My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
02-22-2021 Council Packet
LinoLakes
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2021
>
Searchable Packets
>
02-22-2021 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/30/2021 12:50:47 PM
Creation date
2/23/2021 10:38:51 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
Council Document Type
Council Packet
Meeting Date
02/22/2021
Council Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
84
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
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION <br />DRAFT <br /> 2 <br />Councilmember Ruhland asked if there is a check list for the Lino Park project; Mr. 44 <br />DeGardner suggested that the list is currently a rough draft but will be finalized in coming 45 <br />weeks. Staff is estimating project cost total at $250,000. Councilmember Ruhland asked 46 <br />how much the park building is proposed to cost and Mr. DeGardner said it’s still under 47 <br />discussion as to what type of shelter will be added. Councilmember Ruhland remarked 48 <br />that the current shelter seems to be a good structure and he wonders if it could be saved. 49 <br /> 50 <br />Councilmember Cavegn asked if there are plans to extend the off road trail in the area of 51 <br />Lino Park and Mr. DeGardner explained that would probably have to happen in 52 <br />conjunction with an Anoka County road project on Lake Drive because trail development 53 <br />is expensive. Councilmember Cavegn explained the danger that is posed for people 54 <br />trying to get to the park using the shoulder of the road. 55 <br /> 56 <br />Councilmember Lyden asked for an update on dog park discussions. Mr. Huelman said 57 <br />the Park Board has been informed that there’s interest in that type of facility. Mr. 58 <br />DeGardner suggested that the discussion would probably be appropriate as part of a 59 <br />strategic planning session. 60 <br /> 61 <br />Mayor Rafferty said he’s pleased about the attention to the Clearwater Creek area 62 <br />considering its location. He also noted that he’s watching the types of parks being 63 <br />developed in other cities currently. They are larger and multi-use and he’s interested in 64 <br />that discussion. 65 <br /> 66 <br />Public Services Director DeGardner explained how staff is drilling down on the details; 67 <br />tonight he’s hoping to get a preliminary approval to proceed with planning. 68 <br /> 69 <br />Councilmember Cavegn noted that staff plans to utilize the services of Landscape 70 <br />Structures – aren’t they an expensive option? Mr. DeGardner said staff has worked with 71 <br />them in the past and he feels the quality is there for the price; also they are included in the 72 <br />State level contract. 73 <br /> 74 <br />Councilmember Stoesz noted that there is currently a sign at Lino Park for Lions 75 <br />International; perhaps that is a funding source. 76 <br /> 77 <br />Councilmember Ruhland asked, what are the major reasons that Clearwater Creek Park 78 <br />was selected? Mr. Huelmann noted high use, wear and tear on the equipment and 79 <br />geographic location. Councilmember Ruhland asked what park would be the next 80 <br />priority? Mr. DeGardner noted parks that were built earlier and plans for work on some 81 <br />of those. 82 <br /> 83 <br />Councilmember Lyden said he supports the plans for the park facilities but he’s 84 <br />concerned about 1) having water (fountains) in the parks and 2) hard court plans for 85 <br />“Tower Park”. 86 <br /> 87 <br />The council concurred in supporting the recommendations and planning at this time. 88
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.