Laserfiche WebLink
t ' <br /> 7 <br /> • The second type, fees charged for entry, for parking, or other fees which have <br /> the effect of admission fees, have received more attention. Most of the imple- <br /> menting agencies do not charge such fees. Of those which do, some charge only <br /> for certain sites, others charge for all vehicles entering all parks. Some <br /> collect by parking meters, some by daily and annual stickers. <br /> Related Questions: <br /> 1. Are general fees for regional parks appropriate, or should basic entry be <br /> free for all users? <br /> 2. Are fees which have the effect of general admissions discriminatory against <br /> user groups such as low income, minorities, physically handicapped, and peo- <br /> ple who do not live nearby, as opponents say, or, are they basically fair <br /> in that they are paid by those who use the parks most, as proponents say? <br /> 3. If it is reasonable to charge a general fee, would it make sense to apply a <br /> uniform entrance fee to all regional parks? Should it be the same as the <br /> state park fee? Should it be an actual statewide park sticker with <br /> revenues shared by state parks and regional parks? <br /> 4. What is a reasonable mechanism to charge a regional park user fee (if one <br /> is desirable)? Could it be a license rather than a parking sticker? Would <br /> something like the Winter Carnival and Aquatennial badge system work? Any <br /> other ideas? <br /> • ISSUE 7. Is there a need for a comprehensive marketing plan for the regional <br /> open space system? a s the Council s appropriate role in ace i a ing <br /> public use of the regional recrea ion open space system. <br /> Offering a balanced system, with equitable recreation opportunity across the <br /> Region, may not be enough. A low level of awareness could be a problem. Some- <br /> times, a problem is in what people perceive to be limits on their use. The <br /> 1980 policy plan accurately states that there is no general public image of a <br /> comprehensive regional park system. <br /> Policy 23. The Council will coordinate, with the implementing agencies, a <br /> public information program to make the public more aware of the <br /> regional recreation open space system. <br /> Public information efforts of the implementing agencies are mostly localized-- <br /> dealing only with parks and programs in their jurisdiction and usually aimed <br /> specifically at their constituents. The Council coordinates a limited infor- <br /> mation program about the regional system, in concert with the implementing <br /> agencies" programs, to make the public more broadly aware. Simple dissemina- <br /> tion of information probably does not meet the public-s need. One increasingly <br /> frequent suggestion is for the Council to coordinate a system marketing plan <br /> with the implementing agencies which sets regional objectives including deter- <br /> mining potential audiences, informing potential users and evaluating program <br /> response, all throughout the regional system. <br /> • A sample objective might be greater public identity for the regional recreation <br /> open space system. The Council is selecting a logo for regional recreation <br /> open space. The logo could become an identifier, universal in the regional <br /> system, clearly marking all opportunities in all regional facilities. <br />