My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PRECA 08-01-1984
NewBrighton
>
Commissions
>
Commissions-OLD
>
Parks And Recreation
>
Minutes Park & Recreation Commission Meetings P&R 01200
>
AGENDAS
>
1984
>
PRECA 08-01-1984
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/12/2007 2:57:10 AM
Creation date
3/29/2007 2:19:35 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
21
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
8 <br />Related Questions: • <br />1. Should there be an effort to: <br />• identify programming being offered in regional recreation open space? <br />identify potential users for programs being offered? <br />- match users and programs by alerting potential users? <br />- evaluate user response to programs and recommend ways to make them <br />.more compatible with expressed needs, plus suggest new programs to <br />meet unmet needs? <br />In other words, should there. be a coordinated, system-wide, regional <br />marketing program for recreation open space? <br />2. What role in a coordinated marketing program is appropriate for the <br />Council? Far the implementing agencies? <br />3. Is it appropriate for public agencies to "sell" users on tax-provided <br />recreation facilities? <br />4. Specifically, would it be a good idea for the Council to require that all <br />regional parks and facilities be identified by a conspicuous, well- <br />publicized logo? <br />ISSUE 8. Should there be a program-for long-term capital maintenance in <br />re~onal Qarks. <br />In regional parks which pre-date the regional system, especially in Minneapolis <br />and St. Paul, facilities constructed in WPA days have reached the end of their <br />life. They're important in the regional system;. 50 years use by people across <br />the region, and from outside, has established a tradition. Rebuilding these <br />facilities will take place over the next 10 years, using regional funds. No <br />mayor issue is anticipated as long as regional development funds ors adequate. <br />What is not established is how future redevelopment in the regional system is <br />to be funded. Structures, roads, and bridges built with regional funds will <br />require attention starting about the year 2010. Given that the regional. sys- <br />tem, from 1974 to 1983, spent approximately $34 million regional dollars for <br />.development, and from 1984-2000 anticipates spending $100 million more, the <br />required funds will be significant. <br />As a specific example from the past, a recent estimate set the 1940 investment <br />at Como Park, including zoo and conservatory, at $662,000. Using a conserva- <br />tive inflation value, the 1940 facilities would cost approximately $7.5 million <br />in 1983 dollars to build today. More zoo and park additions will bring-the. <br />total anticipated expenditure at Como Park, Zoo & Conservatory, by 1990, to <br />approximately 520 million. <br />The current CIP anticipates a total investment, regional and other sources, of <br />approximately 5175 million to completely develop (and/or redevelop) regional <br />recreation open space by year 2000. If a 50-year life span is assumed for all <br />development, what will be needed in the years 2025-2050? It has been said that • <br />our present generation has mortgaged America, to the detriment of the genera- <br />tion which follows, who must retire the mortgage. Can regional parks be an <br />exception to that problem? <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.