Parks Commission Agenda Packet 08-21-1997
--- '>
,.
.
Agenda
Regular Meeting. Parks Commission
Thursday, August 21, 1997 - 4:30 p.m.
Members: Larry Nolan, Fran Fair, Earl Smith, Robbie Smith, Rick Traver
1.
Call meeting to order- ?: Cf I
3.
Consideration of approving the minutes for the regular meeting
June 19, 1997 V--:J~' Q..l\.d YV . J d-I \1
. _ SL\'\oo\ 0\J . .~ ~r\L
Add Items to the agenda - ') _' _ f\ -(\O{'i--n 'r ~ lft
)_ v,o \' '3.....v,v
West Bridge Park Playground Design - Pam CampbelVRoger Mack
2.
4.
5.
Discussion on the Tree Ordinance and Planting Ordinance - Steve Grittman
Discussion on re-forestation programs _ Jeff O'Neill \. CO"'P 6/\ :3 \2'-"1" P,,(;,
6.
7. Dis_c~s.sion-ef requesti~gJ~mIlpre~-park plan -"---------------------- -
. cGJ/~chedUleBUdge;M:~ng - ~<rf1 t{'2P -5pu/ft~
-9~-llis~':'i~ amendment to park fees on buildmg permits ~
I I)"" {/., /'- I
10. Request for snow removal equipment ?JW~ {/)Iv...<- .+" (64-( , 1 JJ II f\ jtA v ,/
f".\::J ct~ PJrJ{l-d.v/\f-11l1t/t /1J1
11. Discussion and walking tour of design 0 Klein Farms Park: ·
12. Updates:
~A. Hockey Association at September meeting
ct----Na1iQ~~!- G~~rjL~ral1liJ)g _Ce~~~ --
-C. Pathway along RIVer ------ ----- -- -.-
_~.___ .!:_-. _~asement from John Bondhus - - -~
_D. IST""EA: grant~ - - - --- - -_ _ _ _-)
13. Added items
.
Self ~
~ OfcL1/i~
/ reL eGr t," pi-
5)1luV
~o~1 (J~V---
14. Adjourn
.
.
.
Members:
Staff:
MINUTES
Regular Meeting. Parks Commission
Thursday, June 19, 1997.4:30 p.m.
Larry Nolan, Fran Fair, Earl Smith, Robbie Smith, Rick Traver
Jeff O'Neill, Roger Mack, Steve Grittman, Wanda Kraemer
1. Call meeting to order.
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Larry Nolan.
2. Consideration of approvin~ the minutes for the regular meetin~
May 22, 1997 and the Special Meeting June 5, 1997.
3.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY EARL SMITH TO APPROVE THE MINUTES
OF THE REGULAR MEETING ON MAY 22, 1997, SECONDED BY ROBBIE
SMITH. Motion passed unanimously.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROBBIE SMITH TO APPROVE THE MINUTES
OF THE SPECIAL MEETING ON JUNE 5, 1997, SECONDED BY RICK
TRAVER. Motion passed unanimously.
Add items to agenda.
There were no items added.
4. Discussion on the Shermer Addition park are8..
Steve Grittman, City Planner, reviewed the Shermer Addition Park with the
Commissioners. Grittman had included the Commissioner's suggestions from
the walking tour June 5th. It was agreed to require cash instead ofland,
except for a basketball/volleyball court, in this addition because of the large
park already next to the development, a pathway system will be needed to
connect with the current pathway system, and the parking lot will need to be
restored if the road is changed eliminating the present lot.
5. Discussion on the design and budget for W est Brid~e Park.
Pam Campbell, Chair of the MCP Design Committee, reported on the results
of the meetings that have been held to re-design Bridge Park. Campbell
explained there have been many suggestions that range from thousands of
Page 1
.
.
.
Parks Commission Minutes - 6/19/97
dollars to all volunteer help. The main items the committee would like to see
yet this year would be demolition of the concession stand and relocation of
the playground equipment.
Roger Mack, Street and Park Superintendent, added the playground
equipment budgeted for 1997 could be used in Bridge Park. The
Commissioners agreed this should be researched. Pam Campbell volunteered
to work with Roger Mack on the selection of the playground equipment.
