Laserfiche WebLink
. _�_ <br />Regardinq tbe development of short range priorities within <br />�\ the park aystem, ataff would envision that the process would <br />' follow three eteps: <br />1. We would first review the parks and open space master plan <br />once aqain. <br />Establish priorities on a entire city basis. <br />2. Take a look at each individual park and prioritize items <br />within their respective park system. <br />3. We would cartpile a final lisl which would have an individual <br />breakdown of items by respective park, their cost and <br />proposed funding sourcc. <br />To that end, staff has enclosed a listing of the park priorities <br />by individual park with an estimated cost for improvement and <br />a blank space for priority as well as a space for potential <br />funding source. <br />Staff would envision that we would probably need to break the <br />priority list down even further than the enclosed list to reach <br />within the $50,000 allotment staff is proposing per year but it <br />will at least give us a position from which to begin. <br />Staff fully realizes the following two things: <br />1. There is a great deal of work that needs to be accomplished <br />once again by the Parks and Recreation Commission. <br />2. The proposed plans provide somewhat of a different orientation <br />for our department than from its previous direction. <br />Staff would envision and welcome any discussions or conversations <br />relaYing to this issue and do not expect the Commission to take <br />any specific action at the March 24, 1983 meeting. <br />BRA/sll <br />Attachment <br />�✓ <br />