] Eric Johnson: For the frisbee golf? Yeah yeah exactly. That's what you can see I got a line item on there: frisbee golf baskets, yeah. And the same thing—yeah, it's uh our Finance Director, he's done some of these before, and I was looking at it a week or so ago. It's like, "Where can I place nine holes in here?" And even that was getting a little tough because I could come up with seven at best that eight and nine were kind of tough to to get back again. Yeah, it's something to same thing: to try to utilize existing corridors that we have there rather than spending money to pull out trees and different things like that. So that's, you know, I think that these other ones since they're more built that those are easier to tackle. And uh but I think, you know, we'd still at least would purchase the the baskets for that and then uh try to work on some good routing that way. And honestly, a lot of us—it's gonna this—this spring and summer when it's dry out just go in there and hike it. Yeah, trying to figure it out. So but um yeah so I anticipate uh over the next four to six weeks getting some more information back at least from the playground person. And then the same thing: you know, do we try to fit it over in that existing green area and tie it in a bit more? Yeah, so at least at that point we'll have some better numbers that says, "You know, this structure is X, installation is Y. Now we know what we're dealing with the harder number that way." [35:55] Jenna: Yeah, I just think from a public safety thing too. Like when we think about utilizing this ball field and then parking here and then the shaded, it might be like you know, you don't have kids running through the parking lot to get to the playground if it is actually going to be an established trailhead that becomes a popular destination with the future plans too. [35:55] Jim Nelson: Suggested age range on the playground? [36:40] Eric Johnson: Right now, a lot of the stuff I see is 5 to 12. And um so that's at least what I'm looking at. But that's the same—I I said to this person, I said, "So when I remember is pnz has some, you know, different age children and not pnz but Cardboard F5." So but yeah, I think this is going to over the next probably two three months kind of get flushed a little bit more and hopefully look at uh like I said a late summer, early fall construction date for that. [36:40] Jim Nelson: Okay, so is there any more discussion with what that baseball field—what the interest is with baseball with that field and how we're looking at that? We're just going to stay a baseball field because mostly it's not used for much at this point and it hasn't been up yet much. And and so I'm kind of curious where we are with that. [37:29] Mike (Baseball Rep): I think is—but so um... span benches and where they want to dugouts and that's where the where they where they can turn into a more usable field. [38:14] Jenna: Would you guys see like a lower age level beginners playing games here? Is that... [38:49] Jim Nelson: Has good drainage and stuff, it hasn't had a moisture problem. Right now the main thing is it hasn't been heavily used and so upkeep was going... the mound on the field was getting a little rough and the infield was getting weedy pretty steadily. And so and it means like you say backstop, the fencing, benches are usually tilted. They don't have—uh we lost there was a blacktop trail that fell all apart and it got removed. And so there's been a lot to go on with that, but we didn't know where it was going. So I'm just curious about these balls would work. [39:58] Mike (Baseball Rep): Two some of that stuff... um... [40:18] Jim Nelson: Baseball was, you know, once the other part's done, would they be going to lose interest in that field? By how much do we put into it if it wasn't going to be a field? Then you'd have a better place for—that'd be a better playground spot. Oh yeah, or like the bigger disc golf thing or whatever. Yeah, whatever. So it gives you more options if it turns out that wasn't still an interest. So that's why I asked the question. Any more of that? [41:06] Eric Johnson: Okay, you don't need anything? No no, it's once again, it's more of an update and I said hopefully either the um February or March meeting that we'll have a bit more from the uh that provider—some firmer costs and things. Any other questions or discussion? No? Okay. Next to be a new business: the trail alignment timeline. [41:06] Eric Johnson: Yeah, so um once again uh the trails was a successful part of the community recreation initiative. I believe it was 4.5 million towards trails. And so we as staff were talking about this and trying to figure out timelines as well. And basically the the gist of it is is for overall '23, let's pin down the trail alignment and then also work with different environmental permitting agencies to at least get them on board that this is going to happen, because a good portion of this—well, a good portion of this trail will be going through wetlands and so on. [41:52] Eric Johnson: Um, January 30th we have a meeting scheduled with State of Minnesota. That's the Board of Water and Soil Resources as well as the DNR and then the consultant the city typically uses for wetland delineations to start to discuss some of these potential