EARL SMITH MADE A MOTION, SECONDED BY FRAN FAIR, TO
REMOVE THE CONCRETE CONCESSION BUILDING AND THE
PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT AT WEST BRIDGE PARK. THE NEW
PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT SHOULD BE INSTALLED AT A LOCATION
TO BE DECIDED BY THE MCP DESIGN COMMITTEE AND CITY STAFF.
Motion passed unanimously.
6.
Discussion on the landscape issues for Cardinal Hills 6th Addition.
Commissioner Rick Traver reported he had spoken to four landscape
nurseries for ideas on low maintenance ground cover to be planted on the
banks of the pond areas. There was not a ground cover that anyone could
suggest that would be no maintenance but Red and Chewing Fescue Grasses
or Comvetch would work the best.
The Commissioners discussed the intersection of School Blvd. and Fenning
Ave as a very visible place, because of the Middle School, and a more
manicured appearance should be created. After a short discussion, it was
agreed that a landscaped comer of Dwarf Honeysuckle Shrubs and
woodchips would be attractive and yet be as little maintenance as possible.
RICK TRAVER MADE A MOTION, SECONDED BY EARL SMITH, TO
COMPLETE THE CARDINAL HILLS 6TH ADDITION TEST PROJECT
USING THE FOLLOWING GUIDELINES:
1.
PRAIRIE GRASS IS NOT TO BE PLANTED IN THIS AREA
2.
ADDING DWARF HONEYSUCKLE ON CORNER OF SCHOOL
BLVD. AND FENNING AVE. WITH A GROUND COVER OF WOOD
CHIPS
3.
PLANT RED AND CHEWING FESCUE GRASSES ON THE BANKS
Page 2
.
.
.
8.
Parks Commission Minutes - 6/19/97
OF THE POND AREA AND THE AREAS NOT COVERED WITH
WOOD CHIPS.
4.
REMOVE THE FENCE
5.
COMPLETE THE PROJECT BY THE FALL OF 1997.
Motion passed unanimously.
7. Discussion on the name for Outlot A Park.
After a short discussion, ROBBIE SMITH MADE A MOTION, SECONDED
BY FRAN FAIR, TO ACCEPT FREEWAY FIELDS AS THE WINNING
ENTRY IN THE NAME THAT PARK CONTEST.
Discussion on Tour of Parks.
The Commissioners discussed the park tour and agreed it would be very
beneficial when completing the budget for 1998. It was also suggested to
create guidelines in naming the park areas by use (examples, waysides,
playground, fields, ect.).
9.
Updates:
A.
National Guard Training Center meeting - June 24,1997
Robbie Smith would attend this meeting as a representative of the
Parks Commission. Larry Nolan would attend if needed.
B.
Joint Commission Meeting - June 30,1997 - 5:00 p.m. - the
Commission was reminded of the meeting.
C.
Discussion on Parks Commission managing concessions on July 10,
1997 Minnesota Zoo/YMCA games 6:30 - 9:00 - Wanda Kraemer,
Development Service Technician, asked if the Parks Commission
would help with the July 10 Take-A-Break in Bridge Park. Fran Fair,
Larry Nolan, and Rick Traver volunteered to help with concessions.
D.
Tree Ordinance - Steve Grittman, City Planner, will attend the July
meeting and present an ordinance for tree preservation and
Page 3
.
.
.
Parks Commission Minutes - 6/19/97
replacement regulations. Grittman will also discuss the concept of
Klein Farm Park.
E.
Adopt-a-Park article - Larry Nolan, Chairman Parks Commission had
requested a copy of the "Adopt-A-Park" article that was in the St.
Cloud Times be included with the agendas for the Com.missioners to
read.
10. Added items.
The Commissioners briefly discussed changing the meeting to Wednesday
instead of Thursday but no decisions were made.
11. Acljourn.
RICK TRAVER MADE A MOTION SECONDED BY EARL SMITH TO
ADJOURN THE MEETING.
Wanda Kraemer
Development Services Technician
Page 4
MONTICELLO
June 27,1997
Connie Fink
123 Hedman Lane
Monticello MN 55362
Dear Connie Fink;
Congratulations! Freeway Fields, the name you entered in the "Name That Park
Contest", was chosen by the Parks Commission as the winning entry. It was chosen
because it described the location and use of the park.
.
I am enclosing $25 in Monticello Money that can be used just like cash in Monticello.
Thank you for your interest in our community, and if you have any questions please feel
free to call me at 295-2711.
Sincerely,
CITY OF MONTICELLO
Wanda Kraemer
Development Services Technician
cc: File
.
