Laserfiche WebLink
When Ms. Bloom questioned if such a path would be considered an ADA surface, <br /> Member Stenlund advised that MnDOT was building some with gravel. <br /> Chair Vanderwall opined that seasonal trails (e.g. ski trails discussed but not <br /> included) had not been incorporated into the original Master Plan. <br /> Member Stenlund questioned if it was better to have a seasonal trail, if you <br /> already owned the land or no trail at all if funding was not available. <br /> Ms. Bloom noted that there were several well-beaten trails or footpaths identified <br /> on the map. <br /> Member DeBenedet opined that Member Stenlund's suggestion made sense, if the <br /> public understood that development of the pathway would be a staged process, <br /> with it graded, aggregate applied, and compacted for a period of time until and if <br /> funding could be found within five (5) years. <br /> Ms. Bloom reminded the PWETC that County Road B might be a conversation, <br /> but feedback from property owners was needed before moving too far along. <br /> Member Stenlund suggested another area for"low hanging fruit" may be to <br /> consider single-track pathways, or off-road cycling paths in more wooded areas. <br /> Mr. Schwartz advised that this discussion was held as part of the Parks and <br /> Recreation Master Plan process, with Member Gjerdingen noting that this was <br /> already happening in Reservoir Woods. <br /> Chair Vanderwall noted his observation on a recent visit to Fort Wayne, IN where <br /> bike clubs were maintaining off-road bike pathways; and suggested this made <br /> sense rather than their maintenance becoming a city obligation; noting that bikers <br /> can be highly-motivated to maintain those paths for their enjoyment and use. <br /> Member Gjerdingen opined that a metro area segment of the Minnesota Off-Road <br /> Cyclists would jump at such an opportunity. <br /> 6. Assessment Policy Revisions <br /> Ms. Bloom presented a revised Assessment Policy (Attachment A) based on <br /> discussion at the March 2012 PWETC meeting, and incorporating those changes <br /> as well as reorganizing the policy for easier use. Ms. Bloom reviewed and <br /> highlighted those revisions, including added language for the Introduction <br /> Statement based on previous discussions, based on guidance from language f the <br /> League of Minnesota Cities (LMC) Assessment Guide (lines 1-10). <br /> Ms. Bloom addressed special benefit test language (e.g. appraisals); various lot <br /> configurations in determining assessable frontage and formulas to calculate that <br /> frontage; and clarification of the long side/short side of a lot, also added to the <br /> Page 9 of 16 <br />