Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION <br />MARCH 3, 1994 <br />that the park system was receiving. Last year the <br />Commission did request funding under the l0~ CIP Budget <br />for reroofing of the Spooner Park band shell, tennis <br />court repair, and matching grant funds. A 10$ committee <br />was formed and reviewed the 10~ funding requests, and <br />these items were cut from the 10~ CIP budget. The <br />committee recommended that items funded with 10~ monies <br />be items that are short-term in nature, somewhat out of <br />the ordinary, and would not have another source of <br />funding. <br />Remerowski felt there should be some park and recreation <br />items funded with 10% monies. <br />Wehrle stated that he saw no reason for two separate CIP <br />Funds, and that everyone should be required to compete <br />for the CIP dollars on the same basis. <br />The Commission asked for some clarification of the nature <br />of the 10o CIP Fund and the criteria which must be met <br />for improvements to be funded with these dollars. <br />MITCHELL Johnson asked the status of the development of the <br />PROPERTY Mitchell property. <br />Staff reported that concept review of the Mitchell <br />property development proposal is scheduled for <br />consideration at the March 9th meeting of the City <br />Council. <br />Remerowski reported that the Vadnais Heights City Council <br />tabled action on the preliminary plat of the Mitchell <br />property development proposal lying in Vadnais Heights. <br />An issue of concern was the location of the park <br />dedication, with the Vadnais Heights Park Commission <br />recommending a land dedication of approximately 9 lots on <br />the top of the property, which Remerowski referred to as <br />Lot A. It was estimated that each of these nine lots has <br />a value of $60,000 to $65,000 or a total of $500,000. <br />The developer indicated that he would not be willing to <br />make this dedication. <br />Remerowski pointed out that <br />dedicate Lots B and C, Lot <br />Remerowski reported that Lo <br />area, therefore worthless t <br />the developer is proposing to <br />C lying in Little Canada. <br />t C is actually an easement <br />o the developer. The <br />13 <br />