HomeMy WebLinkAbout8.a. Trail/Sidewalk Improvement PlanAGENDA ITEM: Trail /Sidewalk Improvement Plan
AGENDA SECTION:
New Business
PREPARED BY: Andrew J. Brotzler, P.E City Engineer
Dan Schultz, Parks and Recreation Director
AGE
A
ATTACHMENTS: Resolution, Plan Map, Cost Worksheet
and Parks and Recreation Commission
Minutes
APPROVED BY:
RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1) Motion to Approve the Trail and Sidewalk Impro ement
Plan and 2) Motion to Adopt a Resolution Ordering the Project and Authorizing the
Preparation of Plans and Specifications for the 2006 Trail /Sidewalk Project.
4 ROSEMOUNT
BACKGROUND:
Added Segments
West side of Shannon Parkway
West side of Shannon Parkway
West side of Shannon Parkway
Original Proposed Segments
East side of Shannon Parkway
155 Street West
155 Street West
153` Street West
Claret Avenue
Claret Avenue
CITY COUNCIL
City Council Meeting: November 15, 2005
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Over the past two years, Staff has been working to develop a plan to maintain and enhance the City's trail
and sidewalk system within the existing developed areas of the community. The goal of the plan is to
repair and replace existing deficient trails and sidewalks, to add new trails and sidewalks to the system to
provide connections of exisung trails and sidewalks, and to work towards developing dual trail /sidewalk
systems along the City's collector streets.
As part of the process, a public informational meeting was held in January 2004. Notices for the meeting
were mailed to all property owners adjacent to the proposed improvements and published in the local
newspaper. Comments received at this meeting and in follow up to the meeting have been previously
provided to Council at the July 28, 2005 City Council Work Session.
The proposed plan, cost estimates, funding and project prioritization were reviewed with Council on July
28, 2005 and again on September 14, 2005 From these meetings, Staff has updated the trail /sidewalk
plan, cost estimates and project pnontizations in accordance with Council direction. The changes that
have been made include the addition of three trail segments to the proposed 2006 project These
additional segments along with the originally proposed segments are as follows:
Dearborn Path to 141' Court
Dander Court to Connemara Trail
Daffodil Path to 133' Court
Connemara Trail to 13604 Shannon Parkway 40
Chippendale Avenue to Claret Avenue
Claret Avenue to Shannon Parkway
Claret Avenue to Shannon Parkway
153r Street to 155' Street
155 Street to Cornell Trail West
12A
12B
15A
1
2
3
4
5
G \ENGPROJ \Pedesman Facility Plan \OrderPri- AuthPISPCCli -i5 -05 doc
The estimated project cost for the improvements proposed to be completed in 2006 is $366,000. This
cost will be funded with encumbered funds, 2006 Pedestrian Improvement Funds and Park Dedication
Funds. Park and Recreation Department Staff will also be preparing and submitting apphcanons for grant
monies, with any monies received being used to reduce the necessary Park Dedication funding level.
The Parks and Recreation Commission reviewed the plan and recommended to the Council m a 3 -1 vote,
not to use parks improvement funds for the project They felt the funds should be saved for future
projects that do not have funding already in place. The minutes from the meeting when this item was
discussed have been attached.
Attached are an updated overall trail and sidewalk plan, exhibits highhghtmg the areas proposed for 2006
and an updated worksheet identifying the proposed improvements, estimated project costs and ranking.
As previously discussed, a schedule has not been determined for proposed improvements after 2006 and
will be reviewed annually as funding becomes available. Again, the City's Street Maintenance Operating
Budget currently includes $100,000 annually for pedestrian improvements. To work towaids developing
projects of adequate scope in order to receive savings with economy of scale, it is recommended that this
annual amount continue to be encumbered to develop a project funding level of between $300,000 and
$400,000. As this funding level is reached, the next series of projects on the hst will be programmed for
completion accordingly.
SUMMARY:
At this time, Staff is recommending that Council approve the Trail /Sidewalk Plan. Pending Council
approval of this plan, a copy of the plan will be added to the City's web page.
