Laserfiche WebLink
I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />2 <br /> <br />The Metropolitan Council Act of 1967 Chapter 473.181, Subd. 2, has expanded <br />this A-95 review and comment authority to approving or disapproving acquisition <br />grants according to the Regional Recreation Open Space Policy Plan. In <br />implementing this responsibility and because there are limited funds, the <br />Council ranks the applications for funding. <br /> <br />ISSUES <br /> <br />A. POLICY PLANNING AREA ALLOCATIONS <br /> <br />For the past several years the grant funds were allocated by the four <br />policy planning areas (Fully Developed, Area of Planned Urbanization, <br />Freestanding Growth Centers, and Rural Areas). This allocation was <br />originally based on a formula of 60 percent population and 40 percent <br />fiscal effort tax base of the planning area. The policy area shares, based <br />on this formula, fluctuated a great deal when the formula was applied for <br />the Fiscal Years 1977 to 1980. Since Fiscal Year 1980 recommendations were <br />approved the Commission and Council have used the same allocations. It was <br />hoped that the local comprehensive plans would provide a more realistic <br />measurement of local recreation need. Although many comprehensive plans <br />provided good data on future recreation needs (i.e., project concepts), <br />there wasn't sufficient detail on recreation project costs to formulate a ' <br />policy planning area allocation for FY '83. Communities should be <br />encouraged to further refine capital 'improvement programs, for it is this <br />data which indicates not only the financial need for recreation facilities <br />in the next fiscal year, but also the long-term needs for recreation <br />facilities. These long-term forecasts will give the local, state and <br />federal legislative bodies a better way to allocate funds for recreation <br />capital improvements while balancing the financial needs of other public <br />services with recreation. <br /> <br />Staff reviewed three factors to determine a policy planning area allocation: <br /> <br />comparing total costs of projects by policy planning area from the <br />past four years; <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />comparing the 1981 total assessed valuation (tax base) of each policy <br />planning area; <br /> <br />3. comparing the 1980 population of each policy planning area. <br /> <br />The comparison of total project costs by policy planning area, shows that: <br /> <br />Approximately 50 percent of the total cost of requests came from the <br />Fully Developed Area. <br /> <br />36 percent of the total cost of requests were from the Area of Planned <br />Urbanization. <br /> <br />Seven percent of the total cost of requests were from the Freestanding <br />Growth Centers. <br /> <br />- Four percent of the total cost of requests were from the Rural Area. <br /> <br /> <br />