Based on the context provided, this is a meeting of the **Park Board** (likely Hermantown, MN). The primary speakers are **Eric Johnson** (Community Development Director), **Joe Peterson** (City Councilor/Board Member), **Jim** (Board Chair), and **Mike** (a representative of the local Baseball Association). [0:39] **Jim (Chair):** In the session for February 15th, the first thing we would do is uh do roll call. So Gene? [0:45] **Gene:** Here. [0:46] **Jim (Chair):** Jim? Here. Natalie? [0:48] **Natalie:** Here. [0:49] **Jim (Chair):** Kelly? Oh, there you go. Jenna? [0:53] **Jenna:** Here. [0:54] **Jim (Chair):** And Jesse? Jesse is now here. Okay, first order of business will be the approval of the minutes for January 19th. Anybody have a motion that they read the minutes to look at it? Okay, get a motion from uh... [1:24] **Jim (Chair):** Gene. So the minutes of January 19th are approved. Public discussion? No. I believe Mike, you're here for obviously baseball, so that's on our first agenda item under 4a. So okay, let's move on then to continuing business, and that's improvements of Keene Creek Park. [1:42] **Eric Johnson:** Well great, thank you. I'd like to kind of first apologize, this is for the most part the same agenda that we saw back in January, but at that time we did not have a quorum so it was a bit more of an informal discussion. So at that [2:09] January meeting as well as this evening, basically staff has been in conversation with baseball about wanting to utilize Keene Creek Park and the baseball field there for hopefully starting off with at least a practice field and then move eventually into the game field scenario. Staff's been speaking to Paul Senst quite a bit on what it will take to get that field into game ready, and it's a combination of things. It's going to be work on the backstop—obviously it needs work just initially to get it up to the level it should be—and then eventually the addition of an upper section for the foul balls. There'll be a couple areas that we need to extend some fencing on [2:56] to complete the fence around that field, and then eventually two dugout areas that we have similar to the other parks up at Fichtner, where we look at a concrete base and then actually fencing for the dugout with two benches in there. So at least from a budgetary standpoint from park maintenance, we do have some ability to at least do some of that initial fencing in 2022. The bulk of this more will be in '23, particularly the dugout areas. And Mike, please feel free to—I think you know I've been kind of talking back and forth a little bit—your thoughts [3:41] with the field and basically working at your end in the association and trying to get that infield up and going again. And maybe if there's any other type of skills you might be able to bring. And actually, if I can have you come to the mic, then we can get this recorded as well, make it official. [4:06] **Jim (Chair):** I'm not Mr. Carry though. Mike and I have the same teachers. Um, one question I would have would be: is there a hard number that anybody is giving you as far as the improvements to make it like into game shape? [4:20] **Eric Johnson:** We've just been doing budgetary things so far. We've been hearing anywhere from thirty to fifty thousand dollars. We kind of have a handle on dugouts because we've looked at those a bit more in the past; those could be upwards of about a good twenty thousand plus for each dugout area, that's the majority of the costs that way. We've been after some fencing contractors to give us numbers for other projects and it's been really hard to get numbers. [4:53] **Mike (Baseball Association):** Okay. We did actually, the board or the baseball association, did get a number for tearing the backstop down, replacing it, and extending the fencing to get to the outfield, and you're looking at probably about 40—with dugouts like around 45,000. [5:15] **Eric Johnson:** Okay, that's generally kind of checking with what we were thinking for this as well. [5:20] **Mike (Baseball Association):** And I know as a board we've talked about being able—we do have some monies available—that we would be willing to put into this project if we can expedite it somewhat. You know, I don't know if it's a possibility if [5:40] we could put like ten thousand dollars into it if we could expedite it to 2022, if that's just something that just won't work. [5:49] **Joe Peterson:** And I'm just wondering if there's some cost savings—I don't want to interrupt you Mike, I'm sorry—but just some efficiencies and stuff to doing it all the fencing at one time instead of having them come out you know? I mean, we have to do this that makes sense, but I think that's a discussion to have. Does it make sense from a cost—and we all know pricing just continues to go up—so does it make sense for us to just look at this in 2022 and especially if we can perform some sort of partnership to help with that cost and get it done while we've got them [6:25] there? I just... to me, I hate piece-milling things. You know, if we fix the backstop and extend the fencing that's great, but you don't have dugouts, so the use is limited. And we've been limiting that use for a long time already. But that's my thought, I don't know what anybody else thinks. [6:40] **Jim (Chair):** I think we might have talked before when we were over at Stebner field that really you didn't need dugouts right away, right? [6:49] **Mike (Baseball Association):** No, no, not a necessity by any means. Um, I guess