In addition, Staff is requesting Council authonzation to prepare plans and specifications for the proposed
2006 Trail /Sidewalk Project Moving forward with the project, the Parks and Recreation Department will
be taking the lead on the project coordination and pubhc involvement process.
2
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2005
A RESOLUTION ORDERING THE PROJECT AND
AUTHORIZING THE PREPARATION OF THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS
2006 TRAIL/SIDEWALK PLAN
ENGINEERING PROJECT #ENG0014
WHEREAS, the City Council has received and accepted the 2006 Trail/Sidewalk Plan on November 15, 2005
for Engineering Project #ENG0014; and
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Rosemount hereby orders the
improvements of the 2006 Trail/Sidewalk Plan, Enguieermg Project #ENG0014.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Rosemount orders the preparation of
plans and specifications for said Improvements of Engineering Project No. EN00014.
ADOPTED this 15th day of November, 2005.
ATTEST:
Linda Jenunk, City Clerk
William H Droste, Mayor
Motion by: Seconded by:
Voted in favor:
Voted against:
0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O V N N W W W W
0 00)tO W V rnmmrn
U of N c W m N r N
E t r aJ V W M V W
7 N N M M M M
U t 9 ei hei ei es es ei ei es
o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O y
01
0 O m M N W N 0 0 0
0 o g W of c r (o co ro
W W N N N
ei ei ei en to bi to ei eip
CD m m a)
21
0 U 0 0
0 0 0 0
0000
O 0 O O
C ammo
N CO 0 0 E 0 0 0 0
m C C C C
E E E co
C J J J J m m m m ca
0 3 3 a a a
E m m m m-g 9 y m y
T) U U U th c O O O
ro 2 2 2 2 o o c C
0 C C C C j j j
6 0 8 8 U E E r
O 0 0) a) 0 0 0 m m m
a ZZZZOUE»in
a
0
C C T T
c<
L a) m m
N m a a 3 0 o r
0 0 o 0 m L- 0 m 7 0
c c E
M 0 c c m= o U
o CO m L 0 C U
7 L L C V C M
o or o ar
E< m N 0 0 O
N 2� c c a) 0 a o L
m a 2 c U a
co E 0¢inv `o
0 E a t m r a 'o 0
c a C) to m c t
or N N N N 0 m m
U U U U r r 0 O O
a) 0 0) 0
CO M 999
co N CO
0 0 0 0
a 3 3 3
g 333 o m.Zc
m a 0 0 0 C C a a a
y
c"").= aw co c Q C o o o
2 C L L-p N m C C C
L r a )L0 00CQi 0
Et
E E E
E Q r N M O N N N m N
N
N Z
Y
0 r N M M' N W r W 00
R
9002
000000000000 0 0000000 000 00000 c+) 0) 0
N a M r a' M 0 r N O O M W M r r M r M N r W W N V N
W r (D 0) 0 th N W W 10 V 0) N N 0 N O O r r W V r O) N t(1 W
V W r O m 03 00 CO W r'Q 0 0 0 O W W N N V M m N W W W r
0
O O O r r r N N M Y V R V V R Y
C
0 a
63 t3t9nent e696v«nest» tetnentnvs__t »,.tatateus«st».n n
nX
E
M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r r 000 0 0 0 0
0 M 0 o a o a 0 0 o 0 0 0 m
n CO M CO r N C N r CO 0) CM M R O W r N W co r co co 00 o
W W O N T? N N o ciW va M N O N to O N 0) r N O m M M CO CO O) N r N r 04-1 CO CO K N W M W CO N ei to ei Q Ti. a
tli es to es t9 es es es ei ei E9 es es es ei es es es es ei E9 N Q.
