Based on my review of the total spending cost savings impact from the report, both points above would be more than enough reason to replace the playgrounds the Mayor and city council decided to remove to reduce initial spending. #2, I don't even know how you could put a $ amount on if anyone were to contract any illness from a crowded playground and expires due to the illness, not to mention the long term effects that the families would have to deal with that are currently unknown but are being identified. This all could simply be reduced or even avoided by replacing the playgrounds and having more social distanced playgrounds, in fact you should be considering increasing the amount of playgrounds. Apparently unless this situation is experienced by the individuals making the decision then the decision that are made is considered to be the best decision and everyone else should just go along as sheep. It seems the tactic being used is to keep constituents uninformed until the decision is becomes irreversible and there is no choice but to accept it.

One last point. What message is this sending the community when you reduce what we created as a harmonious environment to raise a family. I would think adding playgrounds and amenities to the city would be encouraging for residents or potential future residents thinking of relocating to Windsor, that the city is a place for families to come and grow. Instead I'm seeing an influx of residents coming to Windsor to retire and driving our real-estate through the roof. There should be some kind of balance. I guess the bottom line is more important to our Mayor and city council than raising families and communities. Is there a plan to replace parks with retirement homes in the future that we are not being informed of, is removing playgrounds phase 1?

Regard,

Nick Varacalli