Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF TBE <br />ORONO PARK COMMISSION <br />:Monday, March 6, 2017 <br />6:30 o'clock p.m. <br />Bryce Johnson stated the difference between the two options was the conservation protected area and not <br />doing as much clearing in the non -easement property. Johnson stated in his view a lot of the growth is <br />new growth and could be easily cleared. <br />Meyers stated in this case the clearing could be done in phases. Meyers stated the Park Commission <br />could also send both options to the Council and let them decide, but that he would recommend moving <br />forward with Option 2. <br />Roath asked if a different approach could be to approve a certain amount towards the clearing, and based <br />on what is received in the bids, perhaps a larger area could be done. Roath stated the Park Commission <br />could cap the clearing at $30,000 and get as much cleared as possible. Roath stated the Park Commission <br />could decide on a number between the two bids and then the Public Works Director could work with the <br />contractor to see how much can be cleared. <br />Edwards stated the bid request could be worded that way. <br />Meyers stated he would prefer a motion with a hard number on it rather than a range. <br />Edwards stated the Park Commission could allocate $18,000 for clearing and another $8,000 for <br />restoration, which is Option 2. Edwards stated they could propose that amount, and if the bids come in <br />lower than expected, they could expand the footprint out into that nine acres. <br />Roath stated they could also propose $25,000 or another amount for clearing, which will likely amount to <br />more than the 4.5 acres. Roath stated he is hearing that the more clearing that is done, the better. <br />Edwards indicated he used $4,000 an acre, which is based off of MN/DOT's numbers and is a <br />conservative number. Edwards stated it is likely they could get more than an acre done for $4,000. <br />Walsh stated what would be helpful is to know how the nine acres was arrived at. Walsh stated if the nine <br />acres is important, he is not sure why they are proposing 4.5 acres. <br />Ruegemer stated to her understanding the nine acres is the original pasture land but that she is not sure <br />how important it is to go back to that footprint. <br />Meyers stated the area to the left on the map is more pasture land and is connected to the woods. Meyers <br />stated the Park Commission thought it would be better to clear the areas that offers more of an interest to <br />visitors to the park. <br />Bryce Johnson noted a portion of the land was tax forfeited farm land and the portion on the right is the <br />historic pasture land. Johnson stated that is also where there is the biggest contrast with the Big Woods. <br />Johnson stated they could make the path wider to the Big Woods but that he is not sure it is that critical to <br />do since it is over a mile of trails. Johnson stated he would rather have three benches in the proposal than <br />all the extra clearing since the clearing could be done in later years. <br />Meyers stated the City could simply ask the contractor to clear as much as they can for $18,000 but that <br />they want a minimum of 4.5 acres done. <br />Page 7 of 12 <br />