09-12-06 Bridgewater Public Access Committee Meeting
-->Click Here to Download Meeting Audio<--
To listen to the audio, simply click the link. To download the file to your computer to listen anytime you like, right mouse click the link, and choose "save target as.." or "save link as.." This will prompt you to save the file on your computer.
This is a 27 megabyte file. On a high speed connection it should take 15-30 minutes to download.
To listen to the audio, simply click the link. To download the file to your computer to listen anytime you like, right mouse click the link, and choose "save target as.." or "save link as.." This will prompt you to save the file on your computer.
This is a 27 megabyte file. On a high speed connection it should take 15-30 minutes to download.
09-12-06 Bridgewater Public Access Committee
1) Discuss Update on Conference Call
Discussed a letter from another community that is being used to apply for the same grant that the village is applying for to fund the pier design. What is needed for the application is a narrative description, site plan, engineering design, and budget for the project. This particular grant has a November 1st application deadline.
Discussed Scott Ironside's observations on the pier project. Scott indicated that he would like to see the pier located where the deepest water is available, it was felt that the far west end of the project, on the west end of the canal would be the best location, although the water depth is currently unknown, Chairman Wolter indicated they would need to get some water depths.
Discussed the May 1st deadline for the stewardship grants that could be applied for and used for the whole project, such as the main trail, the parking lot, the boat landing.
Discussed projects on leased property and the need to set up 20 year leases with CWPCO, with a minimum lease of 25 years for the trail.
Village President Evenson interjected a comment based on Scott Ironside's indication that the pier would be preferably located on land owned by CWPCO. Evenson contacted Mike Schrier (spelling??) and indicated that Mike has pledged CWPCO's cooperation on this matter.
Evenson also indicated that Mike thought CWPCO had some maps with water depths and that they would try to provide those maps to the village.
Evenson also discussed bringing Wood County Parks into the communication loop and committee process for the public access projects.
Evenson left the meeting.
Wolter indicated that the village needs municipal recreation plan in place to apply for Wisconsin Stewardship grants, and that this would need to be in place prior to May 1st for the application deadline. Wolter indicated that the North central regional planning or Wood County Planning as resources and that it may be possible to adapt the Wood County plan to the village's needs.
Someone questioned what a municipal recreation plan is and it was answered that it is a plan that evaluates the area and the user demand and presents a plan for future usage an facility location.
It was suggested that Gary Popelka might be able to draft the essentials of a plan and then it could be fleshed out by the committee.
Wolter felt it was something that could be worked on in a month or so, tasking 2-3 people from the BPAC committee to draft a plan then present it to the plan commission.
Property Acquisition. If the village looks to acquire any new property in their grants process. Prior to grant approval, if any new land is acquired before the grant is issued, a letter of retroactivity is required or the grants will not approve funds for land acquisition. Wolter suggested that he felt a lease could be workable, but if the village were to acquire a letter, then it would be on file for the May 1st grant application deadline.
It was questioned what a letter of retroactivity consists of. Wolter indicated a scenario would be proposed to the Eau Claire DNR office, identifying the land parcel, and that negotiations are in progress. The letter would then be issued from the DNR allowing the land acquisition to be included in the grant funding.
It was felt by Committee Member Tom Schneider that on the letter of retroactivity and the municipal recreation plan were items that may as well be acted on sooner rather than later in order to have the items taken care of.
2) Discuss Basic Elements of Pier Design Wolter referenced some basic pier designs that were included in members packets, and indicated that the water depth would be a determining factor as to whether the it will be more of a wharf or a pier.
Committee Member Kelly Knutson indicated that he was hoping to have the water depths, but Gene Forsner (MSC. Handles Shoremaster docks), who has many pier installations throughout the US. Gene provided some pictures of some piers that he has installed. Also provided a print from Shoremaster of what a pier could look like, dependent on some element designs, such as how far out the pier would go.
Wolter referred to the basic element designs contained within the packet, indicating that as engineering elements, it wouldn't pay to spend much time discussing the items at this point.
Knutson indicated that Gene could engineer the pier as well, and it was brought up by another committee member that the contract may have to go through a public bidding process.
Knutson indicated that Gene would be able to provide an on paper design with the committee's specifications for the grant application
3) Finalize Who Will Complete Engineering Plan Wolter transitioned into this item this item, and they talked about a few engineering firms, including Lampert Lee, Central Wisconsin Engineers (Dave Grutzik, village contracted engineer), and Shoremaster (Gene)
A comment was made that the committee would be hard pressed to find any other engineer more knowledgeable about piers than Gene Forsner at Shoremaster.
Committee member Mark Nordbeck indicated that Lampert Lee was going to be handling the parking lot engineering, and that Lampert Lee would then work with whatever firm was handling the pier.
Wolter questioned Nordbeck as to whether Lampert Lee was familiar with creating the application letter that contains the elements required for the DNR application. Nordbeck indicated that Lampert Lee was familiar with the process and the letters as they deal with DNR items on a regular basis.
Motion and second to hire Lampert Lee to put together the grant application letter, consisting of a narrative description, site plan, general engineering design, and budget cost estimate.