I'll throw out there's an option too, Eric. I know this might not be the right forum for it, but we have some donors that are out there that are willing to put [7:11] probably more than a 500 fee for jersey assessment or whatever it might be or sponsorship. So—and I don't know what venue we would want to talk about this—but if we were to find somebody that would give us five thousand dollars and we put a banner on the backstop, we could certainly utilize that money too. [7:34] **Eric Johnson:** Um, yeah, this is definitely the right forum to at least start those conversations. I mean the city, we've been looking at general naming rights in a bigger picture, in a bigger sense as we're working on our community recreation initiative that way. And I think it's the same kind of... like if you had maybe somebody some firmer information [7:57] that you'd be able to to share and then we could present that. [8:02] **Joe Peterson:** So my question is, um, I don't think you're talking about naming rights, you're just talking more of a sponsor. Probably more of a one yearly, maybe a one-time sponsorship where they will give them a however big a banner for—and it may be one on the backstop and two on the fencing you know. And we've done that at other... we've approved those at other fields, so I don't know why we wouldn't want to consider that as an opportunity. I'm only one person but [8:43] since we're not talking about naming rights, Eric, I don't think that that is the bigger question. I think it's more... that's a great add if you can find a sponsor. We do have some specs that we try to stick to with those banners, that would be the only thing just so we're consistent within all of them. [9:06] **Jim (Chair):** Right, that one would be a different scenario because you really don't have an option right? It's not like... we're not going to face them at Maple Grove? Right, the road you're going into an area that's in the backwoods. And I think the biggest thing is not to put you know, a ginormous... it's a size thing right? I mean it's a different situation altogether than the Fichtner for sure. [9:24] **Joe Peterson:** But I don't think that would be an issue if you're able to come up with a sponsor [9:29] to try to help raise additional dollars for that. [9:32] **Eric Johnson:** The way we envisioned that initially was like you said, we set the parameters as far as sizing and orientation. We never got into the pricing; that was strictly between the user group and the donor. So it's the same, I think if you can at least work within the existing established guidelines that we have as far as the sizing, that way it's just between you and that donor on coming up with the dollar amount. [10:01] **Mike (Baseball Association):** Sure. I think a nice thing too now with Keene and the trail there, there's definitely going to be more activity and foot traffic and that type of thing so they'll get more visibility than they ever have before in that field. So for it to be a little worthwhile for them as a sponsor. [10:16] And we did make some changes in our association this year, so at the 10 and 11 year old majors level, we opted to stay in-house. So that will actually put more strain on us for field space. But as a board, we just didn't see the value in driving an hour and a half to Moose Lake and playing a three-hour game that you win by 20 runs or whatever. It's all about development, so it affords us the ability to choose how we develop our kids rather than playing in a league where you're traveling all over from Silver Bay to Moose Lake. [11:01] **Joe Peterson:** Yeah, I'm happy to hear that you guys are doing that. I think that it's a good move and focusing on the development, so that's great. And you're right, it brings you know, additional numbers in. And I mean if you're at that point, then it is a different discussion maybe about dugout needs. But I would like to have the conversation about what it would look like for us to include the dugouts from the front end when we have the fencing company there and get this into playing, you know, so that you really can use it for games. I don't know what anybody else thinks at this point. [11:42] **Jim (Chair):** Just so I understand, are we trying to make a decision today if we make a motion to do something, or is this more informative for another discussion later? [11:47] **Eric Johnson:** Honestly, I think it's probably a bit more of a discussion this evening, and the reason I say that is we just did a large transfer out of park dedication to cover the trails that we knew that that was coming, and just I want to see where we're at numbers-wise obviously within the park board budget. And then in the same thing too, are there other sources? If Park Board's at a low point right now, are there other ways to you know, come up with that say fifty thousand dollars that could be used towards this? So I think I'd like to at least have the next month to talk to Paul, talk to in particular Kevin Orme the Finance Director and particularly to John Mulder to say what other options do we have from a financing standpoint. [12:28] **Joe Peterson:** Well, and for them to understand a possible partnership on that. And I think we just need a formal quote so we know what we're [12:33] looking at. I think too, I do like the idea of boiling it down to one year if possible; I'd rather do that than split it. I think it's more likely to get cost savings if you can roll it into one contract for somebody than it is if you have to break it