the work session. Hey, M. >> All right. Good evening, Mayor and Council. Um, what we're discussing tonight is uh revisiting the West Mississippi River Regional Trail alignment along Dton River Road. Um, staff uh wanted to try and get some direction of where the the council would like this uh trail to be aligned. Um we presented it to the park commission uh for their input. Um they had two um sessions where they did two different alignments. One as we uh where we stand today um with the property that is already owned by three rivers in the city and the second alignment was to try and get a a more scenic view of the river and take away what you know property would have to be bought to make that happen. So, it's more of an idealized um version of it. Um so, what we'd like to do is get some input from the council tonight to see what they uh think um would be the uh the best alignment for this um with a view to getting something back to Three Rivers Park District with, you know, this is what we would like to see and try and find some middle ground with what they want to see and what we want to see. I take it this is the view that they want the the the red >> um versus >> nope. So the map has two different contours on it. Uh that's the colors that you're seeing on the map. So this is the same version of it with no markups on it. This one is a version of it from the parks commission with the versions of two different alignments. >> So the darker red here is what we could do today currently. And this is what they would prefer to see if >> pink pink alignment there. And then the colors that you're seeing, the orange one is um great greater slopes than 25%. >> Yeah. >> And yellow is 10 to 25% slopes along the river. >> Yeah. >> So basically what it's trying to show and why we did that that way is to show there is contours along this river. You have to take those into consideration when you're doing a trail. You're not going to put a trail up or down a gigantic 25 foot slope. It's just not going to happen. Sure, you can, but the dollar amount that's going to happen there is not physically possible. >> So, we need to take that in consideration when we're looking at this map that yeah, we might all want it next to the river. It's just not going to happen. Like, it physically can't happen unless all of a sudden through park district's going to crap millions of dollars, which maybe they do anyway. >> We won't be doing that. So, I >> But it looks like their paint line pretty much is consuming all the properties. Are there are there any properties that are not consumed by the pink line? >> Yep. So, you wouldn't have to purchase I mean I guess I'll start on this end. You guys can't really see that there, but the far end here is the fine. So, this is LC Stevens Park on this end. >> Yep. >> Then Gooden Park is on that end on the north side. So, that's >> somewhat contoured to what it is today. Maybe it's upside down a little bit, but >> um so like these if if we looked at this parcel for the first one with um parked, this was the get it today. This is long-term visioning. Either one of those have to take that house. I mean, there are trails along in even in Champlain that have trails right along people's backyards. There's impossible to have a trail in your backyard for any house. >> Just because there's a trailer doesn't mean the whole h the doesn't mean the whole property has to go. So, >> um part of that would be, okay, this house is going to be here. Maybe we want to get an easement along the back side of their house for a trail. Does that mean that person's going to love it? I don't know. Some people might like having a trail in their backyard. People in Champlain do sell the ement, right? to sell the ement and and that's part that we need to figure out as staff or what we're looking for from direction from council is is this a whole taking as in are we buying the whole property and I not by we I mean three park district or are we saying we just want the guys to buy an ement whether it's on the front half or the back half um the ultimate goal of this from city staff is to give three river park district uh value of I zero to 100 or red yellow green of red is you're not buying into that property at Oh, you don't need it at all. Green is you could buy the whole property and you're fine. And yellow is it's possible to go either way. The reason for that is because then we can give direction through a park district from city staff's perspective and city council of this is what we want to see long term. You don't need to buy this property at all to make your vision work or our vision work, but we want to be in the driver's seat. That's the reason and goal for this is to look high picture, look big picture. What does the council want to see today and in the future? So, I know it's difficult to envision in such an I put Dave in a hot spot because he's looking at his house right now. So, I mean that's it's a little difficult and I understand that. So, >> Yep. >> Can I ask >> does it go through your living room? >> What? Those >> no >> three um or right in front of you, Marty. >> This? >> Yeah. What's that? >> That's ones that's owned by True Rivers Park. >> Okay. So, anything with a grid on it, they have it already. Got it. Got it. Okay. >> Plat Park District. >> Okay. >> The one that just got sold to them. >> We have not put that one on yet. >> Yeah. Cuz that's going to be where >> um right next to the other. Yep. That one there. Yep. >> Can't we? >> Please. >> Okay. So, it never dawned on me that trails behind the houses could work. >> Mhm. >> Yeah. So, like I I use only use Champlain as an example. There are houses and I can show you them that have trails in their backyards that make >> it's still an easement. It's whether it's an ement in your front yard or an ement in your backyard doesn't change the fact that it's an easement on the edge of your property. >> It is an ement but it's not the whole property. >> Exactly. >> Correct. Yeah. This house could stay here. This house to go. >> You could just say this property wants to allow an ement back here or here or maybe this one this maybe this one wants to allow an easement and this one doesn't. So then it would >> have to curve. Yeah. >> Meander through the two properties. So >> I think we need to consider feasibility too. >> Yep. >> You know this um because if you want to talk about the the people right next to um LC Stevens Park. >> Yep. I'll try to I'll try to do a 3D for you. >> That pink line's not