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 present° Cook, Dahl, Gunderman, Hagemeyer, Sherlock and ~rTeissman. Smith appeared at 8° 1_0 p.m. Board members absent° Council Representative Rebelein. Others present: Robert Hemmings, Kenneth Simons, Ramsey County Open Space staff, Richard Miller9 Terry Aitken, Councilman and Mrs. E. E. Fishery a representative from the League of ?:'omen Voters and Robert tn1 icklund . Minutes of the regular meeting of September 6, J972 zM1rere 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 ?aurpose of this acquisition was to preserve the watershed area in a natural state and secondly to provide a recreatian area. Some 60-70 acres of the property is floodplain and 20-LSO acres is high, usable ground. It is hoped that eventually the entire Rice Creek watershed area from the chain of lakes in ~~rashington County to the Mississippi River z~rill be protected and available for recreation. The County is intending to apply for regional funding for the acquisition of the property in Ne~nr Brighton and they must submit such application by October J 3, 1972 for funding in _l_973. 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 i.s attempting to relate the Rush Lake, Rice Creek and Long Lake sites into an integrated package. The feeling was that Rush Lake i~rou7_d be a complementary or secondary support facility to Long Lake Park. Richard Miller, owner of the property in question, appeared and made the folloUring statements. He did not v,~ant 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 Ne~•T Brighton and felt the County ° s cost estimates ti~rere way loz~v 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 vrhen he submitted his PRD and this was refused. He did not understand why it u*as 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