J C
a m CO
N E J
m O
N a
a LL
N U E
u
to C a
C
N
Y Y Y Y L r Y L n L L L L L Y Y Y Y Y Y r.c L L L L L L a
m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m w el E
3 3 3 a a 3 a a a a a a a 3 3 3 3 3 3 a a a 0 0 a 0 a
CD 0) 0 0 0 m 0) N N O) m
O V 9 9 o co 9 o fp V) N o w co 9 O v v v v to V) N 2 N h t0 N
J 7 J 7 J O J D 7 3 J J J J J J J 2 co
to N W N O O N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W N N N N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CO
C C C C C C C C C C C C C CC C C
CD o 0 0 O] m m C c y
m m m m E E E o E E E E E E E o O o 0 m O o O 0 o E E E E E E E E 2 o 0
Y U 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 U U U U U U 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 c 3
U U U U
C C C C m m C m m m m m m m C C C C C m m m m m m m m o C
O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 -J
000010 1 06De0 e0 ro oO mu0666666E0iM a0 nu06060Z) 3 26
o c
0
0 L
Y Y G
T m
m o 0 a c 00
9 c a (0 N NY(� U m Ea 3 N E ED, al
E
C C C
Scoria? N .L.. y cq V 'O E o m 7 0)
cS
o d moo o in a t m m cn m E 7 a o 0
a a) cn o o t'cn m m o L E U� 02,0E02 o r o 0 0 ct t o Loo o c o p E E
o oc 'Ea °OOm� o r9 oL m a)��m o❑ o Ea 2
c c 0000 o-o n o C m 0 o U 0 0 0
LLcTT 0s E °0N0Z3 NO)00 OTin UY a _N
0 o J r o m m O O m_ O o h o o-, CO W c,) m U E a
N N h E Q Y Y O D O m O i T C m 0 2 1 0 U T 3> O
a o m m a a 0 S E ms 0� 3 u 0 0, 2 N 2 d a) s a 3> o m
a CO m m m o to
QQ din 0 0 Din m V7U 0 >0 m 00 m c E y c
d d E o a c o$ 'o a) c E L L U o C c L o c a a- a o
m m o tmn .C i o a t O t r D 0 00 0 0 0 2 t o o m c 0
UUUrUCOCOrOrrOrrmZrmmUUrr1-W006 /.2 0 0
3 m o
a
N o O) m o 0 0 0 o o N O 0) 9 d a
9 99 _0999999 m
000 0) 9:47$ 9 o S E
N N N 9 N N N N N IIi N 9 9 a a o o Vl u) C 9
L L L N Yi N N N Ur N N N N N N O O 0 9 -C L L t 0 .0 0
N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 In N (n 9 y 7 7 7 7 U
o m c 2 o c c o 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 a m i 3 a w m 3 c w u o i w a caw
a) Nd m 0 d 0 3 3 3 z m 3 3 0>>> 0 m a 9 m m m m 3 a
L 2 1 E Y Y 1 t Y Y O o 0 0 0) 0 'C.. m m m m m m O N N
m ea. I- a CO a CO CO a a¢ Q as c C CU a L 000 N C
F 0 a m cc cc C C C 0 0 0 0) 0 9 9 0 0 0 o 0 O E O c
E E 0.5.-F" C C C C C C C M 111.10 T O Y a 9 C C C C 'O v
(n n c m m m m m m E c 9 c� c� c� t� 0 0
O O V m 0 0 L L L L L L m 0 o m o m m 2 O 0_.,...
UUU❑ UcnvJ(ntnwocommm mm0001- 0°<2Z2 EN
M
O a) V
cow r W W W 0) 0 r N N N N m N N N M m M M M M M E E o
9
0
co a
a
m 0
O r N M O N W r W T O r N M at N W r W W O N M R N W r 7 J
N N N N N N N N N N M M M M M M M M a a 4
r N Q
pauluualea ag of
PARKS RECREATION COMMISSION
Regular Meeting Minutes
September 26, 2005
APPROVED
Members Present: Mike Ehason, Enc Johnson, Mark Jacobs, Kelly Sampo
Members Absent: Leshe Defies
Staff Present: Dan Schultz, Director of Parks and Recreation and Sonia Honl, Recording
Secretary
Student Volunteer: None
Others Present: None
1 CALL TO ORDER: Johnson called the meeting to order at 7.00 p.m.
2. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA: 6. c. Old Business: Final Plat Glen Rose Development
3. APPROVAL OF THE AUGUST 22, 2005 MEETING MINUTES and AUGUST 8, 2005
WORK SESSION MINUTES: MOTION by Jacobs to approve the minutes of the
August 22, 2005 meeting and the August 8, 2005 Work Session, 2005 SECOND by Ehason.
Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Motion passed.