up. And as Councilor Peterson said, it's never going to get cheaper unfortunately, so if you've already got that economies of scale, then it makes sense to try to do it now. [13:08] **Jim (Chair):** One reason I talked to Mike about doing the dugouts later was just to get the backstop and the fencing cost if the cost is too high. That's the only reason I said maybe we should do the [13:19] dugouts later. [13:21] **Joe Peterson:** Yeah, I think that's a good point. If it turns out that it doesn't save you anything to have it at once and together, then it'd be good to do it in those two pieces. [13:38] **Mike (Baseball Association):** I understand that. Yeah, right around 13,500 to 14,000 to do the two slabs with the chain-link bench and the bench on there. So it is costly. [14:00] **Joe Peterson:** Yeah. And I don't know that it's an absolute necessity on our side, but the field itself from a backstop is probably... yeah, that affords us to start playing games there too, which would be beneficial. I just, from a liability standpoint, I want to make sure we're keeping [14:05] that in front of mind a little bit—of not having that protection with those dugouts, especially if you've got more than practices happening there. So I just think that should be... in my opinion, I think it should be part of the discussion. If we're going to have games playing there, not having a protected space for the players, you know, for the game? That becomes concerning and could end up costing us more in the end with other situations. So I think that should just be part of the overall discussion. [14:47] **Jim (Chair):** You would be able to get the information that we were talking about from finance etc. by say next month's meeting or something so we can discuss it? [14:52] **Eric Johnson:** If I want to know a bit ahead of time so we can arrange a contract we're going to get one to work this spring. [15:05] **Jim (Chair):** Are you able to say, share that quote? [15:10] **Mike (Baseball Association):** Yes, that'd be great. Thank you. I was hung up late at work so I wasn't able to print it off before. [15:15] **Eric Johnson:** No, that's fine, because at least I can you know, get that in front of the people at this end and start looking at our numbers. [15:21] **Mike (Baseball Association):** Mike, was that... the reason that you got that, it was probably in August? So I'm sure prices have probably changed since then. But there is two quotes that are probably 3,500 that I think we could use in-kind services to take fencing down—at least the chain-link part of it. I don't know if those holes are cemented in there possibly, but I know we could probably [15:38] resolve that with the rest of the skids here or something like that. [15:42] **Eric Johnson:** Yeah, that's the... that's kind of me around my house is I excel in demolition, but the other work... it's fun to bring in a professional. But no, let me work with different staff members here if you can provide that quote and see how we are fund-wise. I'll work to get that to the March Park Board meeting and then at that point look potentially for an action or a recommendation. And then depending on—I mean, because of the dollar amount—I think as a city we probably would have to go out and maybe request at least try to get additional bids, just for a competitive standpoint and for good use of public [16:25] funds. But I mean at the end of the day, if we don't get a response from any other companies, then by all means. But I think we really legitimately should probably be going and just putting a formal thing out or an email at least asking for bids, right? [16:40] **Joe Peterson:** Yeah, that's what our former City Attorney Mr. Overom would always say: it never hurts to have more than one, right? [16:53] **Eric Johnson:** And like so we can see the quote that you have. I don't know if that's the same company that Paul Senst has been speaking to... look at the area Dairyland? It's probably the same then. But yeah, we've got some ability to at least shop it out there to try to get more quotes and maybe look at more of a formal RFP or bid process [17:12] or at least just ask for additional quotes that way. [17:15] **Joe Peterson:** Surely. I like it. I like the discussion. I feel like we've talked about this amongst a few other items and we're finally seeing progress and movement on some of these things. And I think just the association's willingness to partner in a couple different ways on this is a great option for both of us to get this done. I feel like we have a pretty good board right now that's really truly out for every kid and it's not a bunch of people that are on the board for their own child, you know? [17:54] **Mike (Baseball Association):** Yeah, I think there's... I've seen some real positives. [17:58] **Joe Peterson:** Good. Well, we appreciate the partnership. [18:03] **Mike (Baseball Association):** Yeah no, and on that quote, you'll see the top two lines I believe will be for repairs over on Field 3 and Field 4. Oh, okay. We've already talked about remedies before. Yeah, I think traditionally each year Paul has x number of dollars set aside just for general repairs with the frost heave etc. that way. So—and they were just both backstops I think where there's a gap. Other than that, that's all I have. [18:38] **Jim (Chair):** Okay, but I appreciate your time thank you. [18:43] **Eric Johnson:** Mike, I have a separate question but regarding Baseball Association. I've heard but haven't been formally told that