HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-24-1992 PTRC Meeting Minutes MINUTES CiF THE ARDFN EaLIS PARKS & PJXME=CN CCb0E1ITEE
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 24, 1992, 7:30 P.M., CITY HAIL
CALL TO CRDER:
The regular meeting of the Arden Hills Parks and Recreation Conmtission was called
to order at 7:35 P.M. by Chair David Sand.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Chair Sand, Lynette Kreidler, Mark Labine, Mark Literski, Don Messerly,
and Megan Ricke. Absent: Mark Magers, Mary Gillies, Alan Montrgcoiery, Bill Guelker,
and Dave Moberg.
Also Present: Council Liaison, Dale Hicks; Cynthia Severtson, Program Supervisor;
and John Buckley, Park Director.
APPROVAL CF MINUTES:
Ricke moved/seconded by Labine that the October 27, 1992, Minutes be approved as
mailed. Motion carried.
C10UN= REPCR2T
Councilman Hicks Reported:
Discuss the options the Council are considering for building a new City
Hall/Public Works building.
Council is still seeking the arsenal property between Hamline &
Lexington.
• - Possible reasons for bond referendum failure.
* too much money
* didn't separate the two facilities enough
* site was not determined
Committee felt Council should continue marketing the project for a possible spring
referendum.
PROGRAM REPCRT.
1. NEW WINTER PF4DGRAMS
a. Fire Arms Safety-Reserve Center
b. Karate (Beginning)
ages 8-10
11-15
c. Hockey
Beg;nn;ng & Advanced Beginners
d. Cross Country Skiing
2. EXPANDED
a. Keyboard - more at Valentine Hills
1 class at Island Lake
b. Ceramics
3. WINTER RESERVE CENTER USE
a. Karate
• b. Advanced Hunter
c. Dance
d. Fire Arms Safety
MIN[TPFS CF nM ARDEN HTT T S PARRS & MCRE NICK CCNAE=M, 11-24-92
Page Two
4. 621 PLANNING GRANT "PRQ7EC'I' EMPOWER"
combining comet ity resod
STREE r' BANNERS
Buckley reported that the winter banners are ordered. Goal is to have banners up
by early December. Sub-comittee choose the cardinal design for the winter banners.
Banner size will be 30" x 80"; banner material will be royal blue, colors will be
white for the lettering, red for the cardinal figure and green for the evergreen
branches.
ICE FISEn4G OO[d= PLANS
Buckley reported on the proposed schedule of activities for the two day winter
celebration. Proposed schedule is attached.
SIDEWALK SNOW REMOVAL
Cmrittee reviewed the City's snow removal policy. The City does not have an
official policy for removing snow frcxn public sidewalks. Money is not budgeted for
snow removal in 1993.
Ccumittee expressed a need for snow removal:
- Residents use the sidewalks and trials for walking & jogging.
- In winter these activities move into the streets. (Hamlin & Lexington) .
• Streets are busy and walkers/joggers are in real danger.-
Liability of participants getting hurt when using snow packed sidewalks.
- All the surrounding cities (New Brighton, Roseville and Shoreview) remove
the snow.
1993 CMlr= APPOINIMUS, (CIS AMID CSTDLTIVFS
Buckley reminded the ocamttee that there will not be a meeting in December 1992.
Ccami.ttee appointments are made on a yearly basis.
Buckley provided paper and time was provided for members to:
- express their interest in serving on the coamittees in 1993.
- express scene of their personal goals & objectives for ccn nittee
consideration in 1993.
1993 Goals & Objectives - (fran 6 cmanittee manbers present) .
* 3 members - continue effort to acquire & develop athletic complex.
* 4 members - continue phase program of asphalting trails.
* 3 members - have monthly meeting to develop more esprit-de-corp.
- Other Goals
* develop a video on Parks & Recreation facilities and programs for
marketing on Cable T.V.
* budget for snow removal on sidewalks & trails.
* support Mounds View Tennis Court project.
* support winter celebration/fishing contest.
* develop natural area.
* research short/long term demographic trends for facility
and program planning.
I=fI'Ea (' = ARDFN HILLS PARRS AMID RMM=(W C=lr=, 11-24-92
Page Three
* would like annual financial reports showing actual
inocue/expenditures - balance of park fund.
