2012-12-04_PR_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

I ROSEVILLE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION 2 MEETING MINUTES FOR NOVEMBER 1, 2012 3 ROSEVILLE CITY HALL—6:30PM 4 5 PRESENT: Azer, Boehm, Diedrick, Doneen, Etten, D. Holt, M. Holt, Ristow, Simbeck, Wall 6 ABSENT: 8 STAFF: Anfang, Brokke 9 1. INTRODUCTIONS/ROLL CALL/PUBLIC COMMENT 10 None. Note: Meeting not televised due to unexpected absence of media technician 12 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES— OCTOBER 2, 2012 MEETING 13 Commission Recommendation: 14 Minutes for the October 2, 2012 meeting were approved unanimously. 15 16 3. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT TASK FORCE REPORT 17 Doneen& Simbeck updated the commission on the status of the Community Engagement Task 18 Force Report. Both mentioned the support of the task force for a new staff position that acts as a 19 volunteer coordinator and organizer/support staff for citizen engagement efforts. Simbeck spoke 20 positively on the process and the final report. Commission questions and discussion followed. 21 22 4. HIGHCREST PARK 3rd ADDITION PARK DEDICATION 23 Etten introduced the agenda item which was followed by a recommendation motion. 24 25 Commission Recommendation: 26 Motion by Doneen, second by Simbeck to recommend the Roseville City Council accept cash in-lieu 27 of land for the Highcrest Park-1 Addition. 28 29 Commission discussion followed. Commissioners inquired into and defined the possibility of 30 acquiring land away from the area being developed as the park dedication. It was agreed upon that 31 while this is a viable option it is not appropriate for this development. 32 33 Motion passed unanimously. 34 35 5. PARK DEDICATION RATE DISCUSSION 36 Brokke introduced background information included in the Commission packet. D. Holt brought 37 attention to the fact that many communities surrounding Roseville have higher park dedication rates. 38 Simbeck added that Roseville is slightly below the average of the comparative communities. M. Holt 39 pointed out that staying competitive helps to alleviate some burden on Roseville Citizens and helps 40 to spread costs to others using the Park System. Commission went on to discuss the current Park 41 Dedication Rate for Commercial/Industrial development, including the pros and cons of setting a 42 percentage vs. a straight dollar amount per acre. Brokke informed the Commission that the 43 Commercial/Industrial rate has remained unchanged for a number of years. Many of the 44 Commissioners voiced support of staying competitive. Commissioner Ristow suggested keeping the 45 Commercial/Industrial rate unchanged for another year. 46 47 Commission Recommendation: 48 Motion by Ristow, second by Doneen, to maintain Park Dedication rates at their current level. 49 50 Commission discussion followed. Many Commissioners voiced their opposition to the motion and 51 their support of increasing the Commercial/Industrial rate for Park Dedication fees for various 52 reasons including an effort to help relieve costs to tax payers and spread out costs to other users to 53 maintain and enhance the park system. 54