Monticello City Hall, 250 E. Broadway, PO Box ] ]47, Monticello, MN 55362-9245 . (6]2) 295-27]] . Fax: (612) 295-4404
Office of Public Works, 909 Golf Course Rd., Monticello, MN 55362 · (612) 295-3170. Fax: (612) 271-3272
ii
~ ~s
~ ~a
'" CI' ~
~..,
(')'"
.
~,
~d
oQ
Tft~
t;~
l\
.
.
.
J~L-14-1997 16:26
NAC
612 595 9837 P.02/05
Ordinance No.
City of Monticello
Wright County, Minnesota
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING nTLE 10, CHAPTER 3, SECTION 2 [G], OF THE
MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE RELA llNG TO REQUIRED FENCING.
SCREENING, AND LANDSCAPING BY ADDING TREE PRESERVATION AND
REPLACEMENTREGULAnONS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA HEREBY ORDAINS
AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1.
[G.1] TREE PRESERVATION AND REPLACEMENT: All areas for which building
or zoning pennits are requested shall be subject to the following regulations
with regard to the preservation of existing trees, and the replacement of
trees lost to such development.
1.
PURPOSE: It is the intent of the City of Monticello to proted,
preserve, and enhance the natural environment of the City and to
encourage a resourceful and prudent approach to the development
of wooded areas. It is found that trees enhance the value of the Citys
neighborhoods, and help to reduce wind, pollution, and energy
consumption. Therefore, the City of Monticello has found it necessary
and desirable to establish requirements and direction as to the
preservation of existing trees on development sites. The following
process is designed to encourage all developers, land owners, and
builders to save, to the extent oractical. all healthy trees of any size.
2. DEFINmONS: [keep the proposed Parks Commission language as
drafted, except for Land Alteration and Mining Operations.
3. PLAN REQUIRED: All developers and builders, prior to alteration of
any land, shall be required to do the following:
a.
Prepare a tree preservation plan which shall be incorporated
into the application for a conditional use permit, preliminary
plat. building permit, or other 2:oning or building permit. If a
tree preservation plan has previously been prepared and
approved for a parcel, an applicant may rely on the previous
plan, certifying compliance with said previous plan.
.
.
.
JUL-14-1997 16:26
NAC
612 595 9837 P.03/05
b.
Ensure that the tree preservation plan is adhered to during the
development and building process.
c. Subm it a security, either through cash escrow or irrevocable
letter of credit in a form acceptable to the City Zoning
Administrator, for each lotto be developed. Said security shall
be held for twelve (12) months after the planting of any
replacement trees as a surety for compliance with the Plan,
and for survival and replanting of any replacement trees which
fail to survive as required by 'Paragraph 8 of this Section.
SeOJritv orovided for multiple lot Droiects may be aogreaated.
at the discretion of the building official. Said security shall be
in an amount as follows:
i. Applicants for development on 1-3 lots: $1,000 per lot,
plus one hundred fifty percent (150%) of the cost to
furnish and plant the replacement trees, 8S estimated
by a qualified landscape contractor.
ii.
Applicants for development on 4 or more lots: $500 per
lot, plus one hundred fifty percent (150%) of the cost to
furnish and plant the replacement trees, as estimated
by a qualified landscape contractor.
4. PLAN PREPARATION AND CONTENTS: The Tree Preservation
Plan shall be certified by a professional forester or landscape
architect. The forester or landscape architect shall indicate on the
plan the following items:
a. Size, species, and location of all significant trees.
b. Identification of all significant trees to be saved, and proposed
to be removed.
c. Measures proposed to protect significant trees, including but
not limited to the following:
L Installation of snow fencing or polyethylene laminar
safety netting placed at the drip line.
ii. Prohibition of placing fill within the drip line.
iii. Installation of erosion control measures.
iv. Prevention of change in soil chemistry due to concrete
washout and leakage or spillage of toxic materials.
v. Prevention of pruning from April 15 to August 15.
d.
Tree Replacement A developer or builder shall replace
JYL-14-1997 16:26
NAC
612 595 9837 P.~4/~~
. significant live trees lost or reasonably anticipated to be lost as
a result of grading, building upon, or any other alteration of the
land subject to a building, land alteration, or zoning permit.