the association is working towards a "Vote Yes" group for the recreation initiative with Fichtner? Is that true? [18:57] **Mike (Baseball Association):** Okay, in fact, I think you are meeting tomorrow with two or three people. Yes, we have a meeting—myself and Joe Wicklund. I can't remember the gentleman's name off the top of my head who's reached out to me... Morgan? That's it, thank you. Yeah, tomorrow at 3:15 just to at least talk about the initiative in general and then dial in a bit more in Fichtner that way. And then I think Bob is actually on that committee as well from Baseball. [19:29] **Joe Peterson:** Are you merged with the other "Vote Yes" or are you guys doing your own? I don't know how that... it seems to me like we're trying to merge. [19:43] **Mike (Baseball Association):** I hope that's my hope, yes. [19:47] **Joe Peterson:** Yeah, okay. Yeah, because it seems the push is on to have... hopefully we can have one question, right? Hopefully that would be ideal. But I think you're stronger together. The community is stronger together with all three initiatives happening. But you know, there's not a formal association for the trail, so... I'm really happy to hear that. And whoever is part of that on the association or your group side, just being joined to that group. [20:14] **Mike (Baseball Association):** Yeah, and we'll get more messages out to our members as we go along here as to the importance of a "Yes" vote. [20:23] **Joe Peterson:** Yeah, that's great. Well, thank you for the work on it. It matters. [20:30] **Eric Johnson:** Great. Okay, all right well thank you. And hopefully you can join us in at the March meeting as well and we can have a little bit more information for you. [20:48] **Mike (Baseball Association):** Oh, for this meeting? Yeah, a different one. That's what... I know we have like 15 different people and obviously your name is not part of that 15, so yeah. Okay, do you have my email? [20:58] **Eric Johnson:** I do, yep. Yeah, make sure. All right, stay warm. [21:15] **Jim (Chair):** Okay, anything else for continuing business? No, there's not. Okay, new business would be the soccer association request. [21:18] **Eric Johnson:** Yes, we were approached by Soccer a few months back now that they were asking about the possibility of... they initially called it a subsidy, but how we've looked at this in the past has been a donation to help them to offset their water costs out at Stebner Park. So we have had a precedent here in the past, and it's come before Park Board prior. In that case, it was HAHA and the flooding of the outdoor rinks that they had, and we've been doing for a number of years now; it's a 20% donation towards their water bill [22:01] once again over their flooding. In the case of HAHA, that generally has been coming in around the 1,700, 1,800, maybe 2,000 level associated with it. So when we had this request, I worked with the utility billing department to find out how much water is being used out at Stebner and their particular charges. And so, in the '21 year, they had approximately $16,000 in water usage. Primarily 99% of it was meant for irrigation associated with the soccer fields over there. [22:47] **Joe Peterson:** What percentage? [22:48] **Eric Johnson:** 99%. They have about $300 plus or minus that's associated with restrooms and a concession stand. So what they were asking is a 20%—in that case would be approximately $3,200 on a yearly basis to help offset that cost for the irrigation. So now this is a little bit different obviously than flooding of a rink—the irrigation that way—because you can always water less. But at least something that I wanted to bring forward to the board here for at least some discussion and conversations that way, because this will eventually tie into the user agreement with soccer moving forward. [23:28] **Joe Peterson:** Eric, were those numbers from last summer? [23:30] **Eric Johnson:** They're from '21, yes. [23:33] **Joe Peterson:** So we all know, dry year. Did you happen to get '20 numbers or '19? [23:38] **Eric Johnson:** I did not, but I can. [23:40] **Joe Peterson:** I would just be curious. I mean, I think definitely last year was probably more costly for everyone, personal and business, than the association. I would like to look at a '19, '20, '21 year personally. I don't know what anybody else thinks. Not that that fact is in our decision, but I think for sure last year was high. [24:14] **Eric Johnson:** That's a good idea, because that's what we did for HAHA—we did look at over a three-year period. I apologize that we didn't do that for this one, but I think that would give us a bit better idea on, you know, once again, is this a true number or is this an abnormal? [24:19] **Jim (Chair):** And for some reason it's been a while since I've looked at the hockey room... I thought that it was a set amount, not a percentage of hockey? [24:34] **Eric Johnson:** You would know that better than I. I don't know why for some reason I didn't... hard dollar amount or not? [24:36] **Joe Peterson:** I think that we tried to cap it is what we ended up doing, just so we didn't have that unknown that way. That was the question you asked them, whether we pick a number or put a cap or something. And so you can do like a three-year running average, something on that line. Personally, just because it's predictable at that point, we can budget for that knowing what that amount is. I don't like just an open percentage number personally because of that reason. And