happening, you know, for 50 years. >> Mhm. >> Right. And so if they want to get a trail built >> it it's going to need to be less intrusive than that which means along the road I believe to to even happen and if they so if we're waiting for this ideal scenario if Three Rivers is waiting for this ideal scenario to build the trail at all then it is 50 years out >> if they're willing to build the trail with the land they own and the rightway and perhaps some needed easements, you know, because of terrain, then, you know, I I think we I think generally have said we want the trail, but not losing uh control over all of this land. And when I say control, um I'm thinking long picture. It's all residential now, right? And it's intended to stay residential. That's what's in our 2040 comp plan and it probably will still be that when we do the next one, but I, you know, I won't predict that. What I'm trying to say is that 30 years from now, do we know what that property should be? You know, is it still residential? Is the next iteration of a long-term plan, you know, something else? Uh, we determine we need more density there or we have no choice and we have to put more density there. And so it's senior housing or it's some other configuration than it is today. If Three Rivers buys all this property, we're done. We're out, right? It's it belongs to them forever and we have no say what happens to it. So it's not even like our own parkland, which also stays parkland forever as best we've been able to determine. And but we do have some say what goes into that park. So, I I just want to put that out there that that's, you know, it's more than should we allow this homeowner or that one. It's what is the city's vision on this? And if we don't know, then we shouldn't close off all our options. I mean, to me, if you go with the ideal scenario, all the property is bought by the park, you are direct indirectly telling the park, hey, we're willing to wait 50 years. You guys keep trying to buy the property and we'll we don't need a trail for 50 years where it's my adage that if you're going to build the trail, let's try to get it done in the next five. >> That's for me. >> Yeah. So, we can whatever the council wants to do for activity and and drawing or whatever. We have a bunch of different colors here. You guys can make three different lines on here. The idea is for us to get a general idea from staff's perspective and so that we can provide good direction to the river park district of what does the council see. You can do the same thing the park district did. Maybe you do one I you know ideal thing or a long-term visioning of this is in the 50 or 100 year range is this line but for now you can do this line. Um you know will three park district do it if it's all along the roadway? I have no idea. Um but if that's what the cult's willing to do right now then that's what they have to work with. Um, so you guys are in the driver's seat and that's why I want to make sure that you have the time to look at it and draw and adjust and make different lines and >> take real take a real look at this thing. So, >> we're not really in the driver's seat. I mean, we can say what we want, but they're going to build it and if they don't want to build it in the next 20 years, that's what's going to happen. >> But you're in the driver's seat for getting the properties acquired. They cannot purchase acquired >> correct correct >> eminent domain if they're available. >> Period. any piece of property without this city council saying yes. So you are 100% in the driver's seat of saying that's that's why city's p staff's perspective or my perspective was to get some sort of red yellow green on the property. >> Seems like there's like maybe two questions. One is you know can you do this with the easement in the back or the front and not through the middle? If you can't if the easement has to go right through the house >> then yeah that >> you're done right. I mean, that house at some point either you have a trail and the house is sold or you don't. >> Um I I >> I don't think that's the case. But I also don't believe that you're going to put a bridge that's going to cost you $2 million over this ravine. It's just not going to happen. >> I mean, so to point to taking this house out because it's way back on the back, it probably not makes any sense. It needs to come up this way and then it comes up again. >> And so I believe that you could do easement on all of it if you needed to. um whether people liked it in back or the front of the yard. >> So you you've looked at this or has somebody looked at this and said, "Yeah, the trail really has no choice but to go through somebody's house." >> Um no, >> no. >> Okay. >> No, I don't think there's a maybe a couple of spots when they get where they close up by David down there like that one house we talked about that they just approved and we just >> that one fortunately has a >> there. But I mean, even this >> Yeah. It's, >> you know, if you look at the hill that comes up from the road there and >> Oh, that's Jordan's, isn't it? >> Yeah. All of that stuff. >> Yeah. >> And then, of course, you got the valley down here to where he builds the birdouses. >> Correct. >> And so, that property, you know, the house is so close to the roadway. By the time you get a trail in there, it's going to be almost right to your front stoop. >> So, that's just not going to be that's not going to happen on that trail. So, that one's almost going to have to go at some point. And I don't say have to go because we don't want it there, but because if you want a trail there, it's not going to work. >> They own the two next to them. >> Yep. >> That could be a point where, you know, this I hadn't thought about this idea of putting trail through people's backyards, but >> but this may be, you know, an option there, right? That it could because >> you got to come back out when you get to here anyway. >> Far goes either way, but that's bottomland also. So >> yeah, the same map is property. It would need to go right to >> Oh, boy. Jordan's property is right. >> What are you looking for? >> I'm trying to look at unmarked. >> So, basically, there's land behind that slope that you could put something behind there. >> There is. It's just it's >> slowland, but >> yeah, >> it's trail. We're talking about a trail here. It can it can flood. Nothing on there that can't flood. No. >> And most of that is, at least, if I'm reading it right, not in the marked flood plane. Yeah, might be in