4. AUDIENCE INPUT: None.
5. DISCUSSION (Response to Audience Input): None.
6. OLD BUSINESS:
a. Portable Restroom Enclosures Schultz provided four examples of enclosures and cost
estimates for each type of enclosure. We were unable to get a quote for a poured -in-place
wall structure as the vendors we contacted were too busy with other construction to do a
project like this Schultz recommended that the enclosure identified as Example 1 be built at
Chippendale Park. The cost of the enclosure would be approxunately $500 Per Schultz,
this would be a good Eagle Scout project, with the City supervising the construction The
enclosure would be built in the spring of 2006, as we would not have time to complete it this
fall We would start with the enclosure at Chippendale Park, sec whether it is vandahzed
during the spring and summer, and then move forward with building enclosures m other
parks Jacobs asked about other materials that might be used to build the enclosures, such as
the composite material used for decking. Schultz stated that he thought the first enclosure
should be a wooden structure, and that we should see how this works before possibly using
other, higher cost materials. Ehason stated that he had never seen a portable toilet burned
that was in an enclosure.
Johnson asked about the timeframe for building enclosures m other parks. Per Schultz, this
would be based on complaints received. If we are able to locate the portable toilets at other
parks so that we don't receive a lot of complaints and don't have problems with them being
tipped over on a regular basis, we might not need to build additional enclosures. We could
review the need for the enclosures annually and Install them as needed The reason we are
building the enclosure at Chippendale Park first is that we have not been able to find a
portable toilet location that makes everyone in the neighborhood happy, and we have
received complaints from neighborhood residents about this for several years Johnson liked
the idea of having the enclosures as the standard for all of parks with portable toilets. He
would like to look at which of the designs we would use per park, and felt that Example 2
would be a good choice for some of the larger parks
PARKS RECREATION COMMISSION
Regular Meeting Minutes
September 26, 2005
Sampo wanted to clarify that we would revisit this issue once a year and decide if additional
parks need enclosures Per Schultz, one of the things that was briefly discussed at one of the
work sessions was service levels /standards and updating the parks master plan based on
what's happening with the comprehensive guide plan Making portable toilet enclosures a
standard item instead of reviewing this every year to see if there are any issues might be
something that we would add to the parks master plan $300 -$500 per structure is not a lot
to spend to spruce up the park The enclosures do help prevent tipping because they are
locked in place so they can't be pulled out and tipped to the side or blown over during a
storm. Johnson had two recommendations: 1) That we sec bow the first enclosure works
out, and if there are no significant issues, he'd like the Comimssion to talk about making this
a standard for our parks Future parks would then be designed with this m mind, depending
on the size of the park. 2) That we develop a plan to determine the parks that currently have
portable toilets, and budget for the installation of enclosures at these parks. Hopefully we
could budget so that more than one park per year could be done, similar to the installation
of park signs.
Schultz recapped that the enclosure at Chippendale Park will be completed in the spring of
2006, and that we would know by the middle of next summer if we hke the way it looks and
if it functions well. Per Schultz, we've included Miscellaneous Improvements Projects m the
CIP budget for 2006 and we'll be talking about the CIP budget next month. These are funds
that can be spent on small projects like this without the need for City Council approval. The
funds must be used for new projects only. MOTION by Sampo that we a build a portable
restroom enclosure as illustrated m Example 1 at Chippendale Park m the spring of 2006.
SECOND by Ehason Ayes: 4 Nays 0 Motion passed.
b. Climbing Structure at Birch Park The 2005 Capital Improvement Budget included
$12,000 for a climbing wall /structure at Birch Park. We sent out proposals asking for quotes
for a climbing wall /structure /rock not to exceed $10,000. The remaining $2,000 in the
budget would be used for site work, curbing, and safety surfacing. We received eight
proposals offering a wide vanety of options All of the proposals came in at $10,000.