alignments. So what's on the screen right now is what I'm going to share with that group on the 30th. So this is here's the Wellness Center right now, here's Uggstad Road. So in '23, Uggstad Road is going to be rebuilt. There'll be a new six-foot sidewalk going from Highway 53 down to the Wellness Center and essentially it actually it's going to go all the way down to Levick Junction right here. So then at that point the trail system would pick up. [42:37] Eric Johnson: And looking at some different options on how to route this: the orange line for the most part follows—there's an existing sanitary sewer easement back there. So that land has already been disturbed from a wetland standpoint. We would still need to work with property owners to essentially get a new easement for the trail purposes on there. Um the benefit once again is it's already a cleared path system; it's already been disturbed from a wetland standpoint. Uh it does get a little tight back in this particular area. Uh this is where the people their home is; it starts to get kind of in their backyard. [43:23] Eric Johnson: So we're also looking at: is there a way to try to avoid as many homes as possible? So that's we started looking at this red alignment that starts to use some of the back of these really deep lots on Uggstad and then starting to get into some city-controlled property along this corridor through here. The problem is with that: a lot of wetland across. So at least we want to starting that discussion with the regulatory groups that if we run into issues on the orange line, what type of support are we going to get from them if we have to take this red route that way? [44:09] Eric Johnson: This blue line right here, that's envisioned basically a spur coming off the trail to get down to Fickner Park and to hook into the park there. [44:57] Jim Nelson: I don't know—I hear you don't show an option that might be coming down um Uggstad down closer to the Big Bear and then getting on that power line? By the way, is is there a reason why we don't get it very long? [44:57] Eric Johnson: When—when this master plan is first done back in '14, uh the consensus at least at that time was to really limit the on—lack of better—it's on-road type of walks that way, just because of driveway conflicts, different things like that. So that's still generally the goal to be able to to do that. And I knew any responsible conflict too was the nine dollars, yep, going across using the parliament. Visiting Broadway didn't include being able to have this kind of trailer because that's what the city is looking to do. I think at the February meeting is to get a proposal from uh basically a right-of-way specialist to—once we pin down this alignment, then that person would then start meeting with these property owners trying to procure their the easements from them. [45:43] Eric Johnson: So once again, in the perfect '23 scenario, we've got the alignment, we have hopefully all if not most of the easements in place, and generally the consensus from the environmental groups and how to move forward that the plans have then be developed essentially over the winter period and then bid it out some sections out at least in '24 for some construction. Now I don't anticipate that we're going to do all four to six miles all in one shot. We're probably chewing some of these off as we go, but that's at least so on to show you basically the missing links that we have right now and that what we're going to be talking about with the different groups environmental that way. [46:29] Eric Johnson: Now this is as we get over to—this is City Hall right here. You know, how do we get across uh Levik? So this is where the um senior building is being built. We have an agreement with them for this purple line for an easement that that could happen. Um this blue line at least follows a portion of Maple Grove and then this property owner we have an agreement that we could head north and get up into that power line corridor there again as it runs to the east. [47:12] Jenna: Well that's what um at least getting up into we'd have as part of this Maple uh said project we are going to have sidewalk—six-foot sidewalk—at least coming to this point. And I think all along uh I believe going south that is all going to be brand new sidewalk over there as well. [47:12] Eric Johnson: There's yeah, nope, they don't. And that's what this orange line—this would be the new trail right here. So that trail would be a crossing right here, okay, and then yep directly into the city. Yep, exactly sure. [48:22] Eric Johnson: And so this is just you know some different scenarios: how could we essentially you know get through this Little Bake Road intersection and then start heading to the east? Uh the city is going to be rebuilding Lightning Drive; that's where industrial park is now. We're going to be doing that sometime in the next three to five years and it's part of that project that's when we would build at least this trail segment through here. [48:22] Jenna: From a cost standpoint, I mean what is the—like is the green ideal for where we would cross the vacant goal? I mean I just think of a shorter distance and it's already a corridor of some sort. [49:07] Eric Johnson: It's—it's a shorter distance. A lot of it is um