the flood. >> What's it? What's the next one? >> 50 year 100 year thing. >> Flood way or something like that or flood plane. >> Floodway is much more restrictive. >> Okay. Flood way. There you go. >> Cuz that's guaranteed every year. That >> can you put? >> No. Flood flood way is is creating restrictions for the flow instead of >> You could put a trail there though. I would I would think you'd be able to put a trail there though because there's nothing stopping the water. >> You can if you do the right studies construct. So there there's ways to mitigate and accomplish it. It's it's just goes through a lot more scrutiny and review with the floodway. >> We have no idea what the park pref prefers as far as dollars spent either rate >> zero. >> Yeah. So my personal vote is to I would love to see something connecting from the historic village to LC Stevens within the next 5 years like if we can. Um I would I would also like to go with easements and not purchases of property um at all possible. Um, and if it's possible to do all of it with easements, that would be my preference because to Dave's point, that keeps us, we can, you know, we can at some point decide to buy it, you know, to let this that let the threwers buy it and turn it all into parkland, but it gives us options whether that is some high-end apartments or whether it's senior housing or whether it's even just a small um commercial like with a bed and breakfast and, you know, like to like really right by the park and think about who might be coming through and um if this is the start of a longer trail and like a little cafe or a little restaurant, something where someone on the trail can pull off, have a nice lunch and keep on going, right? Like if we still if that is still city, like if that's still land that's out there, it gives us choices. So, I'd prefer easements whenever possible. I had not considered the back of a yard easement instead of the front of the yard easement. that I think makes the easement option even more possible than like just um when it was just the front yard I was like oo there are some spots where it's tough but when as soon as we open up you can put an easement it's on the property line is the point right so it doesn't have to be the front property line it can be the back property line um so that would be my my opinion is whenever possible go with easements some of these properties like these two I think that's where we contact the current owner and say we would like an easement for a trail. The option is the front of your property or the back of your property. They might say it's the back, like no way to the back of the property, but we'll accept the front of the property. But, um, I think it's worth the ask, particularly cuz I know some people have been really concerned. And if it's like, hey, we can get this trail in. Would you be willing to have the easement in the back of your property instead? I think there are definitely people who would say, yeah, I'm okay with that. um if that means you're going to leave my house alone um like sign me up. So So that would be my my standpoint is easements only. Um contact the property owners particularly where there's where there's a preference for the backyard easement if at all possible. Um and it looks like there's only the one that's really going to be a logistical issue. And that, bless you, might be where um we have a really serious conversation about whether or not it can go, particularly if the if the park owns the stuff next to it. That does seem like a backyard easement might be the best option for that one to preserve their house, but still still get a trail in. But I'd really like to see this trail in from Elsie Stevens to the historic village in the next I mean, in the perfect universe where a giant pot of money falls on our heads. Um I would love to see this kind of happen at the same time as the water trails do. So like we have like this complete loop um in place. Do we know Marty when like do you have any timeline on the water trails like when those are or what we think are going to be finished? >> They're going to be finished next year. >> Oh okay. Yeah. So that's not going to happen. Never mind. So five years. So no pot of money would get the trail done in a year. So, um, >> would would this would this be better to be right away or an easement? And I don't know that answer. I'm I'm The only reason I ask is because I'm wondering if rightaway would actually reduce these people's taxes. I don't know that it would do it much, but I mean, not you might lose access to the river, too. >> Yeah. If it's in the back of the property towards the river, I think you do easement because there's no point in having rightaway there because there's never going to be a road that goes along that area. If it's along the front edge, we might want to say maybe right away just because then the county could say we could utilize that right away for something else along with an expansion of the road um to be able to help with those things. So, that would reduce this person's, you know, tax valuation. >> Do do you and maybe you know this, do you get taxed because you're on the river? Is is that a significant hit or not? I I don't know how that's arrived on. I mean, the waterfront has always been more expensive, so I assumed so, but I >> But is it expensive because it's wanted or because it's technically because the assessor is going to say, "Hey, you're on the road." >> Right. I don't know that there's a special mechanism in the tax code that says you're >> I think it's waterfront though. If you're on the waterfront, there's more tax. Well, you know, but that's this is considered waterfront property. >> If there's a rightaway there, I would think it would be then, but I don't >> Oh, along the back side you're talking. >> Yeah, sure. >> I I I don't I don't know that. It's just easement lets you still have access to >> to that. >> So, it's brilliant. >> Does the council want to do a a an updated line so they have an idea of what you guys are thinking? Do you want to just use the two park ones and say these are find the middle or >> I still I mean originally we asked rivers to give us where we where they had to take the house. I I thought we did >> where where they had to take the house because they had no other choice. >> They never gave that to us >> and and because to me maybe that gives us an idea of okay, you can make offers on these properties. Um but these were looking at easements. I I don't >> I think I it might be the case. I wanted to put us in the driver's seat of telling them what we wanted to see versus them telling us which ones aren't going to work for >> except I'm not sure I have the expertise. I mean, if we can suck up a lot of adjacent time, we we could, you know, see where the trail really needed to be. >> Sure. >> Um, it is this just a line that they drew? >> Yep. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So, they didn't look at it from the standpoint of it's got to be here. Yeah. No, it's not. It's where they were prepared where it made sense for them to put it and where, you know, it was least impinging on properties and stuff because they were very didn't want to put anything on there because they were very cognizant that they were going to be going through people's properties. So, >> they went through Jordan's house because they had >> had to Okay. That's what that that that's what that's >> with the the pink line >> but the the brown line is is following the road. >> The brown line follows the road for as much property as possible with what through parts owns today. >> Yeah. >> The pink line was the ultimate 50 to 100year build. >> Um I don't I personally believe there's probably a mix of both of those that are going to work the best. Yeah. >> And that's why I would like the council to get a good idea of, okay, maybe we like the pink line here, but we like the brown line over here or or pick a different color and draw on the same thing so we have an idea or something different so that staff has a good direction from what council feels with park input of what they thought was the best option. >> Well, and I think your point of like sure like this pink line right there, right where the ravine is, >> that's just not going to happen. You're not going to put >> there's a giant bridge $5 million bridge for a pedestrian. It's just not going to happen. >> It's not going to happen. There's no universe that happens. No. >> So, >> well, they're >> I mean, I I don't disagree that it doesn't make any sense. >> Well, yeah. There you go. >> Their their their plan up until we said put the brakes on this was >> to acquire all of it. And that was going to be $25 million by the time they got done >> that bridge. >> So, they didn't, you know, that didn't scare them off. They seem to have different pots of money though for land acquisition versus actually building the trail. And from obviously I don't know I don't know anything. This is just from what was said and what wasn't said. It sounded like the magic pot of money for buying land is much bigger and deeper than the pot of money for actually building the trail. That was my impression from the conversation. Um, so and I don't know if that's because buying land like you can just sit and hold it and hold it and hold it and hold it and then and then eventually build the trail but like I don't know it it seemed like they were two completely separate pots of money >> the trail built. >> Yeah. Yes. >> And that the one to buy land >> they're getting legacy funds and lottery money and other stuff that gets funneled through the MD council and says go buy park land. >> Yeah. But like that seems way deeper where the actual putting the trail in seems like a much smaller pot of money. So to that however many million dollar bridge I just don't you can build almost the rest of the trail for that practically. I mean I'm I don't actually know that but it seems like that would not make sense to me. So I feel like that's that pink line is never going to happen no matter what right there in that little spot. Um these two houses easy easement either way. Um, >> so do you guys want to go through property by property and I can write easement or full take or I don't mean that tomorrow, but I mean I'm looking for directions from you guys. I'm trying to just give you tools and then >> one other comment I want to make is that >> you know we're talking about a bike a bike trail here, right? And so if at some point down the road, you know, they come into um a less less hostile situation than I present around this um and they acquire more land. We're talking about moving a bike trail, right? This is like moving my driveway over. We're this is not millions of dollars of wasted money >> to to >> now now they've got this, you know, this whole stretch. So they don't need to be doing this. they can, you know, do something more >> something else. And they're talking about 10 ft of asphalt, >> right? 20 years they can change it if they wanted to. >> Yeah. >> So I I don't think that, you know, my interest or my feeling around this is that they use the land that they've got and they get this thing built and if there is something they can they come back to us and say, you know, it's it's all good except we got to have this and we got to have this. then we then we can talk about that. But kind of this open um you know we'll we'll acquire it whenever somebody contacts us is we're completely out of control on how that's going or had been anyway. And so I you know this has already been planned for 10 years and and the only trail that's been built is what we've built in LC Stevens and Clo right. So to get this thing to move along, I mean to Sarah's point, you know, we wanted it yesterday, the trail, right? And you know what gets us there? Well, I'd say they I say they have enough to, you know, with some easement negotiation to to get a trail here and if it um they've got opportunity to move it in the future, we can talk about that then. And it's not it's not killing anything. I also think it's silly to not be, you know, completely engaged with the county and the road reconstruction. >> Yeah. >> And I know they've said that, well, we don't have, they're not planning that stretch yet. They will be and the pace this thing is moving, it's it's certainly there's certainly time for these things to >> that would be up to here. >> Are you saying >> or or here on this >> to what you're saying? Stick with the >> the brown line essentially. Yeah. Yeah, my adage is is to build it with the road and go to the park and say, "Hey, if you get this built with the road 7525, we'll go in on it with you." >> Otherwise, it's their bill. >> Well, get that gets it done fast. >> You know, Scott with money, he just throws it around until you don't. >> Well, yeah. So, so my vote is to to go the easement route, not the purchase route. Um, if we can I and I I don't know these people, so I have no idea. >> Won't happen. >> Okay. >> Won't happen. >> Okay. Then