Laserfiche WebLink
-3- <br />This chart is intended to show the total cost of a facility <br />without attempting to pre-judge which facilities the city <br />would be interested in developing in a city-owned facility. <br />The initials (LL) and(RL) designate the area planned for de- <br />velopment of specific facilities. Some of the facilities <br />such as picnicking could be relocated, others such as water <br />based activities cannot. It would be tempting to say that <br />some of the development fi(jures are high but it must be re- <br />membered that reduced development costs inevitably result <br />in higher maintenance costs. <br />If the City should attempt to gain implementing agency status <br />it would have to develop the entire facility since the entire <br />site barely meets minimum size requirement for a regional park. <br />The City would then be eligible for development funds and <br />operation and maintenance funds if they ever become available. <br />Ramsey County would also have to give permission to the City <br />to develop and maintain the Rush Lake portion. The City,under <br />this option, would be required by Metro Council to conform to <br />its development guidelines for regional park development. <br />Should the City decide to develop as a city park it will have <br />to negctiate with Ramsey county for access through the Rush <br />Lake site. There are, however, some significant advantages <br />to this option. They include; <br />• 1. More local control over development <br />2. Potential elimination of facilities such as <br />major group picnic facilities and nature center, etc. <br />3. The City would be eligible for up to $200,000 develop- <br />ment grants <br />Acceptance of Lawcon grant funds would require de- <br />velopment of an improved boat launch and swimming <br />facility. The state is making strong efforts to <br />tie any ;park grant monies to improving water access <br />in the metro area. <br />4. Total control over operation and maintenance functions, <br />however, the concept of a New Brighton Park for resi- <br />dents only is unrealistic. <br />Disadvantages in this option include; <br />1. High city development costs <br />2. Permanent committment to operation and maintenance <br />expenses. In addition to the operation and mainten- <br />ance costs included earlier, there would be signifi- <br />cant expenditures for equipment. An initial outlay <br />of approximately $40,000 with yearly replacement <br />costs of $5,000-10,000, The City will also incur <br />some additional administrative and policing costs. <br />3. Some insist that the City can afford to develop, <br />operate and maintain the park if development is kept <br />to a minimum and the facility is designed for resi- <br />dents only. This argument ignores the fact that <br />some of the most expensive facilities; roads parking, <br />trails and beach are considered minimul development. <br />These facilities are relatively expensive to maintain.