My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Open Space Advisory Board Agenda and Packet 2013 02 13
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
OPEN SPACE ADVISORY BOARD
>
2000-2019 Open Space Advisory Board Agendas and Packets
>
2013 Open Space Advisory Board Agendas and Packets
>
Open Space Advisory Board Agenda and Packet 2013 02 13
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 8:21:23 AM
Creation date
2/15/2013 3:10:32 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
OSABPKT 2013 02 13
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
22
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Five-Year Capital Improvement Program <br />Request for Capital Equipment or Capital Improvement Project <br />Project or Equipment IdentificationEstimated Expenditure Schedule <br />Project Name:Trail Improvement & ReplacementEquipment orFive-YearYear 1Year 2Year 3Year 4Year 5Beyond <br />Project CostsTotal201320142015201620175 Years <br />Submitting Department/Division:Parks & RecreationLand Acquisition- -- - - -- <br />Design & Engineering- -- - - - - <br />Funding Source(s)/Location(s)PercentOther Prof Services- -- - - -- <br />Conservation Trust - Land Acquisition100%Construction225,000 45,00045,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 - <br />Other or Equipment- -- - -- - <br /> Total Project Costs 45,000225,000 45,000 45,000 45,00045,000- <br />Grant(s) or Other <br /> Project Revenue- -- -- - - <br />Total Funding100%Impact to Annual <br />Department PriorityHigh Maint/Op Costs- -- -- - - <br />Project Location Map, Equipment Identification Photo, or OtherProject or Equipment Description and Justification <br />Project Description: <br />TheCity of Louisville's Trail System is comprised of both soft surface (crusher fine) and hard <br />surface (concrete) materials. This 38 mile long trails system traverses both Open Space and <br />Parks lands throughout the City. The trail system is inspected annually for chips, erosion and <br />other safety concerns. These areas of concern are prioritized in a manner to address safety <br />issues first. This budget request is targeted to replace or repair trail surface damage, add <br />features to comply with ADA regulations, stabilize and revegetate trail edges, realign or <br />reclaim trails, and fence or fill hazardous trail side edges. <br />Why Is thisproject needed and how does it support City Council's goals? <br />In the recent Citizen Survey conducted for the Comprehensive Parks, Recreation, Open Space <br />and Trails Master Plan (PORST), trails ranked number one for 'usage levels' and 'importance'. <br />Goal 1 in the PROST also identifies two objectives related to trail safety and continued <br />maintenance practices. <br />What benefits will this project produce or what undesirable consequences will occur if it is <br />not approved? <br />Maintaining our trails on a regular bases will allow us to get the maximum use out of the <br />surface material. Without regular maintenance, materials can break down faster and over time <br />(MaporPhoto) <br />may require replacements of the surface rather then maintenance of the surface. Lastly, trail <br />erosion left un manage aged can lead to significantly higher repair costs in the future and <br />more hazardous conditions. <br />What realisticoptions or alternatives have been considered and what are the pros and cons of <br />each? <br />1) Regular grooming of soft surface trails is being implemented to reduce maintenance <br />issues. <br />2) Drainage improvements should be considered for areas that continuously require <br />maintenance. Pros-solve the problem so no maintenance is needed and improve <br />sustainability of the trail. Cons-short term cost of the improvement. <br />3) Trail closures where necessary. Pros-Citizens won't be injured while using designated City <br />trail. Cons-Citizens will likely bypass the area putting themselves in a more hazardous <br />situation. <br />9 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.