My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Council - 04/25/2017
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Council
>
2017
>
Agenda - Council - 04/25/2017
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/17/2025 3:32:02 PM
Creation date
4/25/2017 2:48:22 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Council
Document Date
04/25/2017
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
838
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
• Projects continuing a phased high-priority project or one of relatively high priority that is timed <br /> with other public improvement projects to achieve significant economies in cost of construction. <br /> • A project providing a specific facility that meets a documented need, is currently not available, <br /> or is significantly under-represented in the system where there will be no adverse effect on the <br /> natural resource base. <br /> • Regional trails that connect to other trails or regional facilities or extend existing trails. <br /> • Natural resource restoration, invasive species control and other types of resource restoration <br /> and protection projects. <br /> • Acquisition of parkland parcels or reimbursement for parkland parcels. <br /> • Matching non-state and non-Council funds to develop/rehabilitate recreation facilities or restore <br /> natural resource areas is encouraged. <br /> • Projects that provide essential facility improvements and natural resource enhancements to <br /> allow for the initial public use of a regional park once there is adequate demand and acquisition <br /> base to support the development. <br /> Early efforts of the Regional Parks System program focused on acquiring desirable tracts of land and <br /> incorporating existing park facilities that are valuable to the region. Since the lands in question were <br /> being used, or were intended to be used, for some form of recreation, it was recognized that eventually <br /> the new lands would require development and the facilities in the older parks would have to be <br /> redeveloped through replacement or reconstruction. <br /> Regional park implementing agencies are responsible for the development and rehabilitation needs for <br /> their units in the Regional Parks System. Each regional park implementing agency ranks its proposed <br /> development and rehabilitation projects for possible inclusion in the capital improvement program of the <br /> Council. All of the proposed development and rehabilitation projects may be desirable, but some - due <br /> to their location, their existing use or intended use - tend to be more valuable from a regional <br /> standpoint than others. <br /> Adding recreational facilities to Regional Parks System units must not adversely affect the natural <br /> resource base that justifies the park or trail's regional designation. Regional park implementing <br /> agencies need to balance the carrying capacity of the recreational facilities against the carrying <br /> capacity of the park or trail corridor. <br /> For regional trails, regional park implementing agencies are encouraged to connect existing trails to <br /> other Regional Parks System units, most notably regional parks and park reserves. Regional park <br /> implementing agencies are encouraged to negotiate with local communities and landowners to provide <br /> fencing or vegetative screening to meet safety and local community concerns. Fencing and screening <br /> along new or existing regional trails may be grant-eligible development costs. The Council and the <br /> Metropolitan Parks and Open Space Commission will consider such costs when reviewing trail <br /> development master plans and trail development funding requests. Excessive screening or fencing <br /> beyond a reasonable minimum should be cost-shared with the adjacent landowner since the additional <br /> cost provides no benefit to the trail-using public. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.