PRECM 07-11-1984 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

..The second type, fees char ed for entry, for parking, or other fees which have the effect of admission fees, have received more attention. Most of the ample- . menting agencies do not charge such fees. Of those which do, some charge only for certain. sites, others charge for all vehicles entering all. parks. Some collect by parking meters, some by daily and annual stickers. Related Questions: 1.. Are general fees for regional parks appropriate, or should basic entry be -free for all users? 2. Are fees which have the effect of general admissions discriminatory against user groups such as low income, minorities, physically handicapped, and peo- pie who do not live nearby, as opponents say, or, are they basically fair in that they are paid by those who use the parks most, as proponents say? 3. If it is reasonable to charge a general fee, would it make sense to apply a uniform entrance fee to all regional parks? Should it be the same as the state park fee? Should it be an actual statewide park sticker with'. revenues shared by state parks and regional parks? 4. What is a reasonable mechanism to charge a regional park user fee (if one is desirable)? Could it be a license r ther than a parking sticker? Would something like the Winter.Carnival and ~quatennial badge system work? Any .other ideas? ISSUE 7. Is there a need for a comprehensive marketing plan for the regional o en space sys~em?"Wfia~ s e ounc, T s a ro r, a e role ,~, Ti~i n pu c use o e reg,ona recrea ,on open space sys em. Offering a balanced system, with equitable recreation opportunity across the Region, may not be enough. A low level of awareness could be a problem. Some- . times, a problem is in what people perceive to be limits on their use. The 1980 policy plan accurately states that there is no general public image of a comprehensive regional park system. ,~y The Council will coordinate, with the implementing agencies, a ~` ~ ubiic information program to make the public more aware of the regional recreation open space system. Public information efforts of the implementing agencies are mostly localized-- ` ~ dealing only with parks and programs in their jurisdiction and usually aimed specifically at their constituents. The Council coordinates a limited infor- mation program about the regional system, in concert with the implementing agencies" programs, to make the public more broadly aware. Simple dissemina- tion of information probably does not meet the public"s need. One increasingly frequent suggestion is for the Council to coordinate a system marketing plan with the implementing agencies which sets regional objectives including deter- mining potential audiences, informing potential users and evaluating program response, all throughout the regional system. A sample objective might be greater public identity for the regional recreation open space system. The Council is selecting a logo for regional recreation open space. The logo could become an identifier, universal in the regiona l system,: clearly marking all opportunities in all regional facilities.