* social meeting annually
NEXT MELTIM:
Next Park cm nission meeting will be January 26, 1993.
Meeting adjourned at 8:45 PM.
•
e
..............
Minnesota Department of Agriculture
GYPSY MOTH EGG MASS SURVEY - 1992
The Gypsy moth,a serious defoliator of trees,may have been accidentally introduced into your
community. Male moths were trapped in your neighborhood this past summer. As a follow-up,state,
federal and city personnel are conducting a ground survey to detect egg masses of the gypsy moth.
Teams of two or more people will inspect outside property including trees,patio furniture,trailers,etc.
Ground surveys of all property which might be affected are the most effective and quickest way to find
and eliminate this pest.
If you were not at home,we are sorry we missed you and were not able to speak with you.
The following will answer some frequently asked questions:
Q.How did gypsy moth get into my neighborhood?
A.Most likely as egg masses laid on items outdoors in the eastern U.S.during the summer months and
then moved to Minnesota. States under federal quarantine include: Connecticut,Delaware,District of
Columbia,Maine,Maryland,Massachusetts,Michigan,New Hampshire,New Jersey,New York,North
Carolina,Ohio,Pennsylvania,Rhode Island,Vermont,Virginia and West Virginia. Under this
quarantine,all outdoor items should be checked for Gypsy moth before they are moved. Despite this
precaution,gypsy moth egg masses are still commonly brought into Minnesota.
• Q.What if gypsy moth is found in my yard?
A.There is no cause for alarm. The population level is likely still too low to cause any visible damage to
tr--.es and shrubs in your yard. Low populations facilitate eradication.
Q.Does this mean pesticides will be sprayed over my property next year?
A.Control options will be considered only if egg masses are found. Before any control measures are
initiated,public information meetings are held to discuss all findings and options with you and your
community representatives. All control costs are paid by the MN and U.S.Departments of Agriculture.
You can help! Please let us know if:
-You or any family member travelled to the above states with a trailer/camper during June,July or
August in recent years;
-You know of anyone visiting you or your neighbors from quarantined states during June,July or
August;
-You know of someone who moved into your community from these states with outdoor household
items,trailers,campers,etc.
This information will help us to detect and control gypsy moth,but is not intended in anyway to place
blame or make any individual liable. Your cooperation is sincerely appreciated. We hope this survey
will benefit you and your community by identifying the source of the problem and its eventual resolution.
Contacts:
Minnesota Department of Agriculture U.S. Department of Agriculture
Plant Protection Division Plant Protection&Quarantine
90 West Plato Blvd. Room 472-Federal Bldg.
St.Paul,MN 55107-2094 110 South Fourth St.
Minneapolis,MN 55401
612-296-3349 612-348-1657
10/92
1992 MINNESOTA COOPERATIVE GYPSY MOTH EGG MASS SURVEY
Suggested format for addressing homeowners for move-in, neighbor-
hood baseline information:
1 . Introduce yourselves - name, agency, program
2 . Explain why you are here. (Allow homeowner to respond to
any statement, be a good listener)
The gypsy moth is a destructive pest of trees and shrubs in
the United States . Currently, there are no known gypsy moth
infestations in Minnesota. This past summer several gypsy
moths were trapped in this area, indicating the possibility
of a gypsy moth introduction. The cooperative gypsy moth
program in Minnesota stresses early detection, so we can nip
an introduction "in the bud", before it becomes established.
We are here to look for and identify potential new gypsy
moth introduction sites . Criteria we use include the survey
trap finds, move-in information from gypsy moth infested
areas, and other relevant clues that will aid us in the
earliest detection of another gypsy moth life stage . We
will be contacting homeowners in the area, primarily looking
for egg masses on the trees, shrubs, and other outdoor
surfaces in the yards .
• Depending on what we find this fall, we will most likely be
putting up * an array of survey traps throughout the area next
summer to help us pinpoint where, if at all, the gypsy moths
are originating from in the area.
3 . Things to remember:
a . No fines or costs will be imposed if a gypsy moth life
stage is found.
b. Encourage cooperation. This will aid us in finding the
gypsy moth if it is present .
