WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

SF 5028

City of Lakeville Klamath Trail retaining walls replacement appropriation

2025-2026 Regular Session Introduced by Zach Duckworth

Funding to replace Lakeville Klamath Trail retaining walls to improve safety, stability, and drainage along a defined trail segment.

Referred to Capital Investment
#appropriations #citiesandtowns-specific #parksandtrails
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · SF 5028

Summary: SF 5028 (2025-2026) – City of Lakeville Klamath Trail Retaining Walls Replacement Appropriation

Basic Information

  • Bill number: SF 5028
  • Session: 2025-2026
  • Jurisdiction: Minnesota
  • Title: City of Lakeville Klamath Trail retaining walls replacement appropriation
  • Introduced: 2026-04-09 (first reading)
  • Committee: Referred to the Capital Investment Committee
  • Sponsors: Primary sponsor information not provided; Co-sponsor: Zach Duckworth

Purpose and Intent

SF 5028 seeks an appropriation from state capital investment resources to finance the replacement of retaining walls along the Klamath Trail in the city of Lakeville. The bill is positioned as a targeted infrastructure improvement project intended to address safety, structural integrity, and potentially flood or erosion control concerns associated with the existing retaining walls.

Key Provisions and Changes

  • Subject of appropriation: Replacement of retaining walls along the Klamath Trail in Lakeville.
  • Funding mechanism: Capital investment appropriation (state funds allocated for a specific local infrastructure project).
  • Project scope: Replacement of existing retaining walls along a defined segment of the Klamath Trail within Lakeville city limits. The bill text would specify project boundaries, wall design standards, and the anticipated lifecycle of the replacements.
  • Project deliverables (expected outcomes):
    • Enhanced safety for trail users and adjacent properties.
    • Improved structural stability of the trail corridor.
    • Potential improvement in drainage and erosion control in the project area.
  • Compliance and standards: The project would be required to meet applicable state design and construction standards for retaining walls and related stormwater/drainage systems.

Note: The precise dollar amount, project timeline, match requirements (if any), bid requirements, and detailed scope are not included in the provided summary. The enacted bill text would specify:
- Total appropriation amount and whether it is a one-time or multi-year allocation
- Eligible cost categories (design, engineering, right-of-way, construction, contingencies)
- Local match or state-only funding terms
- Evaluation criteria and reporting requirements
- Schedule milestones and project completion date

Who Would Be Affected

  • City of Lakeville: Primary beneficiary and project implementer; responsible for project administration, cost matching (if required), permitting, and coordination with state agencies.
  • State of Minnesota: Provides capital funds for the project; may require oversight, reporting, and compliance with state procurement, environmental, and construction standards.
  • Public safety and recreation users: Residents and visitors who use the Klamath Trail could experience improved safety and usability upon project completion.
  • Adjacent property owners: May experience reduced risk from slope instability or drainage-related issues following wall replacement.

Procedural and Timeline Considerations

  • Current status: Introduction and first reading (as of 2026-04-09); referred to the Capital Investment Committee for consideration and pass-through to the broader legislative process.
  • Next steps in process:
    • Capital Investment Committee reviews and may schedule hearings, hear testimony, and amend the bill.
    • If advanced, the bill would move to the floor of the Minnesota Senate for debate and vote, then to the House (or vice versa, depending on the chamber of origin and pairing with companion bills) for concurrence.
    • Final passage would lead to a conference committee if there are differences, followed by governor’s signature or veto.
  • Timeline for funding decisions: Typical capital investment bills include a multi-month process with potential summer or early fall hearings; final appropriation would be contingent on legislative approval and the governor’s action.

Notes and Considerations for Readers

  • The summary above reflects the stated purpose and mechanism (capital investment appropriation) but does not include the monetary amount, project duration, or detailed terms, as those specifics are not provided in the available information.
  • For stakeholders, key negotiating elements to watch include total cost, state vs. local cost share, project milestones, project readiness (design and permitting status), and reporting/oversight requirements.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.