My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Parks and Recreation Commission - 07/09/1992
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Parks and Recreation Commission
>
1992
>
Agenda - Parks and Recreation Commission - 07/09/1992
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/27/2025 11:17:14 AM
Creation date
2/26/2004 2:03:23 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Parks and Recreation Commission
Document Date
07/09/1992
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
19
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
19931 PARKS CAPITAL <br /> <br />IMPROVEMENTS <br /> <br /> Case <br />PROGRAM (CIP) <br /> <br />#2 <br /> <br />Backgrotind: <br /> <br />Each summor the Park and Recreation Commission and Staff develop a capital <br />improvem~ntlrequest for submission to City Council's Budget Committee. This request is <br />a result of- l:,.theineeds and requests determined throughout the preceeding year and generally <br />reflects th~ Fi~,e Year Plan. At the same time the next years request is formulated, the Five <br />Year Plan !s examined and an additional year is added. <br />The CIP serves as a guide for determining funding and development needs. It does not <br />commit th~ City to allocate funds or undertake development of the needs detmled m the <br />CIP. <br /> <br />Observation: <br /> <br />Last month thee City Council and the Park and Recreation Commission conducted a joint <br />meeting, Rela,!ive to the CIP, the Council and Commission reached a consensus that: <br /> <br /> 1. The City is deficient in it's distribution and development of neighborhood <br /> :parks. <br /> <br /> 2. The City should not focus on a single recreation aspect, but rather weigh the <br /> benefit of allocating dollars that serve the greater number of people and to <br /> 'improving diverse recreation opportunities. <br /> <br /> 3. :Park districts are an equitable, convenient way to measure development and <br /> Progress with the City's park system. <br /> <br />The Couneilgnd Commission were in agreement that park development in the City <br />(districts) shotiid be base upon: <br /> <br /> I. 'Need <br /> 2. :!Density and land uses <br /> 3. Ratio of park dedication dollars paid to recreational assets within that district <br /> <br />Information such as the total amount of park dedication paid per district or property values <br />and numbers of residents and parcels will not be available in time to assist with CIP <br />determination.: <br /> <br />Staff suggests development of only the 1993 requests at this time. One technique for doing <br />so would bt tO, review the park districts with the intent to accomplish the following two <br />objectives for the 1993 request: <br /> <br />~If feasible, at least a minor recreational improvement within each district <br />,(expenditures may vary widely); and <br /> <br />City wide - cause improvements in each recreational realm, for instance, at <br />least an improvement in the area of: <br />~ Active - perhaps tennis courts or bleachers <br /> Passive - perhaps landscaping or park benches <br /> Linear - perhaps acquisition, development or signage of trails <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.