|
37
<br />
<br />September 14, 1976
<br />
<br />D. Lakeview Elementary - 1~ Playground
<br /> 2. Basketball (6)"
<br />
<br />21 acres (11.6)
<br />
<br /> "Attached for your information and review is a draft of the Parks and Recreation Study.
<br />The report, particularly as it enumerates potential recreation improvements and facilities,
<br />is by no means a final document. We will actively seek the input of citizens, ci¥ic organiza-
<br />tions, affected commissions, and other public agencies.
<br />
<br /> A major purpose of the report is to identify existing recreational facilities within
<br />the City. Facilities are identified on three levels -- citywide, by district (4), and
<br />by communities (18). Golf courses, due to their expense, land requirement, and lower usage,
<br />cannot be provided for each community or district. Other facilities such as tennis courts
<br />or swimming vools are moderately expensive and may be provided on the district level.
<br />However, it is not fiscally possible or practical to construct tennis courts or swimming
<br />pools in each of the eighteen communities delienated in the report. The report lists other
<br />facilities -- open space, playgrounds, little league fields, basketball courts, recreation
<br />centers, etc., which ideally should be located within each community. These recreational
<br />standards, subject to modifications, represent both short-range and long-range goals.
<br />
<br /> We should recognize that, to a degree, the report is quantitative rather than qualitative
<br />For example, the number of playgrounds, ballfields, basketball courts within a community
<br />has been recorded. A more difficult and complex task is to rate the condition of the facility
<br />or the number of amenities placed thereon. Conditions are constantly changing. One day
<br />we have a swing; the next day it's broken. A primary objective over the next few years will
<br />be to upgrade existing facilities, and thereafter to provide periodic maintenance and replace~
<br />ment, when necessary. ~
<br />
<br /> We should also recognize that all communities are not identical in terms of their own
<br />recreational preferences and needs. Conditions vary between and within communities. We
<br />should strive to provide equitable recreational opportunities in all parts of the City.
<br />Within fiscal and practical constraints, citizens should have a major voice in determining
<br />the recreational facilities and programs placed within their respective communities. Conditiohs
<br />peculiar to a community (or district) must be recognized and addressed. In terms of public
<br />open space per resident the Churchland District, MidCity District and the Southern District
<br />are relatively equal. The Downtown District has the least open space per resident, but the
<br />greatest number of playground areas, recreation centers, and basketball facilities. Unlike
<br />the other three districts, where school property represents the majority of open space availak
<br />the schools within the Downtown District have little, if any, open space available. I feel
<br />that our open space efforts this year should be directed towards the Downtown District, recog~
<br />nizing that available land is limited.
<br />
<br /> The report you are receiving is, by necessity, a lengthy document. 'It is not intended
<br />to be a summary report, rather a detailed inventory of the recreational facilities within
<br />the City. It is a resource document by which we can plan and evaluate our recreational effort
<br />over the next five or ten years.
<br />
<br /> In order to maximize recreational opportunities in the City, there must be close coopera~
<br />tion among the City, School Board, PR~i, and other community agencies. The cooperation re.
<br />within the last few years has been gratifying. I hope that in the future we can continue
<br />to build on that cooperation to the benefit of all residents."
<br />
<br /> Ms. Beth Vico, 611 Gladstone Avenue, representing citizens of Park Manor, spoke regardin
<br />play area in Park Manor.
<br />
<br /> Ms. Dawn Dunn, 109 Lamper Road, representing citizens of Park~ spoke regarding play area
<br />in Park Manor.
<br />
<br /> Motion of Mr. Wentz and seconded by Mr. Oast, that the City Manager be authorized to have
<br />2.2 acres appraised for purchase, was adopted by unanimous vote.
<br />
<br />The City Manager presented the following reports:
<br />
<br /> 76-366 - "~ior to discussion on the North Harbor, I would like to direct your attention
<br />to the sheet outlining the Recap for Public Improvements for the Waterfront.
<br />
<br /> First you will note that the Municipal Building has been deleted as a cost of the Wa~
<br />plan. This Council and previous Councils through adoption of the Crawford Urban Renewal
<br />Project have committed to building Phase II of Civic Center, the Municipal Building.
<br />
<br /> The public improvements shown include the Naval Museum, North Harbor, land acquisition
<br />and acquisition cost of the lightship. The total, less previous appropriations, is $2,946,887.
<br />The garages, public improvements and relocation of museum and lightship are shown as dependenl
<br /> on private development.
<br />
<br /> In my opinion, only the garages that are necessary to meet the demand created by private
<br />development should be constructed. Based on demand for this space the funding should be
<br />through revenue bonds which would be retired from fees or leases.
<br />
<br /> The proposed construction of the North Harbor and the commitment to build the New Muni
<br />Building to the south will bring to reality the City's commitment to the Waterfront Project.
<br />This action will confirm our good faith in the project which is necessary to attract the
<br />private development.
<br />
<br />
<br />
|