then we can revisit that each time we renew their user agreement at that point. [25:04] **Eric Johnson:** Well, that's what I'll do then. Likewise for the March meeting is I'll bring forward those numbers and then—because right now, I mean, obviously we're not playing soccer—so we've got a little bit of time to get this worked out. [25:22] **Jim (Chair):** You could just make sure you're updating them on the conversation? [25:25] **Eric Johnson:** Sure, that's what I'll do. [25:31] **Jim (Chair):** Oh, that sounds fine. Yeah. For Kelly at least online too... Gene, they used to have soccer pull-tabs? [25:53] **Gene:** They used to pull in about a thousand, over fifteen hundred dollars. It was never a question, a dollar and two dollars, and then you pull them and you get winners in there. But a lot of money. Like if you go to Foster's, My Cover, or Skyline, or the Beacon, they have hockey ones there now. I think they're all hockey now. But you'll see people... Foster's has somebody attending it. It's not a machine. Like they have regulars there that spend serious money. But and now I think soccer totally pulled out and it's all Hockey Association. [26:47] **Eric Johnson:** It's just a paper slot machine. They're looking at this every year, right? We'd have a three-year agreement set with the user agreement and then we would revisit it. If we say this continues to work, we can accommodate it in our budget each year. Then at the next one that comes up in either '24 or '25, we could revisit it again and say: that worked, everyone's happy, or it needs to be more, it needs to be less. We'd have the chance to revisit it again but it would be for a three-year cycle. [27:34] **Jim (Chair):** I don't even think about anything that's a con to it. I'm just curious about other things in terms of... are the folks that injected the idea that we're paying for the activity? Those folks are using our parks for what we're doing. We're becoming a part of paying for the association activity. Not only that, that's a problem maybe in the public's mind or not? It's beyond what I know. [28:20] **Joe Peterson:** Well, I have to... I mean the reason why the hockey one started, I think it started before I was on Council. But I do know that it was discussed because it was the one sport and association that the city had no participation or cost into. And this flooding just happens on the outdoor rinks which is community use and association—it's mixed, right? And so it was the one participation... because a lot of the kids and everybody can go to those rinks and use it as a community space. And so it was decided that, like the soccer association or the soccer fields, you know, we do help maintain the costs associated already with all of that. So I mean, I get the mindset on it, but it is also a different situation—it's an apple and an orange. And I will say depending on the outcome of all the recreation initiative stuff, that might change the situation with the flooding if the city ends up moving forward with the rink. So that might go away in that capacity if then we own that building or whatever that ends up looking like. [29:34] **Jim (Chair):** The choice is hard to take things away once you give them to people, at least that's my experience. [29:40] **Joe Peterson:** At that point, then the city has definitely stepped up its game and is giving a lot more than a credit. So at that point, I think that discussion is appropriate. Not that that's the move that's going to be made. But this definitely is different than hockey. Like, you can't just say "they're getting it so we should get it," because soccer's gotten things as an association that hockey, from the city perspective, has not, for community parking use. So I'm not 100% on this one, but that's not my decision. I just want to get a feeling. [30:25] **Jim (Chair):** Also there was some kind of a slippery slope for... are you going to pay for baseball batting boxes and whatever? I mean, I just don't know what the slope is like. [30:30] **Eric Johnson:** Right, because we look at the dollars for things that are needed for maintenance and upkeep and that type of thing. You know, it's not like we have this huge budget. [30:39] **Jim (Chair):** Okay, for discussion point. You brought up something that I was going to ask a question about... In *Hermantown Star* two weeks ago, there was an article in there about the city taking over the hockey rink arena. What for what purpose? [30:52] **Joe Peterson:** Well, it's part of the initiative that the sales tax would then pay for. Another sheet which would be side-by-side to the existing. We have as a city... the school doesn't have the capability of doing that, the city does. The school couldn't build another hockey rink—that funding is not there, Jim. Or the city has the funding to be able to do this, and that's why you see in the majority of municipals, certain cities that the municipality owns these arenas. It's typically a city. We do have the funds, you know, with the sales tax approval, to be able to fund this and Fichtner and our trail system in the event that the voters supported that, which is their decision. There's agreements and conversations happening right now about that relationship and how all of that will work with the school currently owning the arena and that space. So there's things still being worked out on that. I can't tell you exactly what that picture is going to look like, but I can tell you everybody's intentions are for the good. It is in need—I would