Laserfiche WebLink
.: , s'r; <br />3. Seek to have Anoka County assume implementing agency <br />responsibility for this site plus Ramsey County's portion of <br />the Rice Creek Trails. <br />This issue raises some interesting questions. <br />be "bought out" if the City is designated the <br />agency? How can/should this be accomplished? <br />established if the City is designated? What <br />have on the operation and maintenance funding <br />force's conclusions? <br />~ , <br /> <br />Should the County <br />implementing <br />What precedent is <br />effect would this <br />study and the task <br />The Council and Commission have an obvious desire to see park <br />development at the site. The CIP includes $600,000 for this <br />purpose. $250,000 of this total came out of the $27.3 million <br />provided by the 1977 Legislature. The remainder was added in <br />1980 out of investment earnings, showing further the interest in <br />seeing development proceed. <br />In order for this to occur the Council needs a willing partner to <br />serve as the implementing agency. To date, Ramsey County figs not <br />carried out the responsibility placed in it and in fact .now has. <br />abrogated this responsibility by supporting the City's. request. <br />The County has indicated that it will not proceed with regional <br />park development until there'is financial assistance-with <br />operation and maintenance costs. Thus if the Council wants to <br />see the park developed now it probably has little choice but to <br />proceed with a grant to the City.- A sunset provision could be <br />established at which point the responsibility would revert back <br />to Ramsey County. <br />The advantages to securing Anoka County's participation would be <br />1) to hold the limit of implementing agencies, and 2) to provide <br />for one implementing agency to be responsible for the entire open <br />space system along Rice Creek. Perhaps through a joint powers <br />agreement Anoka County could contract with the City for various <br />services. <br />The Long Lake/Rush Lake situation is but one illustration of the <br />problem in providing a system of regional parks in the East Metro <br />Area. Both Ramsey and Washington County are delaying, in one <br />manner or another, the planning, acquisition, and development of <br />the regional system adopted by the Council. In fact, neither is <br />using. all of the funding available through the Council for <br />acquisition and development. Both are spending considerably less <br />than the average of the implementing agencies in the area of <br />operation and maintenance. Each has in effect placed a <br />moratorium on regional park system activity--Washington on land <br />acquisition, Ramsey on development until operation and <br />maintenance funding is provided. Their collective positions <br />result in significantly lower service levels for East Metro <br />residents than those in the West Metro area. <br />DM044A <br />