2011-08-02_PR_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Roseville, MN - Official Website Page 11 of 22 just park and recreation amenities. CAT Member Bill Farmer suggested that there may be some confusion between the three (3) year and twenty-five (25) year plans; noting that the first and most immediate issue was the maintenance component and how to address it; with the second issue being the community center for separate consideration since, while having a lot of community interest, represented a large package and needed to be considered as a single entity moving forward through an independent funding mechanism also on its own. Mr. Farmer noted that the third step in moving the implementation plan forward was to establish a timeframe for moving forward using traditional funding options. Commissioner Azer questioned if, while recognized that the initial bond was for maintenance and repair of existing infrastructure, if it was indicated that a facility (e.g. parks warming house) needed to be replaced for safety issues, would that be considered CIP or infrastructure needs. Councilmember Johnson opined that was an infrastructure item, replacing an existing facility with a new facility to address safety concerns. Councilmember Pust opined that, for the record, in her initial review of the survey results, she was not finding strong support for a community center. Chair Etten clarified that the survey indicated that 80% said they would use a community center, and were interested in various opportunities and components available at a community; however, he noted that the concern was in the financial aspects of such a facility, and support was not there now, but in the long-term may be at a different time and based on the funding mechanism chosen. Councilmember Willmus noted that community support for a community center has been very consistent for a long time, but there was a lack of interest in funding it; however, Councilmember Willmus spoke in support of the Commission continuing to explore such a possibility. Mayor Roe, in attempting to respond to Councilmember Pust, noted the listed uses or components and levels of interest in those (survey questions 12 and 13) paralleling outdoor type activities and the 80% interest in using one or more of those components in a community center. Councilmember Pust opined that the way the question was asked, it didn't provide a fair read; with the question wasn't whether or not you wanted to build a community center and what do you want in it, but having asked the question from the point of what components of indoor programming would you use the most Further discussion included constellation system of parks and connectivity to trails and pathways. Mr. Farmer opined that this was not an independent document, and that the word was "interest"' not 'support," and over the Master Plan process, it was consistently heard that a community center is an attraction that draws people, and during the process, caution had been used to ensure that, while not knowing that ""community centerl/ means, when the community hears it, they have a strong level of interest. Councilmember McGehee, as a thirty (30) year resident of Roseville, and as a former long-term member of the Maplewood Community Center, suggested that consideration be given to amenities in a community center other than physical activities such as that of Shoreview, or something like the heavily-programmed Fairview Community Center. Councilmember McGehee opined that a community center, if the purpose was to attract young families to the community and encourage community building, didn't need to replicate surrounding community centers; and suggested that partnering with other communities for outside funding (e.g. Lauderdale, Village of St. Anthony Park, Falcon Heights) for shared resources that didn't duplicate those other centers, but provided http://www.cityofroseville.com/Archive.aspx?AMID—&Type—&ADID-1 125&PREVIEW—YES 7/25/2011