Laserfiche WebLink
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION — MARCH 21, 2011 8 <br />3.0 Grants for Parks, Trails and Recreation and Overall Regional Trail Analysis <br />Committee Chair Scott stated since the 2002 Parks and Open Space Plan was developed, the <br />PTRC has maintained a list of potential trail segments for development and these priorities are <br />reviewed annually. He explained they would like to discuss priorities with Council regarding <br />grant opportunities as well as the importance of an overall regional trail analysis. He reviewed an <br />Arden Hills Pathway map provided to the Council. <br />Mayor Grant encouraged the PTRC to seek grants for all levels of trails as the Council is open to <br />opportunities to stretch City funds. He pointed out that the Safe Routes to School trail is very <br />well used and is a benefit to the community. <br />Councilmember Holden suggested that the PTRC meet with our Public Works Director to <br />identify costs related to each of their priority projects as the cost could be an important factor. <br />Committee Member Kramlinger questioned if cheaper trails could be built to save costs; such as <br />using crushed limestone instead of a paved surface. <br />Parks & Recreation Manager Olson explained that when grant dollars are used, ADA <br />compliance is mandatory and, therefore, the non -paved surface would not comply. <br />Councilmember Tamble commented that the unfinished surfaces would be difficult to maintain <br />in the winter. <br />Mayor Grant thanked the PTRC members for their participation in the joint work session and the <br />Council returned to their discussion on Agenda Item 2.D. <br />2.D I -694 / TH51 Interchange Project <br />Public Works Director Maurer explained that according to MnDOT, there weren't enough noise <br />reduction benefits to justify the cost of the noise wall but they have committed to covering <br />$1,050,000 of the cost of the noise wall with the remaining $475,000 to be the City's <br />responsibility. He explained that there must be at least a 5 decibel reduction per property which is <br />then measured against the cost of the wall to determine if the cost is justifiable. Under the new <br />Federal law, he explained, this wall would never be proposed because it does not meet the cost - <br />effective criteria. <br />Councilmember Holden questioned how the City would come up with the $475,000 balance. <br />There was some discussion about assessments and how many homes would actually benefit from <br />the noise wall. <br />Public Works Director Maurer stated only 30 homes would actually benefit (per MnDOT <br />funding policy) and as far as assessments, that would be difficult in this situation because the <br />benefit of the noise wall varies from one property to the next. <br />