Schultz reviewed each of the options After discussing the size, various features, and pros
and cons of each option, the Commission decided that the play structure from Flanagan
Sales, "The Rock was the best choice. MOTION by Jacobs that we select the option
from Flanagan Sales, described as "The Rock for Birch Park. SECOND by Ehason
Ayes: 4 Nays 0 Motion passed.
c. Final Plat GlenRose Development The final plat for the GlenRose Development was
submitted by the developer. The prehminary plat was compared to the fmal plat, and they
were found to be consistent. Schultz was bringing this item back due to the concern the
Commission had with the underpass. He wanted the Commission to know that the
developer has included all of their requests, including the necessary easements for the
underpass Schultz was recommending approval of the final plat with the same conditions
as recommended with the preliminary plat 1) Cash dedication with the payment to be made
at the rate at the time of payment. Fees as of September 26, 2005 would be $3,000 per umt
76 umts, totaling $228,000 m park dedication fees. 2) The trail connection at the mid
block of 140 Circle needs to be identified on their plan as a future connection to the north,
giving us access to Connemara Trail. 3) Grading is allowed m the park as per the plan, with
only the seven identified trees to be removed from the northeast corner of the park. 4) The
developer will pay for all trail costs including those on City property. 5) Increase the buffer
at the northeast edge of the park with additional plantings to create a buffer from the hghts,
etc. 6) The apphcant dedicate a pubhc trail and access easement over 100' between Hwy 3
PARKS RECREATION COMMISSION
Regular Meeting Minutes
September 26, 2005
and the southern private street for an underpass and a 10' easement for a sidewalk system
along the southern side of the pnvate drive to link with the trail adjacent to the overlook
shown on the plans date stamped July 12, 2005. The applicant is required to install the 5'
sidewalk m back of the curb of the private drive around the pond, termmatmg at the private
driveway or some reasonable location acceptable to staff. The applicant shall dedicate a 400'
temporary easement between Hwy. 3 and the western pnvate drive that shall be in effect
until such time as the City constructs an underpass or the City vacates the easement To
facilitate the future construction of the underpass, the southern private drive shall have a
945 1 elevation at the western edge Schultz reviewed the location map, the final plat, and
the proposal drawing for the underpass. Sampo asked who would build the underpass. Per
Schultz, the City could construct the underpass at some time in the future. We'd work with
the City Council on budgeting for this. MOTION by Sampo to recommend that the City
Council approve the final plat for the GlenRose Development with the same conditions as
the preliminary plat approval. SECOND by Eliason Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Motion passed.
7. NEW BUSINESS:
a. Director's Report The Parks Improvement Fund Balance as of August 31, 2005 was
$1,119,871.89. We will be receiving parks dedication from the GlenRose Development in
the amount of $228,000, and by the end of the month we will receive $420,000 in parks
dedication from CPDC for the Brockway Development. Bills from Meadows Park are
coming in. The Meadows Park playground equipment is in, the backstop is m, and we are
waiting for dry weather to complete the installation of the sun shelters. No Dedication Fees
were received last month. Interest was $4,943 03 Expenditures were $6,275.10, for material
for building the border around the playground at Meadows Park.
Rosemount Community Center Parking A memo of understanding between the City and
Rosemount High School is now in place to allow overflow parking at the Rosemount
Community Center (RCC). Once the school runs out of student parking passes, they have
access to 44 parking spaces at the RCC The RCC will have access to the 44 spaces should we
need them for RCC customers. Approximately 20 students are using the available parking
spaces.