Discussion: Question arose as to giving Lampert Lee a budget. The BPAC committee has no budget, so any spending authorizations must go through the village board.
Motion amended and seconded to: Make recommendation to the Village Board to hire Lampert Lee to put together the grant application letter, consisting of a narrative description, site plan, general engineering design, and budget cost estimate for the handicapped accessible park area, pier and connecting pathway.
Motion Carried, Nordbeck (employed by Lampert Lee) Abstaining.
4) Updates From Other Committee Members A committee member brought up the cost of the engineering plan, and that the community foundation may consider funding this portion as part of their mission to assist in the development of community hadicap accessible facilities and features. It was suggested to apply to the community foundation for some funding, but it was also determined that a budget must be set.
Nordbeck indicated that based on the proposal put forth in the motion Lampert Lee would come back and indicate what the cost of creating the grant application be, allowing a budget request to be made.
Nordbeck indicated that the proposal could be created by the end of the week (3-4 days).
Motion and second to request a bid proposal from Lampert and Lee for the cost of providing the narrative, site plan, engineering design and budget sheet to the village.
Discussion: the prior vote already "hired" them for the job, and now we're asking for the proposal for the hiring, but no harm will come from a formal request for the information, as well as the opportunity to look for funding from another source once a cost bid exists.
Motion Carried.
Discussion of who will handle the community foundation application. The community foundation application was reviewed and it was determined that Jim Riebe and Tom Schneider will write the Community Foundation Grant.
Discussion of next meeting, and the November 1st deadline. Next meeting will be held on the 26th at 6:30 pm
5) Discuss What is Next Discussion of bumpers on the pier as opposed to railings. Since the primary activity is fishing and viewing and the fact that the pier is a non-boating pier, the bumpers may be desirable. There may be mandating of at least one railing, depending on regulations, engineering and such.
Bumpers attractive for a variety of reasons, including weighing and costing less as opposed to the railing.
Discussion of the semantics of a wharf versus a pier, and what is more attractive between rails and bumpers, and cutouts in rail systems and such. Also the ability to have the pier be a removable pier for winter. More discussion, on the processes of features and where it fits into the engineering process, such as having benches and other features as a part of the pier. It was suggested to get a design for a pier with rails and a pier with bumpers. Some thoughts on the size recommendations on the pier, and locating some guidelines for handicap accessible requirements. It was felt the engineering firm would be able to determine the design requirements necessary for a handicap pier.
Discussion of the need to obtain water depths before the next meeting. Member of the public volunteered to help one of the committee members determine what water depths are for the areas around the possible pier location.
6) Adjourn Motion and Second to Adjourn. Motion Carried
1) Discuss Update on Conference Call
Discussed a letter from another community that is being used to apply for the same grant that the village is applying for to fund the pier design. What is needed for the application is a narrative description, site plan, engineering design, and budget for the project. This particular grant has a November 1st application deadline.
Discussed Scott Ironside's observations on the pier project. Scott indicated that he would like to see the pier located where the deepest water is available, it was felt that the far west end of the project, on the west end of the canal would be the best location, although the water depth is currently unknown, Chairman Wolter indicated they would need to get some water depths.
Discussed the May 1st deadline for the stewardship grants that could be applied for and used for the whole project, such as the main trail, the parking lot, the boat landing.
Discussed projects on leased property and the need to set up 20 year leases with CWPCO, with a minimum lease of 25 years for the trail.
Village President Evenson interjected a comment based on Scott Ironside's indication that the pier would be preferably located on land owned by CWPCO. Evenson contacted Mike Schrier (spelling??) and indicated that Mike has pledged CWPCO's cooperation on this matter.
Evenson also indicated that Mike thought CWPCO had some maps with water depths and that they would try to provide those maps to the village.
Evenson also discussed bringing Wood County Parks into the communication loop and committee process for the public access projects.
Evenson left the meeting.
Wolter indicated that the village needs municipal recreation plan in place to apply for Wisconsin Stewardship grants, and that this would need to be in place prior to May 1st for the application deadline. Wolter indicated that the North central regional planning or Wood County Planning as resources and that it may be possible to adapt the Wood County plan to the village's needs.
Someone questioned what a municipal recreation plan is and it was answered that it is a plan that evaluates the area and the user demand and presents a plan for future usage an facility location.
It was suggested that Gary Popelka might be able to draft the essentials of a plan and then it could be fleshed out by the committee.
Wolter felt it was something that could be worked on in a month or so, tasking 2-3 people from the BPAC committee to draft a plan then present it to the plan commission.
Property Acquisition. If the village looks to acquire any new property in their grants process. Prior to grant approval, if any new land is acquired before the grant is issued, a letter of retroactivity is required or the grants will not approve funds for land acquisition. Wolter suggested that he felt a lease could be workable, but if the village were to acquire a letter, then it would be on file for the May 1st grant application deadline.
It was questioned what a letter of retroactivity consists of. Wolter indicated a scenario would be proposed to the Eau Claire DNR office, identifying the land parcel, and that negotiations are in progress. The letter would then be issued from the DNR allowing the land acquisition to be included in the grant funding.
