Laserfiche WebLink
I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br />'1 <br /> I <br /> I <br />,I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> <br />REVIEW NEED FOR POLICY <br /> ON PARKS SIGNING <br /> By: Merland Otto <br /> <br />CASE #4 <br /> <br />Background= <br /> <br />A number of City parks are unidentified and unsigned. <br />to several problems (particularly in those parks <br />undeveloped). <br /> <br />This leads <br /> that are <br /> <br />One of the concerns is that residents are unaware that the property <br />is park property. A second concern is that contractors, temporary <br />help, and others have difficulty locating the parks particularly <br />if vacant lots are adjoining. Lastly, there is a concern with <br />safety/emergency response for park users if the parks are not <br />adequately signed. <br /> <br />At present, some parks are signed, others are not. Current <br />signing was done as an Eagle Scout project with City crews doing <br />the installation. The Parks Commission should consider whether a <br />policy should be adopted pertaining to identification signing of <br />City parks. <br /> <br />staff Recommendation: <br /> <br />Discussion at staff level supports the idea of signing parks which <br />have some degree of development but not signing those which are <br />wetlands, retention basins or otherwise unusable. <br /> <br />commission Action: <br /> <br />Recommend/not recommend adoption of a policy for park signage. <br /> <br />Review Checklist: <br /> <br />City Administrator <br />Public Works Supt. <br />City Engineer <br />City Attorney <br />Parks Coordinator <br /> <br />PARKS: 12/13/90 <br /> <br /> <br />