The board’s attention was initially drawn to the prioritization of park projects outlined in the master plan. With the City Hall project underway, the board identified key improvement areas, including trail enhancements, ice rink development, restroom additions, pickleball courts, and the further development of Harmony Park. The challenge lay in ranking these projects effectively within a fixed budget of $50,000 allocated for park improvements in the upcoming year. One suggestion was to gather community input through a survey, while others preferred open discussions and rankings during meetings. A member highlighted the importance of clear prioritization due to budget constraints.

The popularity of pickleball took center stage during the project prioritization discussions. The board considered establishing pickleball courts, with a focus on the necessary dimensions and potential costs. Concerns were raised about avoiding issues experienced in nearby 50 Lakes, where courts were reportedly too short. The board discussed the potential for grants from the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to support the project and acknowledged the community’s potential to donate toward its realization. The conversation also touched on the possibility of expanding the number of courts in the future.

Budget considerations emerged as a topic, with the board informed that if the allocated funds were not fully spent, they might revert to the general fund, raising questions about the management of unspent funds. Members agreed that trail improvements should be a high priority based on community feedback, with several echoing this sentiment. However, the feasibility of an ice rink was debated, with maintenance challenges due to the lack of a dedicated Zamboni being a concern. The board considered starting with a simple setup and emphasized the need for expert consultation on rink maintenance.

Signage for the community garden was another focal point of the meeting. The board discussed a proposal for a logo to be displayed on the garden’s entrance sign, with rules and operating hours included. The inclusion of the city logo to recognize taxpayer funding was debated, with a consensus leaning toward incorporating it prominently. A suggestion was made to include a QR code for future applications, though the necessary software for implementation had not yet been acquired.

The discussion on signage extended to park signs in general, with an inventory review comparing Breezy Point’s signage to that of neighboring communities. The lack of trailhead maps in Breezy Point parks was noted, and a minimalist approach to signage was favored to avoid overwhelming visitors. Suggestions included using QR codes to provide additional information without overcrowding physical signs. The need for durable materials for new signs was discussed, alongside a mixed approach of simpler rule signs and decorative entrance signs.

Concerns about the community garden’s application process were addressed, with approved guidelines to be made available on the website. The board deliberated on prioritizing Breezy Point residents for garden plots and discussed the possibility of non-residents applying. The application fee structure differentiated between residents and non-residents, and a suggestion was made to adjust it if necessary. The board also explored community engagement efforts, including discussions with a local food shelf regarding a designated plot for them, potentially fostering a collaborative relationship.