argue that with anybody. Our numbers are huge, it's a big draw for our community. The reason why a lot of people move to Hermantown, like it or not. And it is... I mean, you know, it's just like Fichtner is in need too, huge for recreation and to support the sport, the teams, the association. [32:44] **Jim (Chair):** Is that going to cost the Park Board money out of the Park Dedication fund? When you take over the arena? [33:00] **Joe Peterson:** No, that's all sales tax dollars. [33:04] **Jim (Chair):** But if the sales tax does not pass? Is the city still going to own the arena then? [33:14] **Joe Peterson:** No. It's going to revert back to the city part of the school? Yes, that transition will not occur unless that is approved. We also have and are getting support for a four-million-dollar bonding dollars from the state to go towards that rink as well to help pay for that. Senator Bachtold... he was our big champion for the wellness center, he was our biggest champion by far, and he is also a big champion for this to happen because he understands what it means to this community. So we are working on trying to get that through the House and the support from our House Representative. But that would also help with those dollars too, Jim. But in the event that sales tax is not approved and the voters don't vote for this to move forward, it would just remain as it is. [34:18] **Jim (Chair):** Okay, that was my question. I hope that answers... I can't give you all the answers, but I can give you that. [34:32] **Joe Peterson:** Well, we at one time we had a deal with Marshall too, because Marshall couldn't get funding so the funding was paid to Hermantown and then Marshall got money for that. I mean, that's what we have that in existence for. So that was a good partnership. [34:55] **Eric Johnson:** Then on 5a, do we need a motion now for a decision, or...? I think let's just continue it and then we'll have better information in March and then we can take action at that time. [35:05] **Jim (Chair):** So should we motion then to table? [35:08] **Joe Peterson:** Let's do that, yes. I make a motion to table so we have the rest of the information we were asking for. [35:18] **Jim (Chair):** Second? Jenna's got it. We'll give it to Jenna, there you go. [35:25] **Joe Peterson:** Kelly, do you have anything on this or are you good with that decision? [35:34] **Kelly:** Yeah, definitely. I think it's probably a good idea just to get a few more numbers. [35:45] **Eric Johnson:** Okay, well great. Well thank you then. Like I said, we'll look for this in March then. I guess I'd like to move on to 5b. Thank you. If you recall, this will be the third or fourth time we've tried to get a Transportation Alternatives Grant for a trail segment. We had presented last year for a section from Morris Thomas to Hermantown Road. They awarded the top three applicants and we are, unfortunately, number four. Now this year, the fact that we have two finished trail segments on both sides of this book-ending it, I'd like to hope that we've got some better luck with it. Usually hear towards the end of February if we get awarded or not. We applied for six hundred thousand dollars; sometimes you may only get a portion of that. So hopefully at the March meeting I'll have some good positive information regarding that. The one thing that we would need to discuss further—because it's for the 2026 funding cycle, there may be the opportunity to build that trail earlier, but you wouldn't be reimbursed that money until '26. [37:05] **Eric Johnson:** So right now there is a proposed development located in a good portion of this property; maybe there's some opportunities, once again that economies of scale, that some of this trail work be done as part of that project assuming it goes forward. So it's... at least we'll take the first step and see if we can secure some of this grant funding and then move it forward from there. So this is one that will be continued as well; this is more of an update for everyone. And then actually if I could maybe just jump on under that same... this just came in early this afternoon and this is a piece of paper that I forwarded to you Kelly. What I have in my hand... I was contacted by the Greater Minnesota Regional Parks and Trails Commission (GMRPTC) about a grant opportunity. Now this has to do more with, as I read the grant, a bit more of the programming type activities associated with the trail in the city. There's potentially $212,000 available statewide. If you divide this equally between each of their regions, it's approximately $35,300. [38:16] **Eric Johnson:** What I want to do is find out some more information. Can we start using that money, if we're successful with the grant application, for park furniture? That's one thing that we need obviously along our trails: benches, picnic tables, additional signage, bike racks, etc. To see if those type of equipment would fall under this grant. Because right now, if it's more of a programming-based grant, that's something that we don't really have a mechanism to go forward with. Perhaps maybe if we had a partnership between ourselves and the YMCA that took it over, that might be a route. But given the fact that this is a May 31 deadline, it might be kind of difficult to really iron that out. But what I'll do is verify—can we use this more for park equipment?