Appendix A - Michigan Natural Features Inventory · • Four seasons • Citizens have ... Appendix...
Transcript of Appendix A - Michigan Natural Features Inventory · • Four seasons • Citizens have ... Appendix...
A-1
Appendix A - Michigan Natural Features Inventory
A-2
A-3
A-4
A-5
A-6
A-7
B-1
Appendix B - Previous DNR Grant Projects
B-2
B-3
B-4
B-5
B-6
B-7
B-8
B-9
C-1
Appendix C - Local Park and R
ecreation Inventory
C-2
C-3
C-4
C-5
C-6
C-7
C-8
C-9
C-10
C-11
C-12
C-13
C-14
C-15
C-16
C-17
C-18
D-1
Appendix D - 2010 County Resident Survey Results
D-2
D-3
D-4
D-5
D-6
D-7
D-8
D-9
D-10
D-11
D-12
D-13
D-14
E-1
Appendix E - Public Workshop Notes
E-2
E-3
E-4
E-5
F-1
Appendix F - Public Notices and Parks Commission Minutes
F-2
Holland Sentinel
F-3
F-4
F-5
F-6
G-1
Appendix G - Parks Commission Retreat Results
G-2
G-3
G-4
G-5
G-6
G-7
G-8
G-9
G-1
0
ST
REN
GT
HS
• Staff eye on big picture • High quality of maintenance
• Good corridor of properties • County leadership • Inviting place to go (parks & people) • Diverse natural resource base (Lake MI as part of County)
• Supportive O.C. Board of Commissioners
• Friends of Parks • High quality committed Parks Commission
• Ability to win grants
• Strong public relations/customer service to patrons
• Four seasons • Citizens have a feeling of ownership
• Strong public support • Tourist area gives latitude to do more
• Availability of desirable properties WEA
KN
ESSES
OPPO
RT
UN
ITI
TH
REA
TS
• Economy
• Marketing with today’s technology
• Achieve objectives (not enough time)
• Millage expiration—no assurance of renewal
• Impact on property values, loss of millage dollars
• Mindset shift—live with fewer resources
• Meeting expectations of what people want—dog parks
• Trying to match what is right & working with resources to provide that
• Use parks resources to attract & retain youth /talent/relatives
• Transition from acquiring property to developing & operating/maintaining (educate public)
• “over‐loving” the resources
• Relationship to local units of government
• Situational changes (do we change goals) because land opportunities come up.
• Greenways & future development
• Bend Area—proximity of GVSU to greenway
• “Vision” of park turning into reality
• Recreation & educational programming/NEC
• Profit centers : Marina, campgrounds, golf (user fees)
• Social networking technology/marketing
• Lake County, IL: visibility & importance in county
• Field staff—to generate support from public for parks system (volunteerism)
• Local units could be good partners/relationships
• Lower land prices—lower construction costs
• Exposure to youth
• Reach out to other states—youth programming choices “healthy living”
• Holland Country Club—long tradition
• Millage not passing
• Environmental threats; invasive species, Lake Michigan, etc.
• Negative feelings—public perception
• Viewed as lower on priority list for Ottawa County
• Complacency after level of success
• Losing sight of vision/mission
• Apathy of new generations to natural resources • Available land/grants • State parks moving away from a fee based system
• Inability to market to youth in new world
• Deer • Profit centers • Fees • Controlling image
• Water quality/shoreline erosion
The members of the Ottawa County Parks & Recreation Commission examined the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats affecting the parks as a whole. The
items in each category are not ranked by importance, nor is this intended to be an allinclusive list. In addition, the items identified provide a view of potential
G-11
G-12
G-13
G-14
G-15
G-16
G-17
G-18
H-1
Appendix H Outstanding Michigan Park System Comparison
I-1
Appendix I - 2007 Park User Survey Summary
I-2
I-3
I-4
J-1
Appendix J - Comment Card
VISITOR COMMENTS
The Ottawa County Parks & Recreation Commission values your opinion. Please make comments or suggestions regarding your park visit/experience below.
Park Name _______________________________________________________________
Write your comment/suggestion below or email us: parks&[email protected] ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________
Are you an Ottawa County Resident? ____ Yes ____ No Would you like to receive the Ottawa County Parks Newsletter? ____ Yes ____ No
Optional Information Name_________________________________ Phone # ___________________________ Street Address_____________________________________________________________ City___________________________________ State_________ ZIP ________________ Email Address_____________________________________________________________
Thank you for your comments! Please mail this self-addressed card or return to Parks staff.
John Scholtz, Director Ottawa County Parks & Recreation Commission 12220 Fillmore Street West Olive, MI 49460
Please Affix
Postage
K-1
Appendix K - Non-motorized Pathways Study Executive Summary
K-2
K-3
K-4
K-5
K-6
K-7
L-1
Appendix L - Summary of Steering Committee Input
Critical review of the 2011 Parks & Recreation Plan by the steering committee resulted in sev‐eral clarifications and resolutions of inconsistencies as well a small edits and corrections which have been incorporated into the text of the plan. Several additional topics and issues raised as a result of the review are listed below:
Current Economic Conditions: It was noted that the current weak economy may actu‐ally offer opportunities for land acquisition that might not be otherwise available
Land Acquisition: Although land purchases are likely to decrease as acquisition goals are met, purchase of land for undeveloped or less developed open space land may still be con‐sidered a “good buy” because of the low holding and maintenance costs.
Local Unit Cooperation: There may be value and mutual benefit in additional coopera‐tion between local units of government and the Parks Commission. In particular, coordi‐nation with local planning commissions to implement appropriate land use including buff‐ers for properties adjacent to park would be desirable. Planning commissions should also be aware of the larger park initiatives through presentations or other communications with the Parks Commission on a regular basis.
Rule Enforcement: The current plan does not comprehensively address the enforcement of rules in the park system. This issue will be increasingly important to assure the long term sustainability, quality, and success of both natural and built elements of the park sys‐tem.
Park User Fees: Issues related to fees for use will continue to be important. Issues such as resident versus non‐resident fees and low‐income fee adjustments are two of the areas to be regularly evaluated.