Laserfiche WebLink
8 <br /> Related Questions: • <br /> 1. Should there be an effort to: <br /> - identify programming being offered in regional recreation open space? <br /> - identify potential users for programs being offered? <br /> - match users and programs by alerting potential users? <br /> - evaluate user response to programs and recommend ways to make them <br /> more compatible with expressed needs, plus suggest new programs to <br /> meet unmet needs? <br /> In other words, should there be a coordinated, system-wide, regional <br /> marketing program for recreation open space? <br /> 2. What role in a coordinated marketing program is appropriate for the <br /> Council? For the implementing agencies? <br /> 3. Is it appropriate for public agencies to "sell " users on tax-provided <br /> recreation facilities? <br /> 4. Specifically, would it be a good idea for the Council to require that all <br /> regional parks and facilities be identified by a conspicuous, well- <br /> publicized logo? <br /> ISSUE 8. Should there be a program for long-term capital maintenance in <br /> regions parks? • <br /> In regional parks which pre-date the regional system, especially in Minneapolis <br /> and St. Paul , facilities constructed in WPA days have reached the end of their <br /> life. They're important in the regional system; 50 years use by people across <br /> the region, and from outside, has established a tradition. Rebuilding these <br /> facilities will take place over the next 10 years, using regional funds. No <br /> major issue is anticipated as long as regional development funds are adequate. <br /> What is not established is how future redevelopment in the regional system is <br /> to be funded. Structures, roads, and bridges built with regional funds will <br /> require attention starting about the year 2010. Given that the regional sys- <br /> tem, from 1974 to 1983, spent approximately $34 million regional dollars for <br /> development, and from 1984-2000 anticipates spending $100 million more, the <br /> required funds will be significant. <br /> As a specific example from the past, a recent estimate set the 1940 investment <br /> at Como Park, including zoo and conservatory, at $662,000. Using a conserva- <br /> tive inflation value, the 1940 facilities would cost approximately $7.5 million <br /> in 1983 dollars to build today. More zoo and park additions will bring the <br /> total anticipated expenditure at Como Park, Zoo & Conservatory, by 1990, to <br /> approximately $20 million. <br /> The current CIP anticipates a total investment, regional and other sources, of <br /> approximately $175 million to completely develop (and/or redevelop) regional <br /> recreation open space by year 2000. If a 50-year life span is assumed for all <br /> development, what will be needed in the years 2025-2050? It has been said that • <br /> our present generation has mortgaged America, to the detriment of the genera- <br /> tion which follows, who must retire the mortgage. Can regional parks be an <br /> exception to that problem? <br />