it's uncontrolled at least from you know that would be a basically what we call mid-block crossing. Oh I see. You have to try and get your crossing at an at an intersection that way. Yeah so I mean that's the same thing—I mean this is just different things that we'd have to start looking at you know we do we have—we have a mid-block crossing down on on Maple Grove. Not Maple Grove, Morris Thomas. Anderson Road too. Ben Anderson Road as well, yep we have them. So if we've got the ability to avoid them, maybe it's a better route to go. So granted you have to build more trail but... [49:07] Jim Nelson: Yeah, one of these things they're up here it's a more interesting discussion if you're watching okay oh it's not on that screen for you Mike? Oh funny, sorry. [50:08] Eric Johnson: At that point there's existing trail from Stebner down into Stebner Park and then obviously you know this if I'm kind of going through here that's our existing trail right now. So then we reach ing walls and how to cross Hermantown Road and that's the same thing too we've been trying to figure out because there's a lot of wetland in that area. You know what's the best route? Do you go the orange road? Do you have that pop up on your screen? Did you lose it all on yours? [50:54] Jenna: No, we all have a pop-up right in the middle of the screen that says... [50:54] Eric Johnson: Oh! "Reboot now. Continue working." Oh, that's in the back. That's why it's easier using the conference room. At first I was like... after a while I'm like it can't be obvious, yeah. [51:16] Eric Johnson: Thank you. Thanks, Eric. Yes, I didn't see that on my screen. So it's the same thing. It's it's there's shorter routes available, but you start incurring more wetland issues. And that's what this orange line—that's the back side of the King Creek Townhomes—nice easy route, hooks up into our trail system, but extremely wet. You know the red's a little bit longer road here. It gets tough because you're along Wilkerson Road, so it's a little bit: how do you handle that scenario? Uh right through this portion the city owns this land—that's a pretty easy trek to make. [52:03] Eric Johnson: This section through here, the city already has easements in place. So in theory other than the wet of it, that would be easy. We at least have a verbal agreement with this property owner for this trail portion through here. [52:03] Jenna: I was going to ask about that because that's a future development but they're going to integrate it into their plan? That was a thought. [52:03] Eric Johnson: Yep. So right now that development's on hold. To see that it happens or not—no. This is that King Creek segment that gets down to the park. And then at that point working is down to the south and the west. The city owns most of this land already. We would need to deal with this property owner down in this 40 here. And then the thought is to get to essentially the St. Louis River Road corridor or follow the power line corridor as we work towards towards Proctor. I mean right now we have—I think it's 4.5 million. We're going to try to build as much trail as we can. But when we price this out back in '19, trails were generally $100 to $125 lineal foot; now they're almost $200. [53:12] Eric Johnson: So we're going to try to do as much as we can. It's—it's with trails it's a little bit easier because there's some more grant opportunities that you just don't get with parks. So and the nice thing about now having the recreation money is that can be used as essentially match money for other grants as well. So um for instance this trail section that had been built over by Stebner Park, we had an $820,000 grant through Legacy funds through the state of Minnesota of which we had to have a $540,000 grant or match, but we had that available. So now I said it if we could get another $600,000-$800,000 grant that could help help us trail along, yeah. [53:58] Jim Nelson: Yes sir. Is there a priority of which trail you're going to try to do first? [53:58] Eric Johnson: We're still figuring that out, Jim, to tell you the truth. Me personally, I would love to finish this section right through here, because that would have a continuous trail going from Stebner Park all the way down to King Creek Park now. I would love to see that. Uh once again, a lot of wetlands to try to figure out. [54:29] Jenna: Are you trying to figure out? I mean ideally you'd want to figure out where we're entering your living functions. Would it be easier as far as like the trails in the roadway or the— [54:29] Eric Johnson: Yeah, the timelines won't align. Yeah, because Uggstad is a '23 project and—and we're figuring at best the trail is going to be '24. So yeah, the hopefully at least with Little Big Junction, it's going to be in the right-of-way area and it will have try to minimize the impact to that that road right through there. Not that it's a thing now... [55:15] Jenna: But just for my curiosity: if we secure, you know, a bunch of property owners and there's a holdout... I mean, is this the situation where they actually utilize like eminent domain for easements or— [55:15] Eric Johnson: It may have to go that route. That would be some different ways that we have to figure that out. We had some issues on our sanitary sewer that took a long