PRECM 10-04-1972 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

PARK BOARD MEETING October 4, 1972 Meeting was called to order at 805 p.m. Board members presents Cook, Dahl, Gunderman, Hagemeyer, Sherlock and Weissman. Smith appeared at 810 p.m. Board members absents Council Representative Rebelein. Others presents Robert Hemmings, Kenneth Simons, Ramsey County Open Space staff9 Richard Miller; Terry Aitken Councilman and Mrs. E. E. Fisher9 a representative from the League of ~r~~omen Voters and Robert Wicklund. Minutes of the regular meeting of September 6, 1.972 were approved as submitted. Ramsey County Open Space Proposal Robert Hemmings presented a proposal from the Ramsey County Open Space staff for the acquisition of the 80 acres of property northeast of Long Lake and south of County Road H, including land on both sides of Rice Creek. He explained that this was a joint venture between Anoka and Ramsey Counties. The purpose of this acquisition was to preserve the watershed area in a natural state and secondly to provide a recreation area. Some 60-70 acres of the property is floodplain and 20-LEO acres is high, usable ground. It is hoped that eventually the entire Rice Creek watershed area from the chain of lakes in Washington County to the Mississippi River will be protected and available for recreation. The County is intending to apply for regional-funding for the acquisition of the property in New Brighton and they must submit such application by October 1.3, 1972 for funding in 1973. Gunderman asked about the status of the property around Rush Lake.. It was estimated that the County would be presenting a proposal for that area in one month. Presently the County is attempting to relate the Rush Lake, Rice Creek and Long Lake sites into an integrated package. The feeling was that Rush Lake would be a complementary or secondary support facility to Long Lake Park. Richard Miller, owner of the property in question, appeared and made the following statements. He did not want the County to condemn his property. He has tried to develop the property but has been unsuccess- ful. He stated that he is a resident of New Brighton and felt the County's cost estimates were way low and did not like the idea of tax- payers paying the price this property would command. He further stated he had offered the Village 15 acres of park land free when he submitted his PRD and this was refused. He did not understand why it was deter- mined that more park land was needed now. He further stated that it has been proven now that development can be done to accommodate flooding