C. Be positive about the Gypsy Moth Program - dealing with
the public is one of our best PR tools .
d. Remember that the search may be ongoing for a while - a
control program may be enacted in the area depending on
what we find and action decided upon .
P OCEP��ASSOC�q ill
December 9, 1992
John Buckley
Director of Parks & Recreation
Arden Hills Parks & Rec
1450 W Hwy 96
Arden Hills, MN 55112
Dear John:
The State Outdoor Recreation Public Advisory Committee (ORPAC) is currently in the
beginning stages of developing the 1995-99 State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan
(SCORP). At their meeting on November 12, the ORPAC developed a comprehensive list of 11
issues currently facing public leisure service providers in the State of Minnesota. In early
January, ORPAC will be reducing this list to five to seven priority issues to be addressed in the
forthcoming SCORP document.
The State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan is an important long-range planning tool since
it has a major impact on legislative issues affecting leisure services and provides a framework
for ranking grant proposals under the local outdoor recreation grants program.
As your MRPA representative on the advisory committee I think it is important to take
advantage of this opportunity to comment in the beginning stages of the forthcoming SCORP
document.
It would be greatly appreciated if you would review the enclosed material with your board and
staff and report their combined comments, via the Discussion Worksheet, by January 1st to Brad
Moore, Office of Planning, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, 500 Lafayette Road,
St Paul, MN 55155-4010.
Thanks for your participation and have a joyous holiday season.
Cordially,
g,4-t-, VMg
14
John VonDeLinde
Minnesota Recreation and Park Association • 5005 West 36th Street • St. Louis Park, MN 55416-2661
Phone: 612/920-6906 Fax: 612/920-6766 800/862-3659
Attachment A
DNR Office of Planning November 1992
•
Outdoor Recreation Public Advisory Committee (ORPAC):
Issue Discussion Results
(not in order of priority)
A. Environmental Ethics/Values & Loss of Outdoor Skills
Many members of the public lack knowledge about the environment, how
natural processes work, or do not possess skills necessary to enjoy outdoor
recreational facilities and places. In many cases, this lack of knowledge
translates into unacceptable values and activities which may lead to
environmental degradation or deterioration of recreational facilities through
improper use, abuse, or neglect. Urban and suburban residents in particular
need natural places to recreate so they may have opportunities to connect
with the natural environment.
Al Outdoor Recreation Programming & Visitor Services (issue #4
from the 1990-1994 SCORP)
In our increasingly urban society, many Minnesotans are becoming further
removed from their natural, ecological surroundings. Consequently, many
lack even basic understanding of environmental concepts, outdoor and life
skills, or the ethical behavior and values associated with natural resource
conservation. . . . Building public awareness of resource issues is critical to
the protection of Minnesota s natural and cultural heritage. . . .
B. Access (Barriers to Recreation)
Residents and visitors are experiencing a variety of access barriers to
recreational facilities and activities. Access barriers may take the form of
facilities which are not accessible to the disabled; in other cases the primary
barrier to access may be a lack of means to travel to the recreational site
(e.g., no access to a car or no public transportation to the recreation site.)
Access may also mean no place to pursue a particular form of recreational
activity. For example, users of Off-Road Vehicles (ORVs) are finding it
increasingly difficult to use their machines near the Minneapohs/St. Paul
metropolitan area and surrounding suburbs. Hunters as well have found
fewer opportunities near the metropolitan area to pursue their sports.
Residential and commercial development, for example, has decreased the
availability of fewer places to pursue these types of recreational activities.
Finally, an access barrier may be cultural or linguistic. New immigrants and
citizens with different languages or cultures may not fully understand the
availability of recreational opportunities. As the diversity of Minnesota's
population grows, the types of recreational opportunities sought also grows.
•
ORPAC DRAFT Issues
1 V12/92 Meeting
Page 3
negatively affect the natural environments supporting outdoor recreation.
The natural resource base and its needs must be assessed to determine how
to protect it and thus sustain outdoor recreation opportunities.
E. Coordination & Connections
Many facets of Minnesota's outdoor recreation system need to be more
effectively coordinated or connected. Several examples are listed below:
1) Outdoor recreation can be connected with environmental education.
Parks can be educational places as well as recreational sites. Outdoor
recreation can serve as the medium through which youth and adults
alike can connect to the land and learn how to use and conserve the
natural environment.
