My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10.B.5. PRSR 07-14-1999
ElkRiver
>
City Government
>
Boards and Commissions
>
Parks and Recreation Commission
>
P&R Packets
>
1993-2000
>
1999
>
07-14-1999
>
10.B.5. PRSR 07-14-1999
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/9/2014 2:37:42 PM
Creation date
9/9/2014 2:03:20 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Government
type
PRSR
date
7/14/1999
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
10
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
Community Recreation <br /> June 28, 1999 <br /> Pagel <br /> • activities. A park and recreation director would allow the city to better plan <br /> its future park and trail system and implement its comprehensive Master <br /> Park and Recreation Plan. This park planning and development need in Elk <br /> River should not be overlooked in the discussion of Community Recreation <br /> options. <br /> In dealing with options for the future, it is very difficult to say with any <br /> degree of certainty that one option will work better than another for "x, y, or <br /> z reasons." Nonetheless, I sense that going back to the way things essentially <br /> were eight years ago with Community Education managing the city's <br /> recreation programs is not a step forward for providing services to our <br /> residents. This option may be cheaper, but it may not be better in the long <br /> run. I sense also that the city will have less direct control over activities and <br /> priorities by having school district employees supervise local recreation <br /> programmers and activities. <br /> In looking at the three basic options, it is my recommendation that the city <br /> continue to pursue withdrawing from the Joint Powers Agreement and <br /> provide its own recreation programming with an offer to contract services out <br /> to other local units of government, much like the existing organization <br /> operates. If this is not acceptable, then I recommend that the city continue <br /> 4111 as part of the Joint Powers Agreement even if this means paying slightly <br /> more due to the budget concerns of Otsego and the possible withdrawal of <br /> Dayton. <br /> • <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.