My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Parks and Recreation Commission - 06/10/1999
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Parks and Recreation Commission
>
1999
>
Agenda - Parks and Recreation Commission - 06/10/1999
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/27/2025 12:57:25 PM
Creation date
9/12/2003 12:20:41 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Parks and Recreation Commission
Document Date
06/10/1999
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
94
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
COblM/SSION BUSINESS <br /> <br />Case #1: Recommead Master Trail Plan <br /> <br />Mr. Boos expl~ed that they received only one response back from the request for proposals <br />(RFP) for the Master Trail Plan. He stated that they sent out information to four or five fin'ns <br />whom are specialized in trail planning, but SRF was the only one to submit a proposal. <br /> <br />Mr. Boos explained that SRF is very well connected to agermies that fund grants for trail systems, <br />he has reviewed the documents, and the proposal meets the letter of the RFP except for the cost. <br />H~ noted that as part of the proposal he requested a breakdown of the number of hours that <br />would be required and an estimated cost for each different section of the project to try and <br />eliminate some cost. Mr. Boos felt it would be possible to cut costs under Design Standards and <br />Operations and Maintenance. <br /> <br />Mr. Boos stated that it is important to get the process going and receive the grant dollars because <br />as development continues the more dit~cult it will be to proceed. <br /> <br />Commissioner LaMere questioned ifSRF would take care of getting grants. Mr. Boos stated that <br />is not included in the proposal, but noted 'the City lxas been successful in the pan with getting <br /> <br />Commissioner Rolfe questioned the klea of try~g to bond the whole project now and acquire all <br />the property needed before costs increase. Mr. Boos explained that it is hard to determine every <br />trail that will be needed in the future and it is more important now to fo~as on the Trout Brook <br />Trail Corridor first and then identif3, all the specific tria~ that ~ be needed. <br /> <br />Motion by Commissioner Osttum, and seconded by Commissioner Johns, to recommend t° the <br />City Council approval of the proposal submitted by SRF for the Mast~ Trail Plan with Staff <br />modifying the project to meet budget. <br /> <br />Motion carried. Voting Yes: Chair Cook, Commissioners Ostrtm% lohns, A~ LaMere, and <br />R. olfe. Voting No: None. Absent: Droegemueller. <br /> <br />Case <br /> <br />Name "Community Park <br /> <br />Mr. Boos explained that the Park and Recreation Commission is requested'to select a name for <br />Community Park #5 from suggestions made by the residents and also recommended naming the <br />creek at the same time. The park name suggestions were the following: Pebble Park, Oakbrook <br />Park and Oakbrook Stream, Willow Creek, Pebble Creek, Christmas Boot Creek, Oakbrook Park <br />and Oakbrook Stream, Drake Park, Oak Creek Park, Elmcrest Park, Plum Creek Park, and <br />Timber Creek Park. <br /> <br />Mr. Boos noted that Commissioner Droegemueller indicated he selecIed Oak Creek Park <br /> <br />Park and Recreation Commission/May 13, 1999 <br /> Page 2 of 5 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.