2) There are opportunities for more linkages among recreational
facilities. Trails can connect parks while serving as transportation
corridors (some of them lengthy). Parks can serve both recreational
and educational needs. Natural areas can serve as a means to
preserve open space, unique environments while providing educational
and recreational opportunities to connect these areas.
3) There are opportunities for linkages among providers and participants.
Participation by participants builds in a personal investment into the
recreational system. Coordination and partnerships among private
• and public providers can result in better recreational facilities,
enhanced service delivery to users, and saves financial resources as
well. These efforts may include shared funding, leases, or contracting
for services. There is a need to bring institutional systems up-to-date
with technological systems (GIS).
4) There are opportunities to better coordinate fragmented funding
efforts. For example, funding comes from federal, state, local, and
special district (e.g, IRRRB) sources without planning for how these
activities link with one another.
F. Roles & Responsibilities
The role of public and private providers should be examined to determine the
roles each provider should play. Overlapping jurisdictions should be reduced
(e.g., wetlands regulation). We need to work within the current bureaucracy
rather than build a new one. There is confusion among the providers and
legislators on the proper roles of providers and founders -- SCORP could
provide a framework for this role.
There is also a need to work on data gathering and analysis for the state's
outdoor recreation system. We need a means to look at the social charges
taking place in Minnesota. Who do providers seek out for this data and to
assess the data implications for recreation facility development and
maintenance? For example, should grants be administered through DTED
versus the implementing agencies DNRJMNDOT? Perhaps grants should not
• come through the those implementing agencies.
ATTACHMENT A
DNR Office of Planning November 1992
Outdoor Recreation Public Advisory Committee (ORPAC) Issue
Discussion Worksheet
Background
Please review the attached list of 11 issues generated at the recent November
12, 1992 ORPAC meeting. (We encourage you to share copies of the issue
discussion results and issue worksheets with your constituent groups as
well.) Since only 5-7 major issues will serve as the basis for the 1995-1999
SCORP, carefully review the issues and consider the following questions:
1. Are there changes you would like to see in any of the 11 issues
we have developed?
If anything is missing, please list your additions below, on the back
side of this attachment, or on an attached sheet, or in the margins by
each issue. (Do not be concerned with editing the issue statements at
this point, we are primarily concerned with ensuring that all pertinent
information is included in the issue statements.)
2. Are there issues which should be added to our list? Use the
back side of this attachment or add additional sheets.
PLEASE RETURN OR FAX[(612) 296-60471 YOUR COMMENTS AND
NEW ISSUES BY FRIDAY, JANUARY 1, 1993 TO.-
Brad Moore, Office of Planninu
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
500 Lafayette Road, St Paul, Minnesota 55155-4010
ATTACHMENT B
DNR Office of Planning November 1992
Clarification of the 1995.1999 SCORP Planning Process
There was discussion at the first ORPAC meeting about the need to clarify
the planning process used to develop the 1995-1999 SCORP as well as the
plan's audience. Listed below is information which should help clarify these
questions.
FJanning process
The planning process we are using is outlined in the State of
Minnesota/National Park Service Planning Agreement which you received at
the November meeting. It is an issues-based strategic planning process with
one addition -- it will incorporate vision statements.
Once ORPAC and the DNR/DTED planning team choose and analyze which
issues the plan will address, we will develop vision statements for those
issues. In this respect, the plan will be forward-looking--the goals/strategies,
and project selection priorities will flow from these vision statements to
address the identified priority issues.
For example, if the issue is lack of coordination among recreation providers, a
vision statement discussing a system where recreation providers coordinate
activities would be developed. The goals/strategies and project selection
criteria serve as the means to move forward from the issue problem to the
desired vision. A project selection criterion to address a coordination issue
may be demonstration of a public/private partnership as part of the project
proposal.
Finally, use of vision statements provide us with opportunities to use real
examples of that vision actually taking place. Consider the coordination
issue again. A good example of ongoing coordination is the grant-in-trail
snowmobile system--in this case state, local governments, private
landowners, business, and users are all take part in maintaining a very
effective recreational system. The vision becomes more real if actual
examples are used. As a result, the reader will have real-world examples on
how the issue can be addressed. At our next meeting, I will provide written
examples of results stemming from this type of planning process.
