Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parks And Recreation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County rejects bids for Apple Blossom Park pavilion, tables decision on DNR grant while exploring city collaboration
Summary
The Winona County Board rejected bids for the Apple Blossom Park pavilion construction and voted to table a decision on whether to decline the Minnesota DNR recreation grant for six months, while directing staff to pursue conversations with the City of La Crescent about possible collaboration or alternative plans.
Winona County commissioners rejected construction bids for the planned pavilion at Apple Blossom Park and agreed to table a decision about declining a Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Outdoor Recreation grant for six months while staff explore options with the City of La Crescent.
The board’s three-part action, which passed 3–2, instructed staff to: (1) reject the bids that had been received; (2) delay a formal decision on whether to decline the DNR grant OR24-009 for six months; and (3) pursue conversations with the City of La Crescent about possible alternatives or partnerships for the park project. The motion passed by voice vote with a recorded result of three in favor and two opposed.
County staff and commissioners noted several factors behind the decision: the bids returned at higher-than-expected prices, project design delays that left insufficient time to meet the DNR grant timetable without redesign, and community concerns over park use and bluffland protections. The DNR grant terms limit how the county may change the funded scope, and staff said the grant cannot be transferred to another applicant and is tied to the county’s original application and deliverables.
The board heard that the county used state bond funds to acquire Apple Blossom Park and that deed or grant language tied to that prior purchase could require reimbursement to the state if the county were to sell the property or change its protected status; staff said they were still researching the legal details. Commissioners also discussed perceived fairness and consistency after residents raised concerns that building a visible pavilion on a bluff might be inconsistent with other local development limits.
Commissioner Begley moved the three-part motion; it was seconded and passed 3–2. Commissioners asked staff to provide the board with the City of La Crescent’s correspondence and to continue researching deed/grant restrictions and long-term options for the property.