it's the one by the road. Um, and I don't know. So, really, it's just the one close up here where by the road is just not like the slope makes by the road. Few. Yeah, there's a few houses I would say in that little stretch area where it's just so tight between the trail and the house that >> All right. So, what do we do with that? Go ahead. You were going to say >> I have a question. >> I'm I'm with you on along the road cuz having that in my bag, I'd be not very happy. I would not be willing to give you to put a trail behind my house on the river. Like that's why you buy the house on the river. Just going to throw that out there. Sure. But my question is is if a property owner and it worked out was okay with that, >> would we be okay with these >> behind >> behind? >> So if you told Three Rivers, >> hey, we see it along the road not taking properties working with what you have. There's a couple that are going to be tricky. Like we can talk about those as that comes like you know we can negotiate that or see what like works. But if they approached a property owner and said, "Hey, we want to put this behind along the river." And the property owner is like, "Yeah, cool. Knock yourself out." Which in a perfect world, we would be okay with that. >> Yeah, I would be. Okay. >> Yeah. The land owner is fine with it >> because it's an easy. >> So, so giving them the direction that it can be either or, but if the property owner says, "Nope, then you're on the road." Like, that's it. >> Well, as long as >> as long as it works out, >> as long as they want to make the big U. >> Correct. I mean, they can figure all those logistics out. They're not going to do it for one and then come back out and like that would >> Yeah. They're not going to do some of the problems. They're not going to do the one you just pointed to. They're not going to go way deep to it would be silly to do that. But let's say that you know those ones that are a little trickier in the perfect world if they were able to go behind and if you own the ones next to it, they could come through however they needed to go behind. I'm just thinking of ways that we can give flexibility so that way >> the still gets built. people don't we're not going right through their living room. You know what I mean? Cuz that that doesn't it feels icky, right? To say, "Oh, yeah. We're going to trail right through like it doesn't give them any flexibility." So, I guess my stance would be go ahead and ask if you can make it work and they want to make it work. The property owners to go behind, go ahead. I don't see that happening. Um, and I am not okay with them purchasing more land to make it. I think they've got enough to make it work. Other than that sticky >> east on either side, but don't take the house. >> Correct. >> That Jordan that you guys are talking about. I don't know him. But is that the guy that was here that >> he said if the trail went in front of my house, you're just about going to be on my porch? >> No, that was the one who just approved the last council me. >> That was this one over here. >> Okay. Okay. >> He's the one with the the bird house, >> but he's right next to it. >> Yeah, >> a drop off there. That was Myers. >> Um, >> and I don't know what his thought is, but if >> Jerry >> Yeah. >> Oh, >> if the if they came through and said, "Hey, like the trail's coming through." And like negotiated to go behind, we would be fine with that. If I think in a perfect world, >> I think he'd be Yeah, he'd be fine if >> it was up to him. >> Better that than we need to take your house or we need your whole property. >> You might be about ready to sell. I don't. >> But I think those are >> and that's what that's kind of how this conversation started is I think some of the homeowners are here are older and they're looking to retire or move or whatever and they're like give me whatever you can for the property. That's what's kind of started this conversation I think because I think most of these have been acquired in the last 5 years. >> Maybe I'm wrong. >> It accelerated. Yeah. >> Accelerated a lot. >> Yeah. >> Um Yeah. And my problem is what Sarah said and I I just you're taking away all the options when you buy the whole chunk, >> right? Um, >> sure. >> And you are locking up that revenue. We get zero from parkland. >> Yeah. I mean, if you leave it >> consume services. >> If you look at this property here and you, you know, leave it as two options. There's a lot of property in between those two. You could do a lot of things with that property. >> Yes, you could. >> If you take away this whole thing and they need a trail, it's only 10 ft wide. >> Yeah. You just I I don't disagree with you that you've taken all this land and just removed it, which doesn't make any sense to me because you could put easily put senior living or apartment buildings or a bed and breakfast or whatever you guys want to talk about here something >> and have a trail along the thing and that might be somebody perfect idea. I mean have it all over in Duth. Look at Lake Superior. They have trails right along the back. They have a apartment building or hotel right in front of it. Yeah, >> that's >> it's one of the selling points to that thing like when you have like when you you know I'm an amenity. come live here. How beautiful this is. Jump on the trail, walk down, do your kaying. >> And that's what I mean. I think these two are these two make no sense to purchase the whole thing. There might be some down there that you have to just based on topography and and where the house is at. >> Okay. So, >> but I think those are oneoffs, right? Like those are it's not every property. It should be this is a special situation couple. >> Yeah. And it shouldn't be >> a chunk like it has been. >> David, take the pen and draw the line. >> Well, we can just leave it in. >> You can leave whatever. Yeah, you don't have to. >> Erase the pink one. And >> we're there. >> Well, and I don't even mind leaving the pink one there cuz it does show like where back easements might be an option. Like these are would be and maybe not for today, but in the future if they sell and we put apartment buildings here, we could easily put the trail behind the apartment building. And that could be part of like when that developer comes in, we can say, "Yeah, but you need to give an easement to build this trail closer so that we can get like that could be part of that agreement." Um, >> I think that can be part of the discussion. Yeah. >> I am reluctant to say have