Plan Purpose & Audience
Finally, several ORPAC members had questions about the plan's intended
purpose and audience. The Minnesota/National Park Service planning
agreement specifies two primary purposes for the plan: a) To meet the
Federal L&WCF requirements; and, b) To provide guidance to outdoor
recreation providers including agencies, local governments, non-profits,
private businesses, and legislators. The document is not intended to be a
guide for recreation facility users or as a data document for researchers.
Budget constraints are a very real issue in this planning process; we simply
cannot produce the types of SCORP documents which have been developed in
the past.
CITY OF ARDEN HILT
MEMORANDUM
DATE: December 23, 1992
TO: John T. Buckley, Parks and Recreation Director
FROK: Cindy Severtson, Program Supervisor
SUBJECT: Program Fund #226, Budget Update
The following charts provide information on the financial status of both
revenues and expenditures in fund #226 as of November 30, 1992.
The revenue chart breaks down the total revenue received from program
fees thus far. Programs are classified into Adult, Youth, Afterschool,
Special Events and Totals. (Pages 56 and 57 of the 1992 budget provided
a detailed list of the programs that fall into these categories.)
Within these categories, you will find the amount budgeted, actual
numbers to this date and the variance--positive or negative. As seen by
the total variance column, fund #226 is ahead of the budgeted $72,590 by
$6,006. There will be some additional revenue in December.
The revenue chart also includes a separate line on contributions.
• Contributions are over the budgeted amount by $392. Contributions were
received from the Light Brigade and the North Suburban Youth
Association.
The second chart shows the 1992 Expenditures for fund #226. Again,
columns are divided into Adult, Youth, Afterschool, Special Events and
Totals. The total expenditure column indicates that as of November 30,
fund #226 is in the black $9,099 from the budgeted amount, taking into
consideration direct costs to run each program. Permanent staff
FICA/PERA, health insurance, office supplies, postage, travel,
conferences and schools are not included on this chart. My intent is to
give an indication of where the fund is at with respect to these direct
costs to run each program.
I am responsible for the line items listed on the expenditure chart with
the exception chart of Adult Sports Equipment which includes all
materials needed for the Adult Softball program and the Adaptive
Recreation, which includes the Special Olympics track program John runs.
Should you have any questions, please contact me. All of the
information used was taken from the November 30, 1992 Audit file. I
will update the chart at year end.
CS:ly
cc: Dorothy Person, City Administrator
• Terry Post, City Accountant/Treasurer
o O t" odu
PC m
H
H
W Oj
aD C.
H G7
N bd
b
d
C. (-
J
m H
t
Ol W
� bye
C!
W P.
N � o
t0 N
N
Ol
} H
lJ�
L0 C7
lQ Ue1
�O
H
d H
W
m pH y N
d)
f7
W
[p' O
� r
J C]
� w
W O]
b'd b�1
O �H+
r
n
OD
.w �' H
d!
C
C�+
.b
pHs
F+ }S
J C7
� OO
J .y t"
N Gt�y
40 l0 bO
O
a
03 J rw
s N co Hn O
C
l0 W a.sl t-'
m W t0
. co N p�
W W m
W cocm
OD N O\ f]
r� rA�O Gt/ w 'L1 W ^O T' r F"".� bV _W �T+ M R1 N_ O N U W 7 •1 t_f t.7
PC r m H �o d! �O ao co �y .p b � n
r n a+ of H W t--t C oo y
In r'l
tpa
rm
H W �" A7 ?] "A CD
9 C CD cm LIU
W �-a N .va b
r'3 Z' W '+b b � CH1] H K .Z.