Pedestrian Facility Improvement Plan At the City Council's work session on
September 10, 2005, the Council reviewed the proposed 2006 Pedestrian Improvement
Project There were no objections to moving forward with the 2006 projects. Schultz had
asked the City Engineer to include the comments from the Parks and Recreation
Commission meeting, and he did. They discussed using $46,000 m parks unprovement
funds in 2006 to add trail connections to areas along Shannon Parkway that they wanted to
prioritize These sections were Shannon Parkway, from Dearborn to 141 Court; Dander
Court to Connemara Trail, and Daffodil Path to 133 Court The City Council has taken off
the long -term funding plan and they want to look at this on an annual basis. Per Schultz, we
will bring this project to the Parks and Recreation Commission on an annual basis, looking
for recommendations and talking about funding opportunities. The City Council would
look to use park improvement funds, and we could write grants to the DNR for funding
those trail connections on Shannon Parkway from Dearborn Path to 141 Court, Dander
Court to Connemara Trail, and Daffodil Path to 133 Court
There were concerns among some of the Commissioners about using parks dedication funds
for completion of these trail segments. At last month's meeting, the Comrmssion had
suggested loaning the funds or exploring other funding options to speed up the
PARKS RECREATION COMMISSION
Regular Meeting Minutes
September 26, 2005
improvements and complete them as quickly as possible. It was not their intention to give
the funds without having them paid back. They felt that if completton of these sidewalk and
trail connections was a safety issue, the improvements should be completed as soon as
possible, and the funds should come from another budget The Commission was concerned
with setting a precedent for the future by using parks improvement funds in this manner
They questioned whether parks dedication funds could be used for this type of project Per
Schultz the new trail connections are a justifiable use of parks improvement funds Jacobs
asked about the viability of getting outside grants. Per Schultz, there was about a 20°A)
chance that we might get a DNR grant. There are some other grants that we could apply
for, but those would be hit or miss. Schultz suggested a few options to consider The
Commission could recommend delaying the improvements on Claret Ave from 155th to
Cornell, because that's an internal type of connection. That would reduce the amount
needed for 2006 improvements by $51,000, which would cover the amount of parks
improvement funds the City Council had proposed using. The City Council could pnontize
the Shannon Park segments over the Claret Ave sections. Another option would be to
recommend that they drop certain sections of Claret Ave. so it will fit into the budgetary
projections If the Commission would prefer that park improvement funds not be used for
this project, they could make a recommendation that the City Council not use park
improvement funds for the Pedestrian Facility Improvement Plan or ask the City Council to
tepriontize the project list, because in the near future we are facing opportunities to use
significant amounts of those funds on other facilities such as an athletic complex, etc
MOTION by Jacobs to recommend that the Pedestrian Facilities Improvement Plan
consisting of the items identified as being completed by 2017 be accelerated to be completed
by 2007 with no funding from the parks dedication fund. SECOND by Ehason Ayes: 3
Nays 1 (Sampo) Motion passed.
Sampo thought we should consider using parks improvement funds for the improvements.
She was fine with moving up the completion time, she just felt that some of these were
responsibilities of the Parks and Recreation Commission
BMX Area Schultz included information from the League of Minnesota Cities about the
BMX area m the Commission packet. Staff has also spoken to the City of Eagan, and they
had received the same mformation. The area just to the east of the skate park was recently
mowed as part of annual maintenance This gave us the opportunity to look at the terrain,
and it appears that it would actually work quite well We would not have to do too much
grading to prepare the area. It's relatively level, although there are some areas that need to
be filled in. We could probably do that fairly quickly, and may be able to get it up and
running this fall We're trying to contact a couple of other groups to see what would be the
best material to make the jumps with. Schultz felt that we shouldn't give them free reign to
use their own tools and equipment to rebuild the jumps. We will purchase and post signs
similar to those at the skate park, re- wording the signs so they are appropriate for the BMX
area We will try to have something started in the next couple of weeks Sampo asked if
there would be weather related issues would it be closed if it rains? Per Schultz, we really
have no way to close it because it's an open area. The understanding will be that with this
kind of facility, the weather will affect it somewhat, but because we're going with the smaller
jumps it should be safe m almost any weather.
Interpretive Trail Plan Planning continues on this project and an updated version is
not yet ready for review. Schultz will bring this item back for the Commission to review
when it is complete.
Great River Energy Parks Dedication Update Great River Energy recently
contacted the City via a letter regarding our recommendation on collection of parks
dedication fees for their subdivision in Rosemount Originally our City Attorney had
recommended that we collect parks dedication on the entire site, which is approximately 160
acres Since receiving the letter from Great River Energy and reviewing this further, our
City Attorney is recommending that we only collect on 80 acres in the subdivision. Great
River Energy is also contesting the dollar amount per acre that is approved as the cash
dedication per acre for industrial land. They claim that the fair market value of the land is
$15,000 per acre instead of the $50,000 per acre that is the fee according to our Fees and Fee
Policy Based on state statute, we cannot charge over the fan market value. Per our City
Attorney, if Great River Energy provides the proper information showing that the value is
less than our Fees and Fee Policy identifies, then state statute calls for using the fair market
value for the amount per acre to be paid. No one from Great River Energy has contacted
Schultz to discuss this matter Our City Attorney will be writing back to them regarding their
concerns, and Schultz felt that we would hear back from them soon Once we hear from
them, negouations will start. Schultz has told our City Attorney we will try to be as fan and
equitable as possible in this matter.
