Laserfiche WebLink
M E T R O P O L I T A N C O U N C I L <br />Suite 300 Metro Sauare Building, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101 <br />M E M O R A N D U M April 21, 19£il <br />TOs Metropolitan Parks and Open Space Commission <br />FROM: Parks and Open Space Staff, Marty Jessen <br />SUBJEC^!': NEt+I BRIGHTON REQUEST FC?R DESIGNATION AS THE <br />IMPLEMENTING AGENCX FOR LONG LAIR/RUSH LAKE <br />REGIONAL PARK <br />INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND <br />Ramsey County received a grant from the regional park fund in <br />1974 to purchase land at Rush Lake within the City of New <br />Brighton. The land became part of the larger Long Lake/Rush Lake' <br />Regional Park in Ramsey County's Master Flan submitted in July <br />1975, The plan also discussed the relationship of the open space <br />acquired along Rice Creek with the land at Long .Lake/Rush Lake. <br />(See Attachment 1). <br />The plan failed to address the relationship between the County <br />and City with respect to who, was going to do what to accommodate <br />regional park development and use on land awned by the City. <br />During 1977-7$ the County and City started developing a ja~,nt <br />master plan as required by the Council. `One of the mayor points <br />i.n this discussion became the question of who would assume <br />responsibility for and pay for operation and maintenance of the <br />facility once developed. In March 1979 the City and County <br />requested a grant of $31,000 for fencing and clean-up of the <br />site. In June the Metropolitan Council adopted the following <br />position on the request. <br />"No grant shall be authorized to the City of New Brighton or <br />the County of Ramsey for improvements to the Rush Lake/Long <br />Lake Regional Park site at this time, but costs incurred for <br />capital stewardship work which occurs after the date of <br />Council action on this recommendation will be eligible for <br />reimbursement (to a maximum of $31,000) by the Metropolitan <br />Council at such time as the ~Qint master plan for the park is <br />approved." <br />(The staff report on this matter is attachment 2 and discusses <br />the operation and maintenance planning then occurring.) ~' <br />Throughout the discussion we stressed the need for the County to `~' <br />'` assume the implementing agency responsibility. We suggested that ~' <br />they could contract with the City if consistent with the System `~ <br />Policy Plan. <br />