N W ~ H M3 .P O ram- v] -+e tm
V! 0 0 W � m pip lr d! UU
0 m H 4-3 Kzb
a tS] 0 C N CA amC
Cl
m :on ® H
2 b0
H y d
N ti.
tV m N m
w m _
J m tr m rn N CID O
.P 0 O1 s C=:
m an y0. H
v� r
+ m m + m DO
� N
.17
m N W Ol N H
z
t--� o
w 9
00
w
m aD m t.31 b]
t0 m m m 0 N
0
m m m m m m c'3
m m m m m Wtm
CL
H
O
b
m _ _
Iv b ar m rn m rn no H O C
cn
r N
+ + N
y W 41 H 'b
�O m O1 m W W H
J �O m N Sf
W
m m m m N py
0 b
lr V� t=p
s m m m v+ C y
m m m o w wa
bm
0
N m
w
C--3 W N
m
+ + `1'
0 �
O
N m W N 1p H r
N to 'b
VCItm
N V� fb fn 1
m _ m m am 0 0 m J
0 Ol tJ� 'CI
m 0 tm f
m m C-1 7
t a I i
tm
tm r�
W 0 N ® m m m m W yr pd
ap
m av C x
n
1JY
tr Ol m m .{i 0 m 0 v+ +\ �
O m m m m m m 0 m 0 b
m m m s m m m m tpo
m m H
C
b W m ~ J rn
� W J v, rn t.Jr a rn m ... n O
b w ® OWN
opr.
a+0 a+it ►++ b cD to + !
Ol �A m W W
0 W W ►
�p •p m W m Ol m
0 1p
n
W
f
1992 MINNESOTA COOPERATIVE GYPSY MOTH EGG MASS SURVEY
Questions to ask homeowner:
1 . Are you familiar with the gypsy moth? or the Gypsy Moth
Program in Minnesota?
2 . Have you recently moved from the eastern U. S . (e .g. CT, DC,
DE, MA, MD, ME, MI, NC, NH, NJ, NY, OH, PA, RI, VA, VT or
WV) in the past 5 years or so? If yes, ask moved from
where, when, and inspect outdoor articles .
3 . Have you visited the eastern U. S . during the summer months
of June, July or August? Have you had visitors from the
east during the summer months? If yes, ask where, when,
what articles would have been outside exposed as a potential
gypsy moth egg laying surface .
4 . Do you know if anyone in the neighborhood has recently moved
from the eastern U. S . or has been visiting that area?
5 . Have you planted new nursery stock (trees or shrubs) in the
past two to three years? If yes, ask origin of new
planting (?) , inspect new planting and map location of
plant (s) on survey form.
6 . Other?
Other general things to look for in the area:
a. License plates from eastern states
b. RV' s or other "traveling" outdoor articles in yard
C. Recent changes in homeowners, high turnover area
d. Rental properties
e . Homes for sale
f. Firewood piles
g. Other
(�D fy9 (y9 (�9 CD fyD fD fD (9 n �
o� •C Qo �o
c G co re
c• °�
cn n �CrQ ILI
'v = 3 c
CD
-V fu
0 0 n c O
fD y
may. a
ti y •�-. 07
OQ
c� a as
O p c C N
.y
NJ
O y A A
+j c N N
�i A n G `•G
r f9 `G
Fes+
ao a=v oc w
r r �
Z w
' o
r �
d
A w
OQ
W
r
i
r
r �D
r �
~ C �
rA
A
ci
N -�
DNR Office of Planning November 1992
•
1995-1999 SCORP ISSUES IDENTIFICATION PROCESS
STEP ONE
Goak To identify the t?p four to six key issues which affect
Outdoor Recreation in Minnesota.
Outdoor Recreation & Minnesota's Quality of Life:
Outdoor recreation is integral to the quality of life in Minnesota.
People live and recreate in Minnesota in part because of the
state's vast natural environments and associated opportunities to
pursue outdoor sports and leisure activities. Minnesota hosts a
variety of outdoor recreation activities ranging from wilderness
canoeing and hunting to city softball leagues, volleyball, and
urban bicycling. Birdwatchers, children with fishing poles,
picnickers, and families visiting state, regional, or local parks all
enjoy elements of Minnesota's outdoor recreation system. These
activities support a recreation tourism industry which
significantly benefits the economy.. The quality of life for
virtually every Minnesotan is enhanced in some manner by
outdoor recreation activities.
Consider the statement above. What key statewide issues affect Minnesota's
11 quality outdoor recreation? The issue (or problem) should meet the
following three criteria:
A. Is it so serious that it would be irresponsible not to address it?
B. Can it be analyzed and examined (e.g., can we determine the trends
related to the problem; can we research it)?