time to resolve. That's why I was thinking about the length of that process exactly. But that's—I mean that's what we want to get with a right-of-way specialist that'll help guide us through that process. So I guess the gist of it is is we're, you know, we—you know, it's great that our residents passed the recreation initiative. And so just trying to, you know, get some planning in place now that we've got some, you know, surety that these things can happen and let's—let's try to go about it, you know, quickly but also do it in a smart manner. [56:01] Jim Nelson: Sounds good. Okay, any other questions or discussions? Okay, um the new business—that's one thing I would add is that private planning to volunteer to step down being chairman. And as he said: how do we want to handle that in terms of not going through both of them but somebody quoted me and went back? I know it's been so long about you Mike, and that was the end of the day over, yes. And I've been here because I'm busy with several other things. I have trouble making it to summer meetings. I can get somebody insecure to be your old friend. [56:46] Eric Johnson: The um we'd love it that someone volunteered from this group and, you know, that we don't have to disappoint somebody but um it's more or less if, you know, if any of you have an interest in doing that. Uh obviously Gene and Dwight aren't here tonight, but um we haven't seen any vote tonight did the how we handle it whether or not if folks are interested and want to contact you or me or whatever? So we put together and say at another meeting we'd have a vote on if there's multiple folks interested? [57:31] Eric Johnson: I think that would be the best way to do it. I said you had to contact myself or you and to say, "Hey, I'd love to do it." Or you know, if you're not, then just don't call. But we will need a chair. [57:31] Jim Nelson: And um we have nobody volunteers—I'm not going to step away and forget everything because I like—I like the boards—but I'd like to see it be good for newborn somebody to step into it. You want to contact me to ask what it's like to do it? It's—in the area keeps it pretty simple and so pretty informal. It's not like being a city council chair—it's a little more formal and it's parliamentary procedures. So we'll leave it at that. [58:00] Eric Johnson: Pronounce it? It's kind of in that same vein of being informal. Uh third Tuesday of February, I'm not here that week. So I guess we have one of three choices: is we try to keep to Tuesday look at either the 14th or the 28th, or we don't meet in February. And once again, I don't need a decision this second but just wanted to make you all aware that on the 21st I will be in a different country. [58:47] Jenna: So I can't even pull up—you can't zoom in with a eight or ten hour time difference? So where's your dedication? What's that? So where's your dedication? [58:47] Eric Johnson: You know what I could probably do at least—and I've done this in the past—is just like send out an email or a memo just saying, "You know, it is what's transpired in the last month, this is what anticipate happening," and we could just handle it that way too. Yeah, because right now I don't anticipate anything that we need votes on. So yeah, that's a route we could go as well. [59:35] Jenna: I'd appreciate it even, yeah, if just an update with any evolving things and then decide if... [59:35] Eric Johnson: Okay okay. Yeah, but what I'll do then is we'll have some more information on Fickner at that point. I believe um well I would have had this meetings with the regulatory agencies regarding the trail saying provide some information that way. And then um possibly have some more firmer costs back from the uh playground provider. So I think I'll have some good stuff at least I can give you, you know, one or two-page memo, yeah, and at least keep you informed. Okay, so I appreciate that. It's um Iceland and then Paris. [1:00:20] Jim Nelson: Amazing. [1:00:20] Eric Johnson: Paris—my kid's been—like my kid's been taking French for years, yeah. He's 17 so I don't have very limited opportunities to travel with my child anymore. Uh Paris is beautiful. [1:00:50] Jim Nelson: Community communications... no other side? Then I would go for any reports from board members. So I don't have anything new. Um, I heard from a few people that are using the trails this morning and I was like: "This number we had last month we were finally cleared off!" [1:01:10] Eric Johnson: Yeah, I know that uh Public Works, they've with their limited staff they do a lot of work and great work for our city. So I know it took them a few more days than usual to get the trail open, but especially with that type of snow we had, it was tough to get through. Yeah, so um I know that um through the last couple years we've been trying to get the equipment that helps us take care of these trails a bit more. So um we appreciate the comment. [1:01:59] Jenna: Yeah, nothing but second that. We utilized the trail ourselves. It's nice because the sidewalks aren't clear where the sidewalks are so yeah. And Andy? [1:01:59] Andy Hjelle: Yeah, there's a motion to adjourn. I make a motion to adjourn the meeting. [1:01:59] Jim Nelson: All in favor? There's nobody objecting, you could go. So we are adjourning.