My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PRECA 09-05-1979
NewBrighton
>
Commissions
>
Commissions-OLD
>
Parks And Recreation
>
Minutes Park & Recreation Commission Meetings P&R 01200
>
AGENDAS
>
1979
>
PRECA 09-05-1979
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/29/2007 3:47:13 AM
Creation date
3/16/2007 8:49:52 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
17
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).
View images
View plain text
~, <br /> <br /> ~~~, <br /> t <br />In practice, the Council has received separate acquisition-stage and develop- <br />ment-stage master plans. Acquisition-stage plans have set boundaries and <br />estimated costs of acquiring parklands. Development-stage plans have addressed <br />park capacity, facilities and timing for development; they have been the basis <br />for development funding within a park. <br />(3) What role should the Council play in resolving joint master plan <br />differences? <br />Policy l3 in the Council's current policy plan requires that "there shall be <br />one coordinated master plan .for each regional recreation open space"site that <br />involves more than one imp lementing agency. This plan shall be approved by <br />each of .the implementing agencies, and shall identify the nature of each agency's <br />responsibilities for carrying out the compatible development and operation of <br />the park." <br />To date, only one joint master plan has been approved. This is the plan for the <br />Keller-Phalen Regional Park, which has been operating for a long time. All <br />joint master plans for new parks are still under debate, The problem appears <br />to be that when there is a disagreement, each agency holds its position, causing <br />a stalemate. <br />4. THE NUMBER OF IMPLEMENTING AGENCIES <br />Two questions regarding the number of implementing agencies should be addressed: <br />(1) Should the Council and Commission limit the number of implementing <br />agencies. <br />(2) Should the Council explore ways to phase suburban communities out <br />of the implementation of regional park system projects, and to <br />transfer that responsibility to the appropriate county par authority? <br />Or should be present structure of implementing agencies be continued? <br />There are currently 11 implementing agencies involved in the regional recreation <br />open space system. They are: Anoka, Carver, Dakota, Ramsey and Washington <br />Counties; Hennepin County Park Reserve District; Scott-Hennepin Joint Park Board; <br />Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board; and the cities of St. Paul, Bloomington <br />and Eden Prairie. <br />Most of these government units became implementing agencies because they had <br />-jurisdiction over existing parks or potential park sites that were being <br />considered for regional recreation-open space designation-in 1974. _ <br />When the legislature passed the Metropolitan Parks Act in 1974, one catalyst <br />for establishment of a regional park system was the need for..immediate action <br />to protect 12 land resources threatened by urban development. These sites were <br />located throughout the Metropolitan Area in every county except Carver. They <br />were being acquired by Anoka, Dakota, Ramsey, Scott and Washington Counties, <br />Hennepin County Park Reserve District, and the cities of Bloomington and <br />Eden Prairie. <br />6 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.