C. Can the issue be addressed at the state or local level?
•
OR.PAC DRAFT Issues
1 V12/92 Meeting
Page 4
G. Showing the Beneficial Social and Economic Impacts of
Recreation
There is a need to more effectively demonstrate the positive economic and
social impacts of outdoor recreation. Outdoor recreation tourism benefits
many loca economies in Minnesota; many social and health benefits stem
from outdoor recreational activities as well.
H. Inadequate Funding
There is insufficient funding to finance recreation-related facilities and areas
in the state. Political considerations complicate this issue--certain projects
are funded for political consideration regardless of whether those projects
trulv reflect the state's recreation priorities. As a result, there are fewer
funds for other priority recreation projects.
I. Program Review & Analysis
There is a need to review and analyze why some recreation programs are
effective (e.g., snowmobile grant-in-aid system) so that the strengths of these
programs can be used in other recreational programs. We ought to find the
best outdoor recreation practices and use them across the outdoor recreation
spectrum.
J. Liability and Litigation
Provider liability has been an ongoing outdoor recreation concern. Liability
and litigation concerns have impeded facility development, caused other
facilities to close, and has diverted dollars from recreational activities to legal
battles. An outdoor recreation risk management program needs to be
developed to address these liability and litigation concerns.
K. Emerging Outdoor Recreation Issues
As Minnesota's population changes, there are new recreation activities being
developed and new types of associated issues which must be addressed. For
example, many adults do not have a normal daily work schedule; as a
consequence, there is a need to provide recreational opportunities during
non-traditional hours. There are new or rapidly growing recreational
activities which create a need for facilities including in-line skating,jet skies,
and soccer to name a few. Recreation providers must address the needs of
these new recreators while balancing the needs for existing recreational
activities.
aorpa1113
OR.PAC DRAFT Issues
11/12/92 Meeting
Page 2
C. Infrastructure Maintenance & Rehabilitation •
Across Minnesota recreational facilities are deteriorating or need
rehabilitation. Many of these facilities were build in the 1960s and 1970s;
some even were built in the 1930s. Heavy recreational use overmany years
have caused many of these facilities to deteriorate. While public officials
have continued to fund development of new facilities, often maintenance of
existing facilities has received less attention. The need for additional
maintenance and rehabilitation touches on all types of facilities from the
primitive to the urban. The need also extends across facilities managed by
federal, state, local, and private organizations.
Because funding is a critical issue for all types of public programs in the
1990s, there may be a need to determine whether maintenance and
rehabilitation or new development should receive a higher funding priority.
C1. Maintenance and Operation of Existing Outdoor Recreation
Facilities (issue #5 from the 1990-1994 SCORP)
Minnesotans have made substantial investments over the past 25 years in
developing one of the finest outdoor recreation systems in the nation.
Unfortunately, many state and local outdoor recreation facilities are rapidly
deteriorating due to their age, increased use and vandalism. In recent years,
funding for facility repair and preventative maintenance has been
insufficient to reverse this disturbing trend.
Maintenance and operations funding for units of the state's outdoor
recreation system has remained relatively constant during the 1980s, despite
the eroding effects of inflation, salary increases, cuts in base-level funding,
increased operating expenses, and costs resulting from growing visitor use
ana new facility construction. As a result, visitor safety and satisfaction are
being jeopardized, and public services have been reduced. . . .
D. Loss of Open Space &Associated Opportunities.
Across Minnesota open space suitable for outdoor recreation is being lost.
Commercial, industrial, and residential uses, for example, are reducing the
availability of natural environments suitable for outdoor recreation. In other
cases outdoor recreation opportunities are lost for other reasons. For
example, abandoned railroad grades present ideal sites for trails, yet some
never become trails due to lam of coordination among public agencies or
funding. In southern Minnesota as well, public lands to pursue a variety of
outdoor recreational activities from hunting, trail-riding to bird-watching are
scarce. Across the state, there is need to purchase properties for recreational
activities or secure easements with private or non-profit landowners to gain
recreational access or open space preservation. In some rural areas which
are rapidly developing there is a need to secure natural lands so that these
areas retain their character and natural amenities which made them
desirable to new residents.
The loss of open space is interlinked with the decline of the land and water •
base supporting outdoor recreation. Pollution, improper land use controls,
water contamination, compacted soils, diseases (oak wilt) and exotic species