Laserfiche WebLink
<br />City Council <br />Parks, Trails, and Recreation Funding Discussion <br />3 <br /> <br />specific rather than supportive of general park operations or CIP lists. They are <br />typically not perceived as a revenue stream to fund CIP projects. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Municipal State Aid Fund - MSA funds are an important funding source for <br />City projects. Streets must meet certain criteria to be designated as MSA routes <br />and receive MSA funding. Further, we are only allotted a certain number of miles <br />(6.14) based on total miles of street (approximately 31) and are allocated funds <br />based on this mileage. If any of the allotted miles are not assigned to a route, the <br />annual fund apportionment is reduced. MSA funds can be used for trail <br />development on MSA designated roads. Several projects in the CIP would be <br />eligible for State Aid funding. Two projects that are listed in the CIP (Attachment <br />A) as utilizing MSA Funding in the near future should be discussed: <br /> <br />CP Rail Bridge and Countv Road E Bridge - The City Council asked staffto <br />bring back more information on MSA funding in order to make decisions about <br />these two projects. A summary of the current MSA balance and proposed MSA <br />funded projects in the CIP is attached for your review (Attachment B). Staff was <br />asked to verify that the cost estimates that have been prepared represent the <br />proposed projects accordingly. The CP Rail Bridge estimate is based on the <br />excavation of material and construction of structural support underneath the <br />bridge (i.e. retaining walls), construction ofretaining walls on either side of the <br />bridge to tie into the roadway elevation, and paving approximately 200 feet of the <br />trail directly adjacent to the underpass/retaining wall work. The estimate for the <br />retaining walls north and south of the bridge is conservative, because until a <br />design is complete, it is uncertain how extensive these walls will need to be. The <br />City of New Brighton was contacted to discuss the CP Rail on Old Highway 8 <br />and compare that to what is proposed in Arden Hills. This trail was constructed in <br />1990 and is similar in design to what is proposed in Arden Hills. New Brighton <br />staff has been unable to locate information on the cost of the project. <br /> <br />The estimate to construct a cantilevered sidewalk along the County Road E bridge <br />has been reviewed as well. Staff feels comfortable with the current estimate. <br />However, for each year the project is not completed, the estimate should be <br />increased by ten percent to account for an increase in construction costs. <br /> <br />POLICY CONCEPT <br />The PTRC is requesting that the City Council consider establishing a dedicated fund for park and <br />trail enhancement. This would essentially serve as a Park Improvement Fund. Specific projects <br />would then be presented to the City Council from a priority list by the PTRC and by staff. <br />Projects completed and the amount of money utilized each year would depend on various <br />opportunities and identified needs. This Park Improvement Fund would be utilized for park and <br />trail development, renewal, and maintenance. The current Park Fund could still be utilized for <br />projects. However, as noted earlier, it would not be able to be used for maintenance. <br /> <br />\\Metro-inet.us\ardenhills\PR&PW\Parks\Memos\Council Memos\Memo to CC regarding Park Funding Discussion with PTRC07-4.doc <br />