The trees required to be replaced pursuant to this Section shall
be in addition to any other trees required to be planted
pursuant to any other section of this code. The quantity of
sud1 replacement shall be detennined in accordance with the
following formula:
A= Total Caliper Inches of Significant Trees Lost as a
Result of the Land Alteration.
B::;; Total Caliper Inches of SignifJC8l1t Trees Situated on the
Land Subject to the Building or Zoning Pennit
c= Tree Replacement Constant (1.33).
0= Replacement Trees (Number of Caliper Inches)
Formula: (( AlB )x C) x A = 0
5. SIZES OF REPLACEMENT TREES: Replacement trees shaJl be no
less than the following sizes:
a Deciduous Trees: 2 caliper inChes.
t b. Coniferous Trees: 6 feet in height
6. SPECIES OF REPLACEMENT TREES: Replacement trees shall be
of species which 8f8 similar comDarable in type and mature size to
those trees which are lost or removed, to the extent possible.
Replacement trees must be Mcertified nursery stocl(, commercially
available for planting in the Monticello area, and consist of northem
grown material. The City Zoning Administrator maintains a fist of
acceptable species, but In no case shall replacement trees consist of
the following:
a. Box Elder.
b. Silver Maple varieties.
c. Catalpa varieties.
d, Russian Olive.
e. Gingko, female sp.
f. Mulberry.
g, Cottonwood or Poplar varieties.
h. Willow varieties.
i. Elm varieties,
7. TIME TO PERFORM: Replacement trees shall be planted as soon
t ~. , as time and thQ growing season permits following the alteration of the
..
.
.
8.
Council Agenda - 9/11/95
Consideration of a.pproval of a chanie order to the comprehensive
plan project by addini a stronier park plannini component. (J.O.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The Parks and Planning Commissions request that the City Council review
the proposal submitted by Steve Grittman for supplementing the
comprehensive plan process by placing additional emphasis on the park
p1::mning component of the plan. As you know, the original comprehensive
plan project proposal included some emphasis on the park planning related
issues; however, the level of attention to park planning is not sufficient to
satisfy park planning needs. Therefore, the Parks and Planning
Commissions request that the comprehensive plan project be slightly
modified to include a stronger park pl~nning basic component. In order to
accomplish this, the City COWIcil will need to approve an expenditure of an
additional $4,000 on the comprehensive plan project.
Following are reasons why the Commissions believe that it is important to
complete a comprehensive park plan at this time.
1.
Capital Improvement Plannin~. The rapid growth of the community
will result in the need for additional park facilities. The park plan will
assist the Parks Commission in getting a clearer definition of where
park improvements should be made first and what types of facilities
need to be installed in the park areas identified. With this
understanding, the Parks Commission will be able to develop a capital
improvement plan for park development that will enable efficient and
methodical development of park facilities as the need arises.
2. Park Dedication Requirements. The park plan will help the City
substantiate the need for park land acquisition from developers at the
time of subdivision development. This information will help the City
legally acquire land or park. dedication fees necessary to match the
residential growth.
3. PreAervation of Open Space. The park plan will identify areas that
may need to be preserved as open space.
4.
Utilization of the MisAiAAippi River as an Amenity. For some time, it
has been an underlying goal of the community to make better use of
the Mississippi River as an amenity. The park plan will identify
methods and strategies for utilizing the recreation potential of the
river resource.
9
Council Agenda - 9/11/95
.
5.
Comprehensive Plan DevelopmentJPark Plannin~ Inte~ation. It just
makes sense to complete the comprehensive plan process and detailed
park planning at the same time due to the strong interrelationship
between the two plans.
6. Park/Open Space Manafement. The plan would identify strategies for
improving the m~nner in which the park system is maintained. For
instance, certain parks are simply mowed drainage ponds with very
little functional value. A plan for long-term use of such areas should
evolve out of the project.
You will note in Grittman's proposal that, in addition to the basic study
proposal, he offered two alternatives for additional study. Both Commissions
felt that the basic plan was sufficient ($4,050) and that it was not necessary
to include either one of the alternatives.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1.
Motion to approve a change order to the scope of the comprehensive
plan to include additional park planning as identified in the memo
from Steve Grittman under the basic plan at a cost of $4,050.
.
This is the alternative selected by the Parks and Planning
Commissions.
2. Motion to deny a change order to the comprehensive plan and direct
City staff to complete the parks planning component.
Under this alternative, the plan will be done on an "as time is
available" basis. Given the staff workload, it is likely that the project
will not be completed soon.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
.
