PRECM 07-11-1984 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Related Questions: I. Should there be an effort to: identify programming being offered in regional recreation open space? - identify potential users for programs being offered? - match users and programs by alerting potential users? - evaluate user response to programs and recommend ways to make-.them more compatible with expressed needs, plus suggest new programs to meet unmet needs? In other words, should there be a coordinated, system-wide, regional marketing program for recreation open space? 2. What role in a coordinated marketing program is appropriate for the Council? For the implementing agencies? 3. Is it appropriate for public agencies to "sell" users on tax-provided recreation facilities? 4. Specifically,-would it be a good idea. for the Council to require that all regional parks and facilities be identified by a conspicuous, well- publicized logo? ISSUE 8 Should there be a program for long-term capital maintenance in reg ona par s. In regional parks which pre-date the regional system, especially in Minneapolis and St. Paul, facilities constructed in WPA days have reached. the end of their life. They're important. in the regional system; 50 years use by people across the region, and from outside, has established a tradition.. pebuilding these facilities wi'~1 take place over the next ld years, using regional funds. No ma3or issue is anticipated as long as regional development funds are adequate. What is not established is how future redevelopment in the regional system is to be funded. Structures, roads, and bridges built with regional funds will require attention starting about the year 2010. Given .that the regional sys- tem, from 1974 to 1983, spent approximately $34 million regional dollars for development, and from 1984-2000 anticipates spending $100 million. more, the required funds will be significant. Asa specific example from the past, a recent estimate set the 1940 investment at Como Park, including zoo and conservatory, at .$662,000. Using a conserva- tive inflation value, the 1940 facilities would cost approximately $7.5 million in 1983 dollars- to build today. More zoo and park additions will bring the total anticipated expenditure at Como Park,-Zoo & Conservatory, by 1990, to approximately $20 million. The current CIP anticipates a total investment, regional and other sources, of approximately $175 million to completely develop (and/or redevelop) regional recreation open space by year 2000. If a 50-year life span is assumed for all development, what will be needed in the years 2025-2050? It has been said that our present generation has mortgaged America, to the detriment of the genera- tion which follows, who must retire the mortgage. Can regional parks be an exception to that problem?