My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
05-02-2002 Parks Commission Agenda
>
Agenda Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2002
>
05-02-2002 Parks Commission Agenda
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2008 10:51:57 AM
Creation date
7/23/2008 10:43:45 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
49
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
' ~ ~ .1/18/79 <br />p. 2 <br />/~ Park Comm. <br />Park proposals north of LaBore Road were also treated <br />with the suggestion again that parks be considered before <br />development and acquisition or dedication is made by contractors. <br />Several suggested sites were offered by members. However, a <br />detailed facility was impossible since no plan except the Midwest <br />proposal was/is available. Several members proposed that a walking <br />review of several land sites be made when weather permits, including <br />the Scully property of approximately 47 acres, two areas east of <br />Edgerton, the area near Sextant, a swamp and small lake area .north <br />of Viking Drive between Edgerton and McMenamey with the possibility <br />of a nature center or trail. . <br />Several questions directed to Mr. Erkkila included (1) any <br />rules for park acquisition size -- yes, he said, standards are set <br />by the Metro Council and there are also some federal standards. <br />(2) Do standards apply to city-owned property. Yes, the county, <br />state or federal agencies do not differentiate on whether property <br />is city-owned or not. Sometimes grant authorities are reluctant <br />to give money if you cannot show control. <br />Tim also noted that the Metro Co wicil likes to see plans <br />for housing, including both low and moderate income development, <br />together with park proposals - - apparently rated against similar <br />communities . <br />Mr. Spooner thanked Tim for his input and discussion <br />turned to the terms of office for Park Commission members, with <br />no immediate resolution on that question. <br />Matters then turned to the question of whether any audit <br />had been done regarding the amount of money dedicated to park <br />development from each house built in the community since the <br />resolution became effective. An inquiry to the Clerk was to be <br />made by Bob DeBace. <br />Bill Sanders announced the next application for the trails <br />fund grant had been made. The contract for trail development <br />must be reviewed before a letter is directed to the State Planning <br />Agency. <br />The cost of tree plantings was discussed, with a suggested <br />expenditure of approximately $10,000.00. <br />There being no further business to come before the meeting, <br />it was adjourned at 9:10 p.m. <br /> <br />Edith M. Schultz, Secretary <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.