—and bring it forward once again to the March meeting with some additional information. [39:03] **Joe Peterson:** When I read this, it has equipment, but it's more recreation equipment. But to your point, I wonder if there is an opportunity because it's outdoor programming and outdoor outreach activities. And we can pay for programming staff and contract workers for that. If nothing else—I mean, you'll find this out—but it might be a great opportunity to have that "Y" and those workers and that cost to take some of their programs onto our trail. I think that would be a really cool partnership. So I don't know, I'm cautious to think that... it doesn't appear to me that picnic benches, as much as we wish, are covered under this. It appears that it's more what we just talked about. [39:58] **Jim (Chair):** So it would be like pictures and things? Wouldn't be considered accessibility enhancements for walks? [40:15] **Eric Johnson:** Yeah, I'll reach out to this contact and find some more information. And then a lot of it gets into... if it is equipment, it's how you write the grant. If you start talking about accessibility and things that way, that could help out. It would be nice to have some of that paid for. There's a huge need for especially the benches for folks to take a little break on that trail. [40:48] **Joe Peterson:** But yeah, and the nice thing about... I'm sorry... no, it's more to come. Yep. And the nice thing about this grant is it doesn't require a match. [40:57] **Jim (Chair):** Yeah, thank you, appreciate it. A question, just not aware it comes in here, but I'm curious where are we at with the trail up like Keene Creek? As I remember, that wasn't basically in blacktop over there right? [41:15] **Eric Johnson:** It has been blacktopped now because we're in the process of closing out that grant with the DNR. A big part of it is they try to have an in-field inspection. But it's my goal in this first quarter here to at least make that final application. I want to say there's plus or minus three hundred thousand dollars out there to basically finish up that grant. We had eight hundred and twenty thousand dollars total, but all told, that whole trail system was probably in excess of a million dollars actually. I know it was greater than a million dollars. But considering, I think I'd call it a high success. Even people I see walking down now into Keene Creek that typically you just wouldn't see anybody going down there. [42:12] **Jim (Chair):** Okay then, any board member reports? I'll just leave it open to whoever says they have one. [42:28] **Joe Peterson:** I don't really have a report, but I do think we have to maybe have a discussion regarding attendance of board members. Especially when we're not even getting responses to meetings to let us know. We're a small group and hopefully the work will get even bigger and more important, and it's hard to worry every month about having a quorum so we can be effective and get work done. I know in January we weren't even able to act on things. I just... we've had this discussion at a council level regarding all of our boards and commissions and I think, you know, it's important we don't just have bodies but we have active bodies that are attending and participating so that we can keep moving things forward. But I open it up to everybody else for discussion. [43:14] **Natalie:** Yeah, when you have more people too you get more ideas and that's always good too. I agree. [43:19] **Eric Johnson:** And you know what's happened on another board that we had some time-sensitive things... in that case we couldn't have a quorum and it starts pushing people off four to six weeks. You start missing... in that case it was getting towards the end of a building season so it can have ramifications. [43:40] **Jim (Chair):** Once again, this is for all boards. When I came on, there was a rule that we had that you could only miss two or three in a year without having shared a reason, you're supposed to let you know ahead of time. [44:00] **Joe Peterson:** Yeah, the chairman knows. I was going to say that seems very reasonable to me, I mean if you're making a commitment to have some sort of accountability. [44:07] **Eric Johnson:** We have since softened that language in the ordinance because we did look into that when we had the report to the council. So it's not quite that clear unfortunately as it had been in the past. [44:20] **Jim (Chair):** I don't know what the answer would be. I know that—and you know—that I've had some trouble with this last year. I've been able to make it a couple times, I've been surprised once (I thought it was one day, it was a different day). But it's like I had a challenge just because I was getting into babysitting. With the COVID stuff, things were different and sometimes I'm excited about taking care of my grandkids, not to be about what I'm supposed to do. But nonetheless, I think it is important that we have some kind of an expectation along that line. And as you know, I almost resigned from the board for that reason—that I was worried I wasn't able to keep up with what was going on just because of convenience. So it is important, but I don't know what we do. [45:10] **Joe Peterson:** Well, I know it's been addressed on others and I think, you know, I think I just wanted everybody to share their feedback and thoughts on what they think. I just think we're too small to have continued non-attendance and then not even responding if you are going to be there or not. Now we all know the last couple years have been really unique with COVID and the online has been a great option—and Kelly, I'm happy you're able to hop on. But I just