It was felt by Committee Member Tom Schneider that on the letter of retroactivity and the municipal recreation plan were items that may as well be acted on sooner rather than later in order to have the items taken care of.
2) Discuss Basic Elements of Pier Design Wolter referenced some basic pier designs that were included in members packets, and indicated that the water depth would be a determining factor as to whether the it will be more of a wharf or a pier.
Committee Member Kelly Knutson indicated that he was hoping to have the water depths, but Gene Forsner (MSC. Handles Shoremaster docks), who has many pier installations throughout the US. Gene provided some pictures of some piers that he has installed. Also provided a print from Shoremaster of what a pier could look like, dependent on some element designs, such as how far out the pier would go.
Wolter referred to the basic element designs contained within the packet, indicating that as engineering elements, it wouldn't pay to spend much time discussing the items at this point.
Knutson indicated that Gene could engineer the pier as well, and it was brought up by another committee member that the contract may have to go through a public bidding process.
Knutson indicated that Gene would be able to provide an on paper design with the committee's specifications for the grant application
3) Finalize Who Will Complete Engineering Plan Wolter transitioned into this item this item, and they talked about a few engineering firms, including Lampert Lee, Central Wisconsin Engineers (Dave Grutzik, village contracted engineer), and Shoremaster (Gene)
A comment was made that the committee would be hard pressed to find any other engineer more knowledgeable about piers than Gene Forsner at Shoremaster.
Committee member Mark Nordbeck indicated that Lampert Lee was going to be handling the parking lot engineering, and that Lampert Lee would then work with whatever firm was handling the pier.
Wolter questioned Nordbeck as to whether Lampert Lee was familiar with creating the application letter that contains the elements required for the DNR application. Nordbeck indicated that Lampert Lee was familiar with the process and the letters as they deal with DNR items on a regular basis.
Motion and second to hire Lampert Lee to put together the grant application letter, consisting of a narrative description, site plan, general engineering design, and budget cost estimate.
Discussion: Question arose as to giving Lampert Lee a budget. The BPAC committee has no budget, so any spending authorizations must go through the village board.
Motion amended and seconded to: Make recommendation to the Village Board to hire Lampert Lee to put together the grant application letter, consisting of a narrative description, site plan, general engineering design, and budget cost estimate for the handicapped accessible park area, pier and connecting pathway.
Motion Carried, Nordbeck (employed by Lampert Lee) Abstaining.
4) Updates From Other Committee Members A committee member brought up the cost of the engineering plan, and that the community foundation may consider funding this portion as part of their mission to assist in the development of community hadicap accessible facilities and features. It was suggested to apply to the community foundation for some funding, but it was also determined that a budget must be set.
Nordbeck indicated that based on the proposal put forth in the motion Lampert Lee would come back and indicate what the cost of creating the grant application be, allowing a budget request to be made.
Nordbeck indicated that the proposal could be created by the end of the week (3-4 days).
Motion and second to request a bid proposal from Lampert and Lee for the cost of providing the narrative, site plan, engineering design and budget sheet to the village.
Discussion: the prior vote already "hired" them for the job, and now we're asking for the proposal for the hiring, but no harm will come from a formal request for the information, as well as the opportunity to look for funding from another source once a cost bid exists.
Motion Carried.
Discussion of who will handle the community foundation application. The community foundation application was reviewed and it was determined that Jim Riebe and Tom Schneider will write the Community Foundation Grant.
Discussion of next meeting, and the November 1st deadline. Next meeting will be held on the 26th at 6:30 pm
5) Discuss What is Next Discussion of bumpers on the pier as opposed to railings. Since the primary activity is fishing and viewing and the fact that the pier is a non-boating pier, the bumpers may be desirable. There may be mandating of at least one railing, depending on regulations, engineering and such.
Bumpers attractive for a variety of reasons, including weighing and costing less as opposed to the railing.
Discussion of the semantics of a wharf versus a pier, and what is more attractive between rails and bumpers, and cutouts in rail systems and such. Also the ability to have the pier be a removable pier for winter. More discussion, on the processes of features and where it fits into the engineering process, such as having benches and other features as a part of the pier. It was suggested to get a design for a pier with rails and a pier with bumpers. Some thoughts on the size recommendations on the pier, and locating some guidelines for handicap accessible requirements. It was felt the engineering firm would be able to determine the design requirements necessary for a handicap pier.
Discussion of the need to obtain water depths before the next meeting. Member of the public volunteered to help one of the committee members determine what water depths are for the areas around the possible pier location.
6) Adjourn Motion and Second to Adjourn. Motion Carried
posted by Spyros Heniadis at 5:53 PM
1 Comments:
Just how much money has the Village of Biron already spent on the Bridgewater project ? --
This would be good to know, especially since the project is being rammed down the public's
throat by a few "good 'ol boys" - and seems to nearly be in very deep water at the moment.
It is not a good idea for the public to give up its right to a scenic drive and unlimited water access for the benefit of another zealous,greedy developer and his clique of friends.
Village taxpayers need to raise hell and find out the true cost of this fiasco NOW, not later.
Post a Comment
<< Home