PRECM 03-03-1982 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~` Local fire service is assumed anywhere, the beach may break even due to concession revenues and the City could provide a higher service level than the County for critical police services. The key element in this City-County-Metropolitan Council park development and operation is cooperation. The City cannot dictate terms which are financially, legally or operationally unacceptable. That does not imply that the City cannot seek solutions which are advantageous dealing with such issues as local control and Future operation. If a reasonable solution cannot be concluded in 1982, I doubt if there will be future acquisition and development funds. It could be very difficult for the City to justify City expenditures to develop the park and the City would not be reimbursed for local share costs, to date, needed to possibly maintain other Park and Recreation Department facilities and programs. Actual use of the park, as City developed, may be regional or sub-regional anyway - people are attracted to a facility due to its intrinsic qualities, not who develops it. A "City" park would not be publicized as widely but word of mouth may spread interest anyway. .Should the park not be developed, I would recommend that the City-owned land be sold for private development possibly as S3.n g?e 'Jr.mi,ltlf^i:ii:~-I/ ?1L1ti~InEj. ?~ r:~f. r~„t`-7~i".T z;:r ~-}~~~ ~,~~_ ~-i<~r; due to the original park bond referendum (for "park purposes") and possibly, authoriztion from the Federal government. will be necessary as part of the land was evidently acquired with LAWCON funds. Such private development is the only way to realize the true "rate of return" that the Financial Task Force desires. I don't feel that ~~ith the current fiscal problems, that local development and operation is justified from a cost-benefit perspective. JWF:jf cc: M. Anderson -2-