My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
07-24-1984 PTRC Agenda - Minutes
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
Commissions, Committees, and Boards
>
Parks, Trails and Recreation Committee (PTRC)
>
PTRC Minutes/Packets/(1968 to 2009)
>
1980-1989
>
1984
>
07-24-1984 PTRC Agenda - Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/5/2024 12:15:33 AM
Creation date
8/12/2022 10:39:22 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
33
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
10 <br /> ISSUE 10. What"s the status of local or municipal recreation open space in the <br /> metropolitan system? What should the Council s involvement be in i <br /> Working from municipal comprehensive plans, the Council has assembled data, and <br /> will report on the condition of local recreation open space in terms of what <br /> acreage is provided, in what categories, by planning areas (MOF zones) . The <br /> report will help to identify municipal recreation open space needs in the <br /> region and should help in priority development for grant reviews. The report <br /> will not be adequate to complete a comprehensive regional plan for local or <br /> municipal recreation needs. Much of what local recreation provides is in the <br /> form of facilities, that is, built resources, necessary for active recreation. <br /> That part of recreation demand in the Region will require continuing Council <br /> study to complete future reports. <br /> Related Questions: <br /> 1. Is it appropriate and important for the Council to analyze and coordinate <br /> local efforts in the metropolitan recreation system? Would it be helpful <br /> to the region? <br /> 2. Would Council-offered technical assistance help communities do more <br /> effective long-range planning for recreation services? <br /> 3. Related to issue 11 as well as issue 10; should there be rewards to those <br /> communities which grant consent to regional park acquisition and develop- <br /> ment within their jurisdiction and, conversely, should there be penalities <br /> to those which do not? • <br /> 4. Is it correct to state that municipalities more often need active recrea- <br /> tion facilities rather than the recreation open space which the regional <br /> plan tends emphasize? How strongly is this true? How might the Council "s <br /> recreation open space plan change to help with problems? <br /> 5. Would it be helpful to local recreation agencies and their users if a <br /> program were developed which coordinated the needs of local agencies with <br /> programs available in the regional recreation open space system? <br /> ISSUE 11. What is an appropriate level of municipal participation and control <br /> in the developing regional regional recreation open space system. <br /> The 1974 parks act says that: <br /> . . . (the implementing agency) . . .shall prepare, after consultation with all <br /> affected municipalities, and submit. . .a master plan. <br /> The policy plan uses similar language in policy 9: <br /> Each implementing agency is responsible for preparing a master plan for <br /> each regional system unit assigned to it by this policy plan. An imple- <br /> menting agency shall present the master plan to affected local units of <br /> government and addresss their concerns prior to submission to the Council . <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.