Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Sidewalk Csah66 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Crosslake council tables County Road 66 sidewalk decision after business owners, residents weigh options
Summary
After reviewing three cost and design options for a sidewalk/trail along County Road (CSAH) 66, the Crosslake City Council voted Feb. 9 to table the decision for two months so local businesses can continue discussions about cost sharing; several residents and a business owner pressed the council for a curb-aligned concrete sidewalk.
The Crosslake City Council on Feb. 9 reviewed three options for pedestrian improvements along the east side of County Road (CSAH) 66 between Bald Eagle Trail and the Marine Max property and voted to table a final decision for two months to allow additional outreach to business owners.
The council considered: Option 1 — a 6-foot concrete sidewalk behind the existing curb at an estimated cost of $410,000 (the same corridor as a 10-foot bituminous trail would be estimated at $275,000); Option 2 — removing the east-side parking lane, installing a new curb and a 6-foot concrete trail at an estimated $552,000 (or a 10-foot bituminous trail for $415,000); and Option 3 — installing a crosswalk and solar flasher at Edgewater Drive with ADA ramps at an estimated $50,000.
Resident Jonathan Grothe told the council the community favored Option 2, arguing a curb-aligned concrete path would match the existing sidewalk north of the school and provide continuity. “The Crosslakers were in favor of Option 2 with a concrete sidewalk so that it matched the existing sidewalk on the east side of CSAH 66 from the school to Bald Eagle Trail,” Grothe said.
Business owner Austin Nelson of 36378 County Road 66 said he supports Option 2 and told the council he had been speaking with other business owners about sharing project costs, urging the council to allow him time to gather commitments. “I have been talking to other business owners about helping share the cost of the project,” Nelson said.
After a lengthy discussion about estimated costs and timing, Mayor Jackson Purfeerst moved to table the matter for two months so Nelson could continue outreach; the motion was seconded by Council Member Sandy Farder and carried with all ayes (Motion 02R-07-26). The council did not select a construction option or funding plan at the meeting.
The matter will return to the council’s agenda at a future meeting with any additional information or proposed cost-sharing commitments from property owners and businesses. No construction schedule, funding source allocation, or contractor was authorized in the Feb. 9 motion.