Agenda for Meeting with Farmington Parks and Recreation Department
Schultz verified that the Commission members had received a copy of the agenda, and
briefly reviewed the list of items to be discussed It's a special meeting that will be run by
the Farmington Parks and Recreation Department. They will be taking the minutes.
Johnson asked where the three sections that make up the $46,000 were listed on Pedestrian
Facility Improvement Protect list Per Jacobs, they are subsections of segments on the list
Johnson asked for clarification of what we were asking them to swap out. Schultz explained
that if the approach was to drop something from the 2006 project list, he would recommend
dropping segment five which was ranked sixth. Johnson asked which segment number
would replace it. Per Schultz, it would be replaced by sub segments of segments 12, 14 and
15. Johnson asked if it would make sense if they went that path that we reclassify what
segments 12, 14, and 15 look like so we know this has already been done.
8. ADJOURNMENT
PARKS RECREATION COMMISSION
Regular Meeting Minutes
September 26, 2005
MOTION by Sampo to adjourn the meeting. SECOND by Ehason Ayes: 4 Nays: 0
Motion passed. The meeting was adjourned at 9.00 p.m
Respectfully submitted by
5
Sonja Honl,
Recording Secretary
14ST_ST CT
K I
0
�ONNEMARA TRL
CONNEMARA Q
PARK -z
JENPORT
SHANNON
PARK
0
LEGEND
22
300
600
EXISTING BITUMINOUS PATH
EXISTING CONCRETE WALK
PROPOSED BITUMINOUS PATH
PROPOSED CONCRETE SIDEWALK
EXISTING BITUMINOUS PATH TO BE
REPLACE WITH CONCRETE WALK
SEGMENT NUMBER
PROPOSED 2006 IMPROVEMENTS
SEGMENTS 1, 2, 3 4, 5,
12A, 12B, 15A, AND 41
WSB
Assocootes. Inc
\NFRASTRUCTURE @CHEERING
an
701 Xenia Avenue South, Surte 300
Minneapolis, MN 55416
vAwimeheng.00m
70064144/ Fm7e31N14700
PLANNING CONSTRUCTEN
2006 IMPROVEMENTS
PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
IMPROVEMENT PLAN
SROSEMOUNT
MINNESOTA
WSB Project No 1566 -00
Nov 15, 2005
FIGURE
1
1
a
z
Er
w
01
CLARET lR
cc
153RD ST W
us a
155
ban
1 6
U
i
CAS APE PATH
ST
uu
155TH ST
0
4
/Po,
a
0
W
1 2ND W
z
d
OTH ST E
ELTIIUL 5
aA�g� -dla
lid
1 R1 T
CORNEAL 1RL
158TH ST W
WIND
PARK
w a
4 rt s .1 1;
I
S
0
110
T W
c.
W
15
AYCEE
PARK
156TH ST W
151ST ST W
CLARET'
PARK
Ud
0
T
300
ffi'
T
600
LEGEND
EXISTING BITUMINOUS PATH
EXISTING CONCRETE WALK
PROPOSED BITUMINOUS PATH
PROPOSED CONCRETE SIDEWALK
EXISTING BITUMINOUS PATH TO BE
REPLACE WITH CONCRETE WALK
22 SEGMENT NUMBER
PROPOSED 2006 IMPROVEMENTS
1124
SEGMENTS AN
D 41
WSB
Assam
SVMMI 1 I
701 Xenia Avenue South, Suite 300
Minneapolis, MN 55416
WNw W66eng.Cee1
161&,.100- Fa1
�FRASIRUCTIRE °ENONEERING F PLWNN3 CONSTRUCTION
2006 IMPROVEMENTS
PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
IMPROVEMENT PLAN
SROSEMOUNT
MINNESOTA
WSB Project No 1566 -00
Nov 15, 2005
FIGURE
2