Staff recommends alternative #1. It is the view of staff and the Parks
Commission that significant investments in park development have been
made in the recent past; however, certain aspects of park p]~nning and
development has been somewhat neglected. At the same time, growth of the
community is increasing rapidly. These two factors require that the City
take a proactive stance toward park planning development so that efficient
and sensible park improvements can be made on a timely basis.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Proposal from Steve Grittman.
10
-.....L.:-_'"-_';;';;~
WN:~
.,
:'d:~:
"'Hi..
U.i..~ _'_.....
.c..J~~':",I_
COMMUNITY PI.ANNING · DESIGN · MARKEr RESEARCH
Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc.
lVlemorandum
TO:
Monticello Park Commission
Jeff O'Neill
FROM:
Stephen Grinman / Elizaberb Stoc1cnan
DATE:
14 August 1995
RE;
Monticello - Park & Trail Pla.o. Proposal
FILE:
802
.
At your request, we have prepared a listing of work program elements typically involved in the
prepa:raIion cf a Park and T.rail System Plan for you to consider when deciding whether the City
should undert:ake completion of such a document. The attacl1cd. list provides a detailed outli.nc of
the typcs of th.i..ngs thar may be addressed within a City's Pan:: & Trail System Plan. Tne work
progIam elements described. go above and beyond the information addressed as part of the
Comprehensive Plan, in which the rec.-ea.tion system is a parr of the large: community facilities
section.
The basic identification of park locations and summary of major parle elements and their
problems! opportunities are gener.illy addressed on more of a communiry.wide basis with in the
Comprehensive Plan but can be expanded significantly through the choice of some or all of the
tasks which bave been identified. Since CIty Staff has accumul.a.ted a significant amouat of
Inventory .:.ccumearation, the cost of the Park System Plan is lower than other similar projects
produced for other communities.
.
We have fcr.::.au:ed the estimate to orovide a cost for Plan tasks '.JIhich will add OIpT117::J(lOn to the
.
Clty.s Par:.<. ::J.cilicies and help program fuwre additioas to the system as the City grows. In
addition, the basic estimate would formulate conc...."'Pt plans for the River Mill and Klein Fanns
pa.rl:s, bascC. upon their functional roles in the oVer.U1 sysrem. The. .~tional Alternatives"
provide est.:::.ues for (1) additional inventory analysis, including existing park and trail facilities
layouts, and (2) update of the community survey information in a targeted random sample which
could be u:::I:,Zed to test the communlty's desire for specific park system elements, TI,e lauer
alternatives :ire not essential for the completion of the basic plan document.
5775 Wayzata Blvd.. Suite 555 . St. Louis Park. MN 5541 C . (612) S9S-9636.Fax. 595-9837
.,
.
.
ALiG-;.4-;.':;~~ :.J: ~2
~,..
."""""",,-
=~~ ~~~ ~C_I ;.~~/~~
Monticello Park & Trail Pbnnin2
Proposed Work Program Elements
I.
1.
Inventorv:
.
AIla1ysis or City Staff s detailed inventory of park clementS snmm:n;zed in chart fOIIIIar,
identifying numbers and conditions of existing elements
ALremari ve I. Prepar.ltion of individual park and trail property plans showing the
layout of c:xisting elements
II.
1.
Community SUr'Vev:
A.nalyze the results of the re-...::nt community survey and utilize the information to guide
the City in the improvement of existing par17trail areas and the planning or development
of future park/trail areas. Park and tI3il development in the community must rcr1cct
residents' dcs~ to enSUTe long tenn use and enjoyment.
A lte.rruui. ve II
Conduct a targeted update of the survey for specific questions and
issues. utilizing 3. random sample survey format.
Needs Assessment & Analysis:
1. Analyze individual paxks and trail segments to idP.ntify those areas that are in need of
improved or expanded. facilities. p~pare a summary of issues
2. Classification of parks by size, service area, and use cbar.1cteristics (neighborhood or
community use/scale, pa.t:k/pla.yground status. etc.)
3. Classification of trails by locaIion (on-street, off-srxcet. gnde-scparatcd, etc.), size, and
purpose (multi-use, pedestrians only, wheeled users, etC.)
