Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Capital Improvements Plan topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Minnetonka Park Board forwards 2026–30 capital-improvements plan to council, asks for stronger equity and accessibility review
Summary
The Minnetonka Park Board voted unanimously on June 4 to forward the parks-and-trails section of the city's 2026–2030 capital-improvements plan (CIP) to the City Council with a formal request that council and staff apply a stronger diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) and ADA/accessibility review before final approval.
The Minnetonka Park Board voted on June 4 to recommend the parks-and-trails portion of the city's 2026'—2030 capital-improvements plan be forwarded to the City Council, while urging the council and staff to apply a stronger equity and accessibility review before final approval.
Staff presented the parks-and-trails section of the CIP and asked the board for feedback on whether items were missing, should be reprioritized, or should be removed. Leslie, parks staff, told the board that "each year the city does a 5-year capital improvements plan" and that the department was "looking for feedback" on priorities and timing for park projects.
Why it matters: the CIP groups large-ticket park projects and multi-year funding commitments that shape where the city spends millions of dollars on trails, playgrounds, fields, restoration and amenities. Several board members said the documents and project pages lack explicit language showing how accessibility and inclusion were evaluated and recommended steps to make that review explicit before final council action.
Park Board member Caleb pressed staff and fellow commissioners to treat ADA and broader equity considerations as a higher priority in budgeting and project design. Caleb said city guidance and past plans did not make equity and accessibility sufficiently central: "before we start spending it, we should be reassessing whether it's really focused on accessibility and inclusivity." He asked the board to request that DEI staff meet with the board, and that staff add an "equity note" to project pages moving to council so the council can see how accessibility was considered.
Other board members urged a practical approach. Board member Dave agreed the board should press for stronger equity review but cautioned against delaying trail and natural-resources projects that are underway; he said some items, such as Emerald Ash Borer response and trail connections, are time-sensitive and likely would not be reshaped by a DEI review.
Staff and board agreed on two near-term, staff-led steps: ask Jace Alexander (the city's DEI staff liaison) to brief the board on tools and expectations for equity review, and have staff incorporate a clearer statement about accessibility and inclusion in the CIP pages that go to council. Leslie and other staff said they already use internal equity tools for some work and offered to present how those tools apply to parks at an upcoming meeting.
Formal action: a board member moved to forward the CIP pages as recommended by staff with a strong note that the Park Board wants to see more consideration given to DEI and accessibility; another board member seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously with the following recorded votes: Hanley (yes); Lerman (yes); Schultz (yes); Simurski (yes); Vitale (yes); Chair Ingram (yes). Board member Christie was absent for the vote.
Timing and next steps: staff noted the City Council will discuss the CIP at a study session on June 15, and that council action on the overall budget is expected in December. The Park Board asked staff to invite DEI staff to the board's August meeting to overview equity tools and to identify how the board can incorporate equity review into its advisory work.
