2012-11-01_PR_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

1 2 ROSEVILLE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION 3 MEETING MINUTES FOR OCTOBER 2, 2012 4 ROSEVILLE CITY HALL—6:30PM 5 6 PRESENT: Azer, Diedrick, Doneen, Etten, D. Holt, M. Holt, Ristow, Simbeck, Wall 7 ABSENT: Boehm contacted staff with excused absence 9 STAFF: Anfang, Brokke 10 1. INTRODUCTIONS/ROLL CALL/PUBLIC COMMENT 11 None 12 13 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES— SEPTEMBER 15, 2012 MEETING 14 Commission Recommendation: 15 Minutes for the September 15, 2012 meeting were approved unanimously. Wall abstained from vote 16 because he was not at the meeting. 17 18 3. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT TASK FORCE REPORT 19 Doneen& Simbeck reported that the final draft report has been presented to the Human Rights 20 Commission for their approval and the Task Force is looking to bring their final recommendations to 21 the Council later this month. 22 23 4. BEGIN DISCUSSION OF A PARK BOARD 24 Etten introduced the agenda item and stated how these are preliminary discussions following the 25 Council request for information and input on the possibility of a Park Board in Roseville. 26 • Doneen clarified content of the city Attorney's memo in regards to the definition and 27 processes between a Park Board and a Park District. 28 • Brokke provided a brief explanation of the three possible strictures including a Parks & 29 Recreation Commission, Parks& Recreation Board and a Parks& Recreation District and that 30 a District would require legislative approval. The focus was on exploring the Park Board 31 concept. 32 • Etten explained that a Parks &Recreation Board would operate similar to the HRA Board. 33 • Ristow questioned the need for looking into a Park Board ... if things are running fine at this 34 time why make a change. Ristow suggested tabling the discussion. 35 o Dave Holt reminded the commission that the Council asked for information and for the 36 commission to research pros and cons for a Park Board. 37 o Commissioners brainstormed preliminary pros and cons including; 38 ■ (+) a very transparent and identifiable system. Tax statements would 39 specifically identify tax amounts for park services 40 ■ (+) a Park Board could potentially involve citizens with strong interests and 41 knowledge in park system operations 42 ■ (+) potential to streamline/speed up some processes 43 ■ (-) potential for duplication of services 44 o Wall inquired into how it might affect budgeting processes 45 Brokke explained that a Park Board would be more involved and provide 46 leadership, direction and approve a department budget 47 o Simbeck recognized the need for diversity on a board to best represent a community. 48 • Commissioners asked staff to compile a listing of pros and cons of a Park Board based on 49 professional practices and knowledge. Commissioners will also contribute their idea of 50 possible advantages and concerns for a Park Board. 51