4. Identify potential park and rr.ill OPPOItUnities based an the physical and! or community
resident inventery
Policv Plan:
,
1. Establish a series of policies to guide the governing bodies toward ma.1Qng decisions about
the recreational system including planning, acquisition. developmcm. pUIp05e, design,
maintenance, and opc:r.uion.
Recreational Facilities :vIasterolan:
1. Establish a physic:1l plan or the existing and proposed. recreational eieme."ltS
2. Summarize the:: ?ICPOsed changes or additions to the ro:::::ati.onal sysr.cm, emphasizing why
and where t.b:i.ngs are needed
Recreational P]~nn;n~ & D~:
1. Provide a guide fOT ~...a.tional system planning and design wbich identifies things to
consider in the development of specific areas such as slope. composition, spatial values,
adjac:nt land 'Jses and land ownen, saiety, economics. and long-tcIm goals.
.
.
.
AUG-;.4-~:SS :.a:42
.
NAC
512 555 58=7 ~.a4/~4
2.
Develop parle ~Jities conc~ plans for the River Mill and Klein Fanns parlc:s. based 00
their assigned functional role in the Monticcllo Park S ynem.
Desi2D. Standards:
1. Develop a series of standards by which to follow in the development or recreational
elements including soc:h things as minimum sizes. area caplcmp.s, supporting
infrastructure, levels of use, vehicular access, handicapped access, !UIfacing, and
landscapmg.
Imulementatioa:
.
1. Discuss land acquisition oppornmities and park dedication fee i.nventory/developer cost
analysis
2. Provide the basis for capiIal improvement pI~nning by aurlining the priorities for park/tIc1il
development
3. Outline options for funding proposed projeas
4. Discuss impottmt ~~rinmll suppott pIOjedS such as c.nmmnniry edul"'M"inu, paIX/ttail
signage. etc.
Cast for Basic Paxk Plan PlMnPnt
(not including Altematives I and II noted above). .
S 4.050
Inventory Alternative I
S 1,350
(lot P?<Z..c....e 'V'lN v--<-J..:;)
) ~i.~':'~:
Survey Alternative II .
S 1,280
Work Product
This estimate is for the production of a separate Pa.rlc5 and Trails Plan which would also serve as
an elemem to be inregm:ed imo tb.e City's CompreIu:nsive Plan. The estimate does 1lOt include
the additioual costs of printing the final document. which would be dependent upon document
length, quantity of copies requested, and the use of coJor. A scpar.uc estimate can be genc:atcd
for the COst of printing upon request.
Capitallmrovement Items - Monticello trail and park system
August 15, 1996 Funding Sources
IPARKlGENERAL !ACTJVITY Ivr I Six Vr Assess I Street I Pathway Park Budget 20001 I
Const Cost Budaet Maint fund 1996 I 1997 11998 11999 12000 I
ded by Lio I s Club I
1 Seventh Street Lions Club Improvements 1997 Capital e penses fur I
2 Pathway maint Snow Removal Equip - Pathway/Other 1996 $65,000 $32,500 $32,500
3 Shade Tree Program General ongoing tree Dlantina Droaram 1996 $90,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000
4 Play structure maint Safety and ADA improvements to existing 1997 $120,000 $10,000 $20,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000
5 River/Bridge Parks River Park Enhancements - MCP implmnt 1997 $100,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000
6 Pathway River Road Plaza to Middle School 1997 $60,000 $30,000 $15,000 $15,000
7 Pathway River Walk - Connect Ellison to Miss Dr 1997 $60,000 $30,000 $30,000
S Pathway Meadow Oaks to, the Middle School 1997 $30,000 $12,000 $3,000 $15,000
9 Maintenance Improved Weed - Contract spraying 1997 $25,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000
10 Meadow Oak Outlot A Storage/Concession building 1997 $12,000 $12,000
11 Prairie Creek Park General development expenses 1997 . $2,500 $2,500 I
12 Meadow Oak Park SasketbaU Court near olav structures 1997 $2,000 52,000
13 NSP Ball field IThree new fields at the existing park 1998 $50,000 $50,000
14 Meadow Oak Outlot A Parking lot 1998 $39,000 $13,000 $13,000 $13,000
15 River Mill Park P laygroundlB all Fields and parkina 1999 $80,000 $80,000
16 Klein Farms Park PlavaroundlBal1 Fields 2000 $40 000 $40 000
Total $12,000 $95,500 $32,500 $58,000 $124,500 $123,000 $150,000 $110,000 $70,000
.
.
.