think we have to understand: what do we want and what are our expectations? And if we do have that situation with individuals, it should be a reach out to see if they do want to continue to participate and let them know that we need them to be attending and to make that commitment. And if they're not able to, then we can fill that with people that are attending and active. But that's my vote personally—or my thought. I don't get to vote on this one but it's definitely my thought and it isn't to be harsh, but in all reality like I said, in January we couldn't take action on something because of that reason. For Park Board, our timing sometimes is very critical because of our seasons. Especially as we get into that April/May, if we miss a meeting, it definitely has a harder effect in terms of getting everything done for summer type stuff. [46:53] **Jim (Chair):** Would that be something that then we would have the chair take care of and contact members if they're not hearing that they're coming? Eric, you've been sort of the contact... should the chair start having a role? Or should we just be contacting you? [47:04] **Eric Johnson:** Well, I think that's worked well because with the exception of one person this evening, I heard back from everyone so I had an idea coming into this meeting what was going to happen. As far as notification, I'll talk with Mr. Mulder about that and does it just come from myself as the staff person? Just maybe a friendly email initially and then more of a formal response after that. Because we appreciate everyone's time—you've done a lot for the community—but it's... we have decisions that have to be made and it's beneficial to have the quorum. [47:50] **Joe Peterson:** I think on the other board what happened is that the staff reached out to those individuals and said "You know, what is your level and your interest? We're struggling with quorum and wanting to make sure that we've got people that are participating. Are you wanting to continue on with the board, and if you are, are you able to make that commitment?" Because if you can't make the commitment, you still could come to the meetings and be included in the discussions in public when it works for them, right? Yeah for sure. So I think that's what's been done in the past. If everybody's okay with that, I think we can ask Eric to do a reach out. I do know Jesse has... I mean, he's a busy man anyways, he works full-time, he's got young kids, he's got a side business, and he is now co-chairing for the "Vote Yes" committee. So I know he himself has taken on an additional task and I think he would probably appreciate an opportunity to say "I've appreciated my time," but he just has chosen to put his time on this, which is great. But I'm not sure with Dwight. I didn't hear anything from Dwight? [49:15] **Eric Johnson:** I was curious, I was actually going to ask you after the meeting because I haven't heard how Dwight's been doing. I know that his health has been sensitive. He went through some surgeries in the fall. I think I last heard from Dwight a month or so ago and he did say that he was been having health issues. [49:40] **Joe Peterson:** He might even appreciate an opportunity to say thank you, it's been good, but I just have other priorities right now. [50:04] **Jim (Chair):** Is there anybody on the favorite part? Do we need to vote? [50:06] **Eric Johnson:** No, I'll just follow up. Like I said, I'll talk to Mr. Mulder but the plan is at least I'll reach out. Once again, the friendly email to inquire of these couple different people and then if we have to take some more formal action we will from there. [50:23] **Joe Peterson:** And I like the idea of it staying at a staff level because I think it's hard for a chair to be put in that position sometimes too. And the chair positions can change where more likely the staff person stays a little more consistent. [50:40] **Jim (Chair):** Okay, any other reports from the members? With that then, what we need to say... well we have to decide... the dates are still probably the same Tuesday of next month, right? [50:56] **Eric Johnson:** Yes, exactly, in March. I guess just to put it out there for everyone: April is our traditional field walkthrough. Unfortunately, that third week I may have a chance for a family trip. So I might—once again weather dependent—do we actually have our field tour the second week of April or maybe the fourth week of April? I think the fourth might be a better option. Even this winter so far, I mean, I think we may still be under snow. [51:40] **Jim (Chair):** Let's sustainably say that right now and that's what's going to work out. I know I might be at it that week. [51:50] **Joe Peterson:** If it works for everyone else then? Well, can you just send out maybe an email and everybody can respond on what works best? Or a doodle poll? [52:03] **Eric Johnson:** Exactly. And especially those field walkthroughs... I mean, same thing, if it needs to be first Monday of May or something. I mean obviously with Council, but I think we have a little bit more flexibility traditionally with those. [52:21] **Jenna:** [Inaudible comment about the carpet/step] [52:25] **Jim (Chair):** That there's a step down there and it just... the carpet stays continual so it's deceiving. Okay, is there any motion to adjourn? [52:45] **Joe Peterson:** I make a motion to adjourn. [52:48] **Jenna:** I'll second. [52:50] **Jim (Chair):** And therefore, Board is adjourned for today. Great thank you everyone, appreciate it.