it on any plan. >> Okay. >> Because Three Rivers then can say, "Well, the city said they were okay with >> That's true. That's true. >> Yeah. This isn't going to be given anybody. This is direct this isn't like you guys are approving anything. This is directly discussions. >> Yeah, >> you guys aren't approving anything, adopting it into this, but I think putting it together somehow where the where we're we're saying that if the land owner prefers it on the on the river side, >> you know, that that's something we're amendable to. >> Yes. Yes. Any place where the land owner is a amendable to the easement being on the river side, I'm okay with. And I think it is just a matter of identifying which few we would be open for purchases in the future. And I would never be okay with the three rivers buying these two or even Yeah. I would say that whole chunk of basically >> to me and maybe it's even further than that a minimum. >> And they already own that chunk. They do. >> We already lost we we bried on that one. >> Those are Well, these are two giant ravines too. The ravine goes all the way up to here. Yeah, >> those are the ones they just redid a couple years ago. >> But yeah, so this chunk I would never be okay with. And there's that chunk right there which I think is a lot of nice land that could we could have something nice there. >> A tree farm. >> That's a tree farm. >> Yeah. Um again, there's some like that's a good chunk of buildable land. I'd hate to have all gone. Um and it's really Dave. Unfortunately, it's just your little stretch right there that like or that little stretch right there. I think that gets kind of tricky that I could cuz the flood plane comes up so no one can build >> it. It could be difficult to to get right away there. That makes sense. But they may need to take all property but I think we're saying we want them to justify needing to take the whole property. >> Yes. At this point. Yeah. No >> to buy the whole property. >> That's that's the consensus I'm hearing at this point. The other thing, you know, I want want to remind us of is that um you know, this is kind of on the on the notion that if you get the bike trail over by the river, then you get this glorious view of the river. >> It's not there in the summertime. >> Honestly, I have a hole about this big through my deck that I can look through the trees and actually see the river until October. >> All winter long, it's a fantastic view. Nobody's biking. Nobody's >> Yeah. >> Right. Well, John's biking, but I'm not biking. >> But it's But the idea that when the majority of the use is going to be >> you, Three Rivers can't do it either. They can't come through and cut down all the trees. We can't cut down all the trees because of the Mississippi >> Yep. >> corridor thing that's 100 pages long about the rules that we have to follow. >> Yeah. And so the it's not we're not going to change the view of it because we're you know because they have to follow those rules too. >> So the need to get it over next to the >> the river you were really not next to the river you much. >> Yeah. Well and you're at the top of the slope. The slope goes down like >> even here cuz right here's the flood plane. Here's the giant slope and here's the trail. So it's still like >> you're going to look across. The only spot that you can really get maybe a good view is probably behind Jerry Jordan's house unfortunately because once you get down the slope then it's you're right on the river and then you're that might be a good spot to be. >> Yeah. But it's a 25 ft slope to get down there. So you're either doing switch switchbacks or nothing. So I mean you're not taking the whole thing and just unless somehow Dave's becoming a super biker and we're mountain biking. >> Everybody's on electric bikes. They go up hills. >> Sure. It is actually >> that might be the only spot I could see along the river and I think customer fashion's point is is exactly right. There's only so many spots that'll work where otherwise you're just seeing the trees which are not >> so pretty but like it's not it's for what you're giving up. What yes your benefit isn't the same as what >> trails in Creek Park Reserve that you can see trees through the entire time. You know that 20% of Dayton that we have already lost >> given up. >> Yeah. >> Tell me how you really feel. I'm just kidding. >> No. And and it's real weird for me to be talking, you know, this way to say I don't want to acquire parkland. I mean, I started out well after the safety commission, but I was on the parks commission for a bunch of years before I came here. You know, I've been promoting parks my entire time that I've lived in this city. So that's this is not where I'm coming from on this and it feels weird to be taking the other side of it. But in this case I >> this is how I feel and I try to keep the fact that I live right here out of it as much as I can but that's not actually possible. >> No, but your perspective is important, right? Because like I don't know what the river looks like from behind there. In my mind it's just you see the whole river and it's beautiful. You watch all the rushing water and you're like well actually there's your wind. You know it's like those are important details. So, I appreciate you saying those things. >> It is, I think, an important supply of legacy homes and it lets residents live on the river. And if that disappears, it's gone forever. >> There's only so many spots. >> Sarah's point, we lose control. We can't put a bed and breakfast over there in 40 years. We We can't do things like that >> if it's all gone. >> Is this sufficient direction or do you feel like you need more from us? This is it seems pretty con I would say consensus across the group. It seems pretty unanimous where we're at which is great and that gives us good direction to get back through as particip. It's best if it's you know everybody on the same page because it's easy to say this is what we think and that's it. It's hard when we have somebody who's over here that says we want the whole thing and one person over here says don't get don't touch a single thing. >> We don't want the trail at all. Um it doesn't sound like I'm hearing that at all from this group and it sounds like it's more try to work with what you got as much as you can. If we have a problem in some spot, come talk to us >> and we'll figure out that's going to work. >> This is good direction for me to give to Three Rivers Park District because they are asking me at staff level going, "What are we doing?" And I'm saying, "I need to get direction from my council before I give you a direction back." >> Well, and I can say because some of these property owners have reached out to me because Dave is trying very hard to stay neutral in in this. So, I've got I've gotten a lot of people who talked to me about it. Um, and every single one of them has been like, "I'm fine with a trail." like we we knew a trail was coming. I I'm actually wondering where my trail is. I've been looking forward to this trail because as like it's been on paper for how many years now that there's going to be a trail, there's going to be a trail. There's going to be a trail. It's just where's my trail? Um and instead of getting a trail, I feel like they want to buy my house. It's like that that feels like what the heck. So I I've never been opposed to the trail and I've never heard a single person be opposed to the trail. The only what >> you might >> I might be closer. >> Oh, these two. Oh, yeah. >> Oh, yeah. These I can guarantee. >> I haven't heard from here. >> Yeah. I have not heard from them, but like all the residents who have reached out to me with concerns have all said, "We knew a trail was going to be here. We've been looking actually forward to a trail because we would like to get out and bike and right now we have a busy road that's not safe to take my kids on. I would love a safe trail to go biking on. Like I'm okay with that. It's just not only am I not getting my trail, they're buying at my house. >> So like I I think a trail but make the trail happen through easements and and just work with the property owner about what easement's going to make sense and it's probably going to be near the road for most of it. And I think we need to be a little more honest with ourselves about like what view you would actually get. Even if you could buy it all, you aren't getting this beautiful river view that you that in your head. >> Well, it's like in Clo over Overlook. They got the overlook there and all you see is trees from the overlook. You know, >> that is I noticed that a couple years ago. Yeah. Just >> not overlooked. Well, >> yeah. >> But I mean, I think the thought unlimited, >> but maybe that's where we need to take some of these people who are all about this river trail and be like, here, look at the overlook and what are you overlooking? Yeah. Okay. So that's where you're you're you're going to spend all of this money to acquire all of this land. And for what? So you can have a treelined trail, which you could have a treeline trail lots of places. So >> I don't, you know, if we have an expectation they're going to do this in in the next 5 years. I do think they're going to have big issues over over by that property. I don't know how they do that in five years, but I guess >> talk about the one here in the corner. >> No, the this whole area. >> Oh, that whole area there. Yep. Um, but Jordan's property is specifically problematic cuz I don't know how they put that trail next to the road either cuz it just goes >> Yeah, you can't. Like I said, there's going to be problems that are going to have to that we're going to have to solve here and it's going to have to be a partnership at some point. >> They may have to >> One of them goes this way and one of them goes this way. So, I mean, you got they got a huge hill up or a huge hill down and neither one of those works well with the trail. >> So, I mean, again, you can move dirt all you want to, but at some point it's become feasible. Well, I think we've all acknowledged, right, that it's going to be >> a sticky point and that we're all going to work together and they, >> you know, >> as long as, you know, when when residents call them and they say, "Look, we here's our here's our direction." So, do we want to identify which properties we would be open to possibly selling if the homeowners wanted to and which ones that we would never say yes to? >> I don't know if we want to point it down. >> Well, I was only because of that's kind of on them, right? To determine, okay, >> we can't do it in front here. This is why and to justify their need to buy them. cuz I get what you're saying, but I get a little cautious with that because it's like, oh yeah, like it's almost like offering like >> you can have all these pieces of pie like >> how about the other way? Could you do ones that are absolutely now? We would never sell those. So I'm trying to >> Wouldn't you then back out the other? >> No, cuz you could say that that's you know, >> it's just a couple until they get an engineer to look at it. I don't know that. >> I'm just saying like we know these two. I'll use these two on the end. I guarantee you that if they come to either one of us or any of the council said we want to purchase this one and this one, you guys go >> no way. >> No way. Why would I do that? >> No. >> So that's why I say this these these two are exed out of my >> Yeah. My concern would be >> but if we specified say five of these and the rest of them they might think are up for grabs. I I mean to me they need to prove that they need the whole thing. >> Sure. >> Okay. That's how I feel about it too. >> Yeah. The burden of proof is on them to justify. So yeah, I was trying to start off with the red, yellow, green. Everything's yellow. That's what it sounds like. Everything's just we're proceed with caution, but >> you might not be able to go or you might not be able to stop with the two, but >> which is fine. And that's that's at least direction for us as staff, which helps. >> Before we leave, can we also acknowledge the fact that like and thank the parks commission because they went through and drew all these pretty lines on here and the having the easement in the back never occurred to me. Like that was never even on my radar. And so I guess just saying that like >> well as you said input right >> these two current property owners may be a hard no to the back but knowing that it's a possibility in the future >> or for any right like that it is even like something we could do I think >> when did they get that land 1848 so they've been hanging on to it for a while has been >> somewhere around there >> they were also very very adamant about getting the trail built as soon as possible the park commission Yeah, the park division want to see it. I think everyone wants to see the trail because connection point for everybody. I agree. >> I agree too. >> But it's just they're not just going to put a >> more acknowledging their effort and that like they brought something that I had never even thought about which is you know what you want, right? It's the meaning of the minds. This is your area like things that we don't think about. So, >> and it mattered. I guess it was the whole things like their work mattered was the point. >> Yeah, I I agree. I think you know that well what we wanted to get was a voice back into this thing >> and we've achieved that and I think that you know if you look at the context of their charge the parks commission >> you know what would the ideal thing look like from a parks perspective it's not their job for to think about what goes in the 2040 or the 2050 or the60 comp plan that's our job >> and so you know I appreciate that they can take that narrower focus and come up with something that we hadn't considered So, you know, I I agree with you. They I appreciate their time that they spent on it. It's still the brown line. >> You're not wrong. >> All right. Are we uh during >> anything else you guys want to talk about or discuss? >> John is one of my neighbors and I don't know if you still wanted to make a comment if that's okay. >> Yeah, go ahead. >> Um I Yeah, I I've lived here for 50 years on Dayton Road. I ride a bike 1,500 miles a year. So I'll I'll ride downtown Minneapolis for lunch. I ride to Buffalo. One thing you have to consider is me. Um a high-speed bikist is not a kid. I find in many cases I won't ride on uh a a a path a bike path because it's far too dangerous. >> Okay? >> So, and you need to consider this. So, if I'm going 20 miles an hour on a bike path and there's an intersection, I can't see behind me. I don't know if somebody's turning right. So, I have to stop and then it's a big pain to get moving ahead. So, so I'll tend to ride on the shoulder. Would I ride this? I would ride some of it. There's some things here. It's like the the path in Champlain. I'll never go on that path. I would die. I would be dead before I'd get all the way into Champlain, honestly. So, that's a very dangerous place. So, as as you're what appears to By the way, I've wanted this bike path forever. Okay. Okay. Um, you have to consider who's riding, what does it look like? As I listened, I think there there in your minds, you have this picture of people using it and kids will use it. I won't. I I might use part of it. I would rather be on the shoulder. I I rode Dayton Road before it had any shoulder. I didn't like that very much. This is way better. I'll now ride this except for a couple of hours during the day at rush hour when semiis are going back going by. You give me another foot. I'd ride on the I'd ride on Dayton Road and be just as happy and safe. By the way, I have radar on my bike so I know who's coming behind me. So talking to people that actually ride that do ride trails that do ride roads um and and do it a lot. Uh that's different than kids riding it and having dogs in the way and and so forth. So I I do ride in Elm Creek. I love it. I drive I ride it usually when nobody's around because then I I don't have to worry about dogs and and kids and so forth. Um I've wanted to have a trail here for a long time just because uh Dayton Road hasn't been safe for and it's not safe at rush hour for me. But consider who's going to be riding it. Is it going to be safe for somebody that's riding 15 20 miles an hour? Uh most of the people that I see coming by the road on the road right now are I would call a high-speed bicyclist. That's who's on this. We have people that are riding cross country. They're coming from Oregon and they're they're heading out to uh the east coast. So um this is a well it well it's part of the great river road you know we have that. So it's it it's interesting. So when you look at this and you consider it who's going to be on it you know can you imagine that I'm going to be on it you 19 that goes down toward you know 55. >> I'll never ride that. >> Okay. that because it's too dangerous for me when I'm traveling, you know, 20 miles an hour at every every uh driveway, every intersection. I'm afraid when I'm on the shoulder, I'm part of the traffic. >> Okay. Yeah, that makes sense. >> And I've got lights on and I'm watching. I'm looking in the mirror, but I'm part of the traffic. I'm in a place where somebody that's driving a car expects to see me. When cars, if you're in a you'll say this, and if you're in a car, you don't see anybody on a bike trail. >> You don't see them. You don't you're looking on the road. You're not looking on the trail that's even 10 ft away. >> Yeah. >> You just don't see them. >> That makes sense. >> So, >> is it is it a multi-use trail or is it for like a a bike for like transportation versus like just a pleasure I'm out for a pleasure ride with my kids? at trail head they they've got a Wednesday night uh bike they they do about 20 30 m an hour and and I see them on Mount South Diamond Lake Road, North Diamond Lake Road. So they ride there. >> Yeah. >> And um they'll ride through the park. >> Uh we've even been on Dayton Road, you know. So So those people are going to want to use it, but we want to be safe also. So I bet you nobody ever thought about a bike trail is less safe than the road. >> Yeah. >> And so so it's it's just um when I imagine this I I think I imagine using this differently than you see it. >> Yeah. >> And and like I say, I've lived there a long time and and who I see riding that road right now is not kids, thankfully. >> Yeah. Uh, but it's a high-speed bicyclist that that goes out and does a a 20 to 50 mile ride during the day. >> Yeah. >> So, just and I mean there are good resources if you want to learn more, if you want to get a feel for who who uses this, there are people like me that you can talk to and just kind of imagine. So, I think you're doing great work. I I also agree uh that um if the trail does this well that's Elm Creek. Okay. I love riding over there, but I don't think that this is a good place for another Elm Creek trail. It this would be a nice place. I've always wanted a trail to get to Elm Creek. >> Yeah. >> A to and from trail. >> Yeah. Right. So anyway, >> thank you. >> Yeah. Well, thank you guys. I mean that's We'll see. We'll see. We'll we'll see if my house sells before uh actually sells before >> before the trail gets built. >> Yeah. >> Fingers crossed the trail gets built. >> Place it in. >> All right. Thank you. >> I got good direction from the council. So unless you guys need anything else, we're good